User talk:Vicki Rosenzweig/archive2

Pre-2003 messages are in archive1. This is 2003 through late 2007.

Old discussion (to 2003)[edit]

Vicki, I've had this discussion about capital before, eg with User:maveric149. Capitals are correct for the name of a species, eg Redwing, but not for a group of birds, eg the thrushes. Scientific names have genus with a capital, species without, eg Turdus merula. As a compromise, on article titles and links I've only capitalised the first word of names, eg Turkey vulture instead of Turkey Vulture.

I was hoping someone would take on some American species. I've done a few, on the strength of visits to the USA and Canada, but as a Brit, I've got enough to keep me going for ever on European birds. jimfbleak 07:35 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

VICKI, I HAVE DELETED MY SON BENJAMIN SZANTON'S PAGE, AFTER READING YOUR E-MAIL. BENJAMIN ACTUALLY DID INTEND TO BE AN HONEST CONTRIBUTOR, BUT HAS NOT GOTTEN AROUND TO IT, AND I DON'T WANT TO PRESSURE HIM TO DO SO.

MY APOLOGIES...

Andrew Szanton

Vicki, thanks for so quickly working on Edward Tufte. Since you are a pro, maybe you have some words about my question in http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bibliography ? Cheers, Colin Marquardt

Vicki, thanks for your (fast!) touch-up on the school prayer entry. It reads much better now. :^) —Frecklefoot 20:53 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I can't tell if your (or the) convention is top or bottom additions to talk pages, so I'm taking the less blatant choice :-). Thanks for the welcome! It was startling to go to "my" page and find a message from somebody already!

I am in fact adding photos -- Heinlein, Bova, Dickson, and Del Rey so far. Also touching up other things sometimes in the articles, which are mostly pretty thin.

I can't find anyting on captions in the help page, any idea what current preferred practice is on that?

dd-b

Convention seems to be bottom, but there's no consistency.

I'm not sure what the standard is on captions. I've only added an image to one page, Elaphurus davidianus, and I'm not at all sure I got the captioning right.

Way to go on the Vanity press article. You're a pro who oughta know. ô¿ô 02:19, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)....and the self-publishing article is now top-notch.

If you want to be treated with respect, Ma'am, then please give it. Cursory reverts with little explanation is rude. Especially when a lot of work has gone into the article you've reverted. B 00:51, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree, it is beyond rude. It is sabotage and drives contributors away. Any revert should be explained by a good one-liner comment, that's what the summary line is there for. And ad hominem argument is simply not good enough, not to mention inherently inconsistent, since it is never done reliably for all edits by the target. It does little but spur edit war and create hatred. I make no comment, by the way, on your specific content, as I didn't read it. EofT

I made no ad hominem argument. "Wikipedia is not a source text repository" is a statement of agreed policy, not an ad hominem argument. Vicki Rosenzweig 20:34, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. If that was your one-liner, it's more than adequate. EofT

Thanks for your comments. I'm still looking around to see what has already been done and what needs doing. I've already found one huge area that needs work: Egyptian Mythology, but I'm not sure I'm up for that quite yet. :-) Anyway, I like this project... it remind me of the ODP in many ways, and I've been involved in that for 4 years now. ;-) TTFN!

Btw, please see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3APharaoh ... I'd appreciate advice.

Fab 21:26, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The "See also" seems to have two contradictory purposes: 1. establish which are the most important and closely related links, that is, "what one should look at next". 2. link to contrasting or possibly-confusingly-similar names that are not closely related enough to mention in the main text of the article. Also there is the purpose 3. link to lists of similar articles. These would ideally have three different names - that is, 1. next steps 2. sidesteps 3. categories. Until that is agreed, we might be better off not "trimming" the "See also" links. EofT

As I understand it, "See also" means exactly that: see also, articles to refer to in addition to those already linked in the main text. Vicki Rosenzweig 20:34, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It does mean that, but, it is being used also to underscore the importance of certain links over others. There should probably be a standard way to do that other than by saying "this link here is really critically important". EofT

Thanks for taking the time to read and edit Kangerlussuaq, which, although very important in Greenland, is probably outside a lot of people's sphere of interest. Apologies about funny encoding... having looked around I appear not to have been then first to have been bitten by this and will keep an eye out. Pete 15:12, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you cast a vote in the TEMP5 debate. The Temp5 proposal was voted down by 61.3% to 38.6%. We seem to be going around in circles on the whole issue of the main page. A new vote is now taking place to clarify what exactly we want, namely

Do we actually want to have a new page?
If so when (immediately, after a pause, timed to the press release, etc)?
What do people want on the front page and what do they want excluded?

As of now, the whole issue seems surrounded by complete confusion. This way, finally and definitively, we will know what we want and when we want it. So do please express your opinions. The vote is on the same page as the previous votes. FearÉIREANN 20:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just saw that you have deleted the page 'rajasaurus narmadensis' [spelling?] Actually, in today's Hindu newspaper[ India- check newspaper links in current events, I added the link today- though the online version has only headlines and may not feature this story] there is a feature on a dinosaur that has been named so- it was found near Narmada river probably [I didn't read it in detail- I didn't create the page]. Probably the person who did it was happy about the discovery and planned to add info later. KRS 18:47, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Vicki. The link I followed from Gull was written [[Lesser Black-backed]] Gull, my error, but pretty stupid that I didn't even notice. Jim

Incidentally, when you do Whooping Crane, there are public domain pics (I think) on the USFWS site. Jim

It's a bad day - I've just moved my comments from your User page!

Vicki, thanks for fixing up KK Null. I was going to do it, but I got sidetracked here at work. Thanks again --Two Halves not logged in

Hello Vicky! Sorry to bother you but i just caught your name in the Recent Changes. I'm having a problem here. User Miguels is creating articles about a spanish town: Olivenza and Olivenca with the cedile i dont have in my keyboard. Problem is that he introduced a chronology from a website. I asked him if he has authorization he answered yes. I asked proof, he return the question. What proof? Good question. Do you know the answer? :)

As we say on Usenet, I Am Not A Lawyer, so what is below should not be taken as authoritative.

Proof would generally be either his statement that he'd written the material himself and then put it on the Website in question, or evidence (like a pointer to statements on the site in question) that it's public domain or GFDL.

Given that there's a copyright notice on the Website in question, this could be a problem. I'll leave a note on the talk page for that article. By the way, who am I talking to--you didn't sign your comment.Vicki Rosenzweig 14:38, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So sorry, Vicky. I just copy-pasted the message to your talk page and forgot the tildes. Thanks for your help! Muriel Gottrop 14:44, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Refresh my memory.[edit]

Did you make a judgmental comment on Vfd about the Viktor Klimenko page (on either side). If not (cross your heart), would you mind terribly standing by to protect the page, if my plea for a constructive dialogue on the talkpage goes unheeded? I contacted User:Jiang on the same matter, but I haven't recieved a reply, so he may be off-site. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:46, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

I have had nothing to do with this. I can stand by, but will likely be gone most of this afternoon and evening (US East Coast time, i.e., UTC-4). Vicki Rosenzweig 16:09, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Look like (knock on wood) protection won't be needed. He seems to have accepted defeat rather than defend his position on the talk page. He has had two warnings now; one as an IP-address, and one as a logged in user. Next time this happens, I won't try to reason with him but ask for protection of the page right off the bat. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 16:27, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

Could you act as a neutral mediator for the page Medical analysis of circumcision? An anonymous user is trying to turn this page, and circumcision, into a pro-circumcision propaganda page. To this end, he has removed studies and citations which he did not like, source dumped large amounts of material from pro-circumcision websites, added a list of circumcised people to prove that circumcision is associated with intelligence, claimed that circumcision is linked to homosexual beliefs etc. I have explained specifically why I have not integrated certain of his edits on Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision, but he just keeps reverting to his revision instead of discussing his changes. At this point, I think it would make most sense to protect either my last revision (which integrates those edits from him which I consider neutral) or the one before he started editing the page, in order to make him discuss his proposed changes. I would of course refrain from editing the page as long as it is protected, but back and forth reverting the page is pointless.—Eloquence 17:57, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Vicki, I have a very basic doubt in grammar. All this while I was under the impression that double quotes are to be used for "a bunch of words", where as single quotes are to be used when we wish to stress a 'single' word. I was following this scheme in all my wiki articles, until I noticed that others were consistently using double quotes.

I did a massive search on google without a satisfactory answer. Are we supposed to use single quotes for stressing words ? Jay 23:37, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Vicki Rosenzweig 23:42, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm clear abt wiki syntax. Is it official or just a convention to follow double quotes in American English and single quotes in British English. Or does everyone follow double quotes as a universal standard. I went to BBC's site http://bbc.co.uk and they too use double quotes for single words (except for headlines). So it's unlike what you say. You also talked about philosophical convention. whats that ? and is it also defined by region ? Jay 00:15, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I will defer to the BBC on questions of British usage. Other than that, by "philosophical convention" I mean "this is the format people use when writing about philosophy", and I don't know if it's the same in the UK: all my usage references except Fowler are North American, and Fowler is decades out of date. Vicki Rosenzweig 00:24, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Vicki, sorry to bother you again. I have a question regarding plurals for acronyms. Is the convention of adding a "s" after an acronym to denote a plural form accepted ? e.g., CDs for Compact Discs. Or do we have to add an apostrophe, e.g., CD's. What happens for acronyms that end with a "S" ? Like the problem I'm facing with the plural of DBMS in the article ODBC.
Can you add a section on plurals in the acronym page.
Jay 11:09, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition in the acronym page. It wasn't on my watchlist, so I didn't know that you made the change. I kept watching this talk page for updates and thought that you must've skipped my question ! Jay 08:20, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hi :) Speedy pickup on Julius Nyerere, I was just about to put a copyvio notice up! I've put the link up on VfD/copyvio for you :) Dysprosia 12:55, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Protection request[edit]

Please protect lack of imagination, Corey keeps removing information from it on the grounds that it is "offensive" to creationists.—Eloquence 02:06, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

I have done this.Vicki Rosenzweig 02:14, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks.—Eloquence

Olivença or Olivenza[edit]

The article Olivenza is "public domain". I would like to ask you to protect that article from any other change. Just for some time. Thanks! Search by Olivenza or Olivença is ok. Miguels

I can't protect Olivenza, because I've been editing it. Vicki Rosenzweig 22:16, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. Pizza Puzzle

Centralization and Internal improvements read like dictionary definitions, not encyclopedia articles. (I've added a bit to the former.)Vicki Rosenzweig 22:20, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Regardless of how they read (this is a work in progress) -- either one is a topic about which one could collect a library. Thus, they are not merely dictionary topics. Pizza Puzzle

If you want that, then join me in advocating that there me more than one option besides "This is a minor edit" -- Im not going to continually type "This is a work in progress" over and over -- but Im certainly willing to check a box indicating that Ive moved on from an article, and thus, it should be reviewed. Pizza Puzzle

JFK assassination page[edit]

The whole event may still be a morass, as you point out in its talk page, but I did pretty extensive editing to the John F. Kennedy assassination page. Less 'off the deep end'? I tried to add to content there without numerous preambles of 'some believe', 'could have even been', etc. Skybunny 08:38, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Earthsea[edit]

I've just done The Other Wind. I'll also do Tales from Earthsea in due course, but I don't feel capable of writing up Tehanu, given it's peculiar nature. Do you think you could do it? -- Daran 04:45, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ina Coolbrith[edit]

Thanks for your emendation.

Yes, of course she was (a poet and a writer herself, not just an influence).

Unfortunately I personally don't know much about her apart from her having been an influence on Jack London. But I thought it was better to make an entry for her than to have no entry at all.

I've tried to make amends to her memory by adding links to some of her poems. There doesn't seem to be a lot of her stuff online, though.

I believe a lot of her work was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake.

A very interesting essay at http://www.infinex.com/~jr/ina.htm says that the eighteen years she spent at the Oakland library were "the low point of her poetic career."

This all makes sense, and it's the Wiki way: one person starts a page and then others, and that person if s/he wishes, improve it. I suspect there are pages I created that have none of my original text left. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:02, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Vicki, thanks for supporting my adminship application :). Arwel 12:08, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Vicki, I apologize for my past indiscretions & anything that I have done to antagonize you. All of my references to Transcendentalism have been deleted. How can this be rectified? Do the administrators here understand the meaning of Transcendentalism? Are dissentions allowed?

(definition of Transcendentalism) Transcendentalism itself is difficult to define concisely, due to the diverse expressions of those involved in the movement. However, the main tenet of transcendentalists is the desire to go beyond (transcend) the prevailing literature and philosophies of the masses in order to improve society. One of the reasons that transcendentalism spans so many disciplines is due to this strength of this desire amongst those involved. Kurt Kawohl http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.phtml?search=kurt+kawohl

Wikipedia is not a place to put original research or to introduce new philosophies. Whatever you're doing, it's not the usual definition of transcendentalism, nor does it have a significant following. If you want to (re)establish a movement, do that--and once you've done so, it'll be a suitable encyclopedia subject. In the meantime, the Wikipedia article will cover Transcendentalism as it is generally understood, not non-standard physics, just as it doesn't discuss recipes for pad thai or the life of Emperor Norton. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:05, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ernest Gruening and National Statuary Hall[edit]

Yes, at some point I'll wikify further. It's more efficient for me to create the basic version for all 98 statue images first, then wikify later because it keeps the number of windows and tasks to a more manageable level. It also lets others handle that task if they choose to do it before I get to that part of the job. JamesDay 13:00, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

probably temporary topics[edit]

Heh! Thanks for the List of domesticated plants edit (even if it did throw me for a minute, when i couldn't find the dupes i indtended to dump! It'll take me a while to get used to this environment, but worth the time & effort IMO.). And BTW, thanks for getting Edward Tufte on here; i thot abt him recently while editing, but didn't even bother looking for him. --Jerzy 01:59, 2003 Oct 27 (UTC)

Hello, do you happen to know if it was possible for visitors to climb up to the top balcony at the torch of the Statue of Liberty before 9/11? Thanks, AxelBoldt 15:32, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not offhand: I think that was closed after the renovations (1986), but I hadn't visited since the 1970s, so I'm not sure. Vicki Rosenzweig 13:00, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

RFK Assassination should not be separate![edit]

I see you have taken the RFK Assassination and made it into a stub. This is not a good idea. In comparsion to his brother's assassination, the questions are fewer. When the HSCA was being formed in Congress in the 70's, the JFK, RFK, MLK, and the attempted assassination of George Wallace were in the bill. Later revsions of the bill dropped the Wallace and RFK cases. The reason? The person who shot RFK was caught, tried, and now is rotting in jail. That clearly means that the case is settled. In saying that, theories have come up accusing Eugene Caesar and the woman in the polka dot dress as shooters, but none have been proven.

This is why I believe the RFK Assassination should not be a separate stub.

hoshie 08:05, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I disagree, but even if I agreed, I wouldn't delete it at this point (not least because it isn't new). If you feel that this page is harmful, make your case on Votes for deletion.Vicki Rosenzweig

Vicki, I liked your editing of Marista Hall. Thanks! By the way, what do you think of the Olavo Bilac article? Doidimais Brasil 20:40, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Vicki for your edit of Gordon Memorial College, looking at the diff explained to me what NPOV is all about much better than the NPOV article did. I'll try in future to refrain from adding gushing praise to the subjects of my articles :)

Valisk 14:46, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC) 14:42, Dec 16, 2003

Primates[edit]

You may want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates. Come check us out! *grins* - UtherSRG 15:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good luck[edit]

From one Rosenzweig to another -- I hope that, should anything come of this bizarre "treason by edit" thing, you triumph handily and show up any who dare violate our civil rights. I was tempted to do something like it, but ultimately lacked the bravery: bravo to you for having the courage of your convictions! Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 03:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II[edit]

I would like to invite you to discussion around the article. There is hot dispute over some issues. Thanks in advance! Cautious 12:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Artificial consciousness[edit]

I created artificial consciousness NPOV article what at present is only a sketch of how to organise the article on controversial topic to incorporate different points of view. Please say what you think about organising an article in that way. Thank you!Tkorrovi 18 Mar 2004

invitation to assist[edit]

VR,

Reminds me of 221B, that.

Anyway, having noted the odd crypto corner contribution from you, I thought I might be able to enlist your practised eye (it is remarkably harder than normal to type KNOWING that a pro is going to be reading it!) for an article or two under consideration for featured nomination. They are secret sharing and PGP.

One is more technical than the usual run of featured articles (but 'twill do 'em good to see one now and then), while the other is much more generally accessible and of more general interest.

Any comment would be valued, improving comments will be divine, and caustic comment will be useful, but as always good for the soul.

Thanks.

ww 17:46, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Poll: New York City[edit]

You expressed interest in the name of the New York City article on its Talk page. Could you please vote in the poll there? Thank you. --Lowellian 00:02, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

You're missed[edit]

So you know. :-) We need editors with good sense and intelligence, and you're one. Plus your absence has cut the site's RQ (Rosenzweig Quotient) in half, a devastating loss, as I'm sure you'll agree. I hope you get the opportunity to drop by every now and then in the future -- thanks for everything you've done here, and good luck on whatever you're doing now. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree -- I realized that I hadn't see you around for a while. Hope you're well -- and that we see you again soon. Peace, BCorr|Брайен 22:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I entirely agree with my two colleagues. I also join them in wishing you well and hope you will be able to return to us soon. We do need you. Dieter Simon 23:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks. I'm overworked at the moment, stopped by looking for info on Russ Columbo because Vin Scelsa has Lenny Kaye as a guest, talking about his book about Columbo, and about the music of that period. Vicki Rosenzweig 02:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss[edit]

I noticed your contributions to the choicepoint page. There is currently discusssion on the Talk:U.S._presidential_election,_2000 regarding disenfranchised voters from the infamous choicepoint list. Your insights would be welcome there. Kevin Baas | talk 20:41, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Koala page is no loger a stub.[edit]

Noticed that your "to do" list included expanding the koala article because it was a pathetic stub. I followed the link and found that that article has been expanded to a length of several page-downs. Just wanted to let you know that it seems to be taken care of...Paullaw | talk 14:22, 25 OCT 2004 (UTC)

New York meetup[edit]

Hi Vicki, there's a NY meetup being planned this month; I hope you can make it! Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC +sj +

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man 16:24, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Meetup[edit]

Your name is on the list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC for December 12. In case you forgot to check the page, the venue and time have been both been set. We are planning on meeting at the Moonstruck Diner at 1:30pm. Just wanted to let you know. -- – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject New York City[edit]

Hello, I've started WikiProject New York City, and from your edits it seems you might be interested. See its talk page for the beginning of a discussion on the standardization of neighborhood names, and bringing New York City up to featured status.--Pharos 14:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Main namespace cleanup[edit]

In an effort to clean up the main namespace, I've moved your old main namespace userpage to User:Vicki Rosenzweig/old, as there's some edit history you might want to keep. Otherwise just delete it. --fvw * 12:29, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

thank you everybody[edit]

I would like to express my thanks to everybody helping in the nomination of Antarctic krill. I think 3 1/2 supports and a long long discussion are an unexpected and great outcome for a critter so remote and unknown - you should see how little and poor Antarctic krill is represented in Encarta and Britannica - this is the best reviewed and resourced general article of krill we know of - it is impossible to fullfill all wishes at the same time - this is what we did with our all product peer review stamp to qualify this stage of the article for academic exercises, especially for our dreams of a Virtual university within Wikiversity - good luck to you all Uwe Kils 21:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) - it would be great if you can take another look at the language (I am from Germany)

lines and distances[edit]

As far as I know (and I didn't get much past calculus), even the usual non-Euclidean geometry accepts the definition of a line as "the shortest distance between two points." [ ... ] Vicki Rosenzweig

No: the length of a line segment is the shortest distance between two points. But a distance is a number and neither a line nor a line segment is a number. Michael Hardy 22:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Jtreebloom.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jtreebloom.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page 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. Thanks so much. --Agnte 23:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image page can be editted just like a normal wikipedia page. At the moment all thats neede dis the image source, ie - the exact url of where you got the image from. I can't find it on the NPS site at the moment, and was going to mark it for deletion on dec 5. Agnte 22:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminatus! Trilogy[edit]

I saw in the history of the page that you were the first named (non-IP) user to contribute to the article, back in 2002. If you haven't visited it in a while, take a look, it made Featured Article! Esquizombi 07:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender[edit]

Please weigh in on this AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ustase[edit]

Re your ignorant comments anout the Ustase page being "anti-Catholic". As you are obviously ignorant about this subject you should inform yourself before weighing in. 216.194.2.22 11:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert! Got another IP address to hide behind? - Ali-oops ^✍ 17:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject[edit]

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone loves saints...[edit]

I'm seeing that talk-page note everywhere these days. Do we all in fact love and edit saints?

I'm really stopping by to say hello, and to wonder whether you're interested in attending an in-person meetup in NYC or DC or Boston anytime soon. (There's a big one coming up this summer... :-)

Regards from Cambridge, +sj + 18:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?[edit]

So...besides the IP edit, 'twas you who started the lobster article, eh? Kewl. ~ Flame vip e r 19:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming NYC Meetup[edit]

You might want to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it... Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 23:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Jihad[edit]

Thought you might like to know this article has been nominated for deletion. If you like it (you liked it well enough to comment on the Talk page...), you might want to click over to the link and suggest reasons why it should not be deleted.
Septegram 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Ford[edit]

(Re: Anti-vandalism) Thanks for taking up the cause! – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:07, 20 Nov 2006 (UTC).

You're welcome. Most of my time on Wikipedia (which is intermittent, shall we say) is on copyediting--grammar and spelling in the service of clarity--but I knew Mike, so this matters a bit more to me than the average page. Vicki Rosenzweig 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thales[edit]

Vicki! How nice. I'm sorry for my scattergun approach. No, I only wanted to put Thales on a sound footing and start what I hope will be and what I see is becoming a series of articles on the pre-socratics, who contain among their number the initial scientists, atomists, hylomorphs, quantitists, etc. The main thing was to provide the quotes that are the key to his thought; in natural science, the discovery of substance; in method, the use of natural principles to predict. Scientific prediction arises as a method of being a seer and a sage, both of which abilities were already being valued and rewarded. There was a lot left undone in the article, such as the astronomy, as someone pointed out.

If you want to take this article and turn it into a gold star affair by all means do. At this point I trust you not to turn it into something ideological or propagandistic, which is a problem I perceive the articles on philosophy are having. In classics we put the emphasis on what the author actually said and thought in order to avoid the babble and chaos of current philosophic fashion (not to mention the murder and mayhem). Like wisdom it may be an unachievable ideal but seeking the unfindable is part of our existence here. We're still looking for the ultimate substance and now particle theory itself has been called into question.

I had no plans to get back to it significantly except to make sure the intellectual vandals did not rip it to shreds. I have not seen it now for a while. I plan to go on to Anximenes and Anaximander but a bang-up job has already been done on those. I just want to polish them up with the Greek and the footnotes and the essential points from the books in my ancient philosophy library. The public seems to want their Greek untransliterated and quoted. Originally I was transliterating. I hope you have some Greek. Bonne chance, mazel tov, let's get a gold star here.Dave 15:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

Hello, A very long time ago you had some input on the original JW article. I was wondering if you could give a comment at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions? I believe the current section titled "acceptance within JW community is mostly original research and lends undue weight. thanks George 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rawa[edit]

You started this nice article on Rawa, but someone is trying to delete the organization's logo. Could you follow up and make sure the image stays? To me its definktely fair use. Let me know if you dont want to. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article TransAtlantic Fan Fund has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Thought you might have a thought or two on the topic. --Orange Mike 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]