Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

I got an interesting suggestion from someone concerning the individual Miami School articles, this user deleted the Coral Park article because it was kind of crappy and asserted no notability; something that often happens with school articles. During my discussing with him about this issue, he suggested we instead merge all the Miami school articles into one large one with a summary of each individual school and attach it the district article instead of making a bunch of small non-notable ones since only the district article was really notable. He also suggested that since each individual article was moderated by an alumni, then having all of these alumni working on one large article rather than 30 or 40 separate ones would be easier to tackle and would put more focus on the school district as a whole and keep the article's quality high. This seemed like a good idea to me, but i don't know if I'm up for this feat, so I'm going around asking other users I see edit the Miami school articles on my watchlist to see who would be up for such a task and if they think it's a good idea. What do you say? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I can see opposition from the students who add most of the very current, non-notable crap to the articles, and from the supporters of the schools project, who seem to feel that every school is notable, or rather, as I've seen it expressed, that schools are not subject to the notability test. In any case, it is worth further discussion. As I already have some Miami-Dade schools on my watch-list, consolidation would not be a burden for me. Too bad you won't be able to attend the meetup. -- Donald Albury 11:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've seen a bit of support of this from the few users who regularly moderate the dade school articles, and it would meet opposition from students but these are mostly random anons and wouldn't be much of an opposition as it is, but i do notice that most articles sit there and do nothing up until some dumbass kid adds either his or her name to the list of notable people, or decides to write a pararaph about his or her hatred of the administration, then we have articles that never move and i'm wondering if anyone is even looking at them, they just sort of clutter my watchlist, so I think that when I have my next off day this Monday I'm going to coordinate and try this stuny to see what happens. Yeah, it is too bad I can't go to the meetup, considering the 15th is my 2nd Wikiversary, too, that would've been sort of neat. I could've gone to the Tampa one but also had trouble, but I guess I'll catch the next one, no worries. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to help. -- Donald Albury 02:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dalbury—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 04:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Donald Albury 13:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You may want to tweak the sprotect I put on the page - I protected knowing I wouldn't be around for much of today to revert the 1-2 anons who've been removing the AfD notice every 3-4 hours. And I'm going offline again soon. :-/ Kimchi.sg 12:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'm coming on-line. Donald Albury 13:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

well then thats between them and youtube, im only providing a link to youtube—Preceding unsigned comment added by E tac (talk • contribs)

Which violates Wikipedia policy. -- Donald Albury 11:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We're currently working on getting our sources cited. Would you mind placing {{fact}} tags where you think they're appropriate and haven't been tagged already? Thanks. Zsinj^Talk 16:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Will be at the Las Vegas Cuban Restaurant at about 12:45 with Wikipedia sign in hand. Hope you can make it. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving in about an hour. -- Donald Albury 15:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of a species list for the Florida Keys? Specifically I am wondering about palms. Thanks. Guettarda 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a list. I do know of Coccothrinax argentata (Silver palm, Florida silver palm or Silver thatch palm) and Pseudophoenix sargentii (Buccaneer palm, Sargent's cherry palm or Florida cherry palm), the last of which is native in Florida only on Elliott Key and south[1]. Sorry, I can't think of more. -- Donald Albury 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I was aware of those two. It seems like local DNRs are obsessive in making species lists, so there might be one online. Google couldn't help, so I figured I would ask. I think there's a Trees of South Florida, I can always trek across to the library and grab their copy - it's such an imposition to have to walk two buildings away ;) Guettarda 15:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a book on trees used in Florida landscaping at home that might list some more native palms. It'll be about five hours or so before I can look for it, though. -- Donald Albury 15:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, the reason I am asking is that I am trying to complete the list of palms of the Caribbean - the references I have don't separate the Keys from South Florida. Since I think that the Keys should count as "insular Caribbean" (while the mainland is "wider Caribbean" in a phytogeographic context), I need a list for the Keys. I have to submit final grades by noon (Central time) - the library's actually on the way back from the Academic Records office. Guettarda 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The list looks nice. -- Donald Albury 15:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that most of those species are synonyms for T. radiata, T. morrisii or for Coccothrinax species. Palm taxonomy has a messy history and they are undercollected (not too surprisingly - apart from the difficulty in getting a specimen, the leaves don't fit well on herbarium sheets). I don't think there has been a good treatment of the family since Bailey's in the 1940s. Guettarda 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your support! MONGO 09:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw on Jaranda's page that you recently became an administrator. Congratulations. I noticed that there was no Wikiproject Miami in existence, and so I started one up (you know, be bold and all that), so if you encounter a page that you are editing and figure it can be added to the project, feel free to do so.

Have a great day, CodeCarpenter 15:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I added Seminole county back in as an Adjacent county. It is Adjacent, but not adjoining which I think you are getting confused. Thus, I believe it should stay that way as it is notable as an Adjacent county and many people consider it adjacent. It is universally understood as not adjoining.198.151.12.8 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are making a distinction that doesn't hold up very well. See the Wiktionary definition of 'adjacent'. And once you go beyond 'contiguous with', it is original reasearch to say whether or not one county is adjacent to another. -- Donald Albury 16:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand Wikitionary's definition. But take a look at the bottom of the Brevard County article. Seminole county is listed as an adjacent county. Even the public domain list of adjacent counties for the 50 states [2] lists Seminole County as being adjacent. In fact, adjacent can mean contiguous, which can mean that it can be within close or near proximity without actually touching. Seminole County is "near" enough to be considered adjacent. Seminole County article also lists Brevard County as adjacent. 198.151.12.8 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, according to the USDA Economic and Research Service, "to be considered an adjacent county, a nonmetro county must physicallyadjoin one or more metro areas and have at least two percent of its employed labor force commuting to central metro counties." What the USDA ESR is talking about is functional adjacency, rather than physical adjacency. [3] Since Seminole county is functionally adjacent to Brevard due to the amount of commuters coming to and from that county.. I believe it qualifies for adjacency to Brevard.67.8.238.211

Take it to the talk page of the article. -- Donald Albury 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

http://goflorida.about.com/od/allaboutflorida/a/springbreak.htm

Not sure how to post a citation. Lots of similar articles when using Google -fort lauderdale spring break.

Thanks: GatorFTLGatorFTL

Put in on the talk page. Someone will figure it out. I'm a bit busy now, and it may be tomorrow before I get back to the article. -- Donald Albury 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey; I noticed that you re-added a paragraph about what policies apply where in Wikipedia:Userboxes, and you said that "this consensual compromise was arrived at after a great many words were spilled on the floor...". I can't see where this idea expressed in the article comes from, though; might it be some sort of misreading of the userbox migration compromise? Could you please clarify? Thanks in advance, and happy editing. —AySz88\^-^ 06:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now I think I see where it might come from, and I'll generalize it a bit so it isn't so vague.... If it's not what you meant, feel free to improve or revert. —AySz88\^-^ 06:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a little confused by your comment too... Where has this compromise been agreed by the community? Ian¹³/t 12:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Userboxes where it belongs. -- Donald Albury 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that image is already used in this page, but we can use it twice. We should place an image on the intro in order to illustrate the what this article is about. --Haham hanuka 19:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments[4] on canvassing, which were moved by Thatcher131. I just noticed them today. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please contribute to Category talk:Coast Guard images and Category talk:Department of Homeland Security images? Thank you. --- Safemariner 17:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please point to me a case where I am belligerent or argumentative. I am only defending myself. ATren 00:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Step back, stop defending yourself. Consider the quote on my user page, "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game. If you have to defend yourself, then consider why others are not leaping to your defense. -- Donald Albury 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your view, but my point is this: an editor like me is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I'm a casual editor who doesn't have thousands of edits to back my reputation, so when a guy like Radiant starts saying I'm engaging in personal attacks, people don't bother to check the evidence - they just assume I'm being disruptive, on the word of that trusted editor. So I have two options: ignore it and watch as I gain the (unwarranted) reputation as a "disruptive attacker", or respond to it and get the reputation as "argumentative and belligerent". As long as I'm faced with that Catch-22, I might as well go down defending myself.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for evidence of a single instance where I attacked someone. Why is it that experieced editors are given a free pass when it comes to making such unfounded accusations? ATren 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I advise you step back and relax a little. I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy it. I get the impression that you are not enjoying yourself. You have concentrated most of your editing on a single subject. If you are feeling irritated about something or someone, go edit something in a different area. This is not real life. Nothing in Wikipedia is so important that you should let it affect your health and well-being. Every time you snap at someone and argue with them on their talk page, you are doing yourself and your reputation a disfavor. -- Donald Albury 01:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I do tend to get caught up when I believe my actions are being mischaracterized, and perhaps this is one of those cases. I will take your advice and let it slide (which I already tried to do once but I got drawn in again by this). Anyway, despite appearances, I do enjoy any time I spend here, otherwise I wouldn't do it. ATren 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for for intervening in Cardinal (bird). I should know better by now as a long established admin, but I found Slamdiego's combination of made-up policy and threats of retributive action difficult to take. I should have sought resolution earlier instead of baring my teeth. Apologies for the disruption, Jimfbleak.talk.07:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand how it can happen. It has taken me more than a year of editing to curb my inclination to fight it out with editors who insist on ignoring policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, edit warring is a quick way to damage one's reputation. I think your final change did defuse the situation in the article, and I hope that is the end of it. I'll keep it on my watchlist. -- Donald Albury 12:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eslewhere, as part of a response to you, I have written:

I apologize for at one point misreading your “warring” as “warning”, and thence misattributing a position to you.

I wanted to make sure that you read at least that much, even if you didn't return to the discussion. —SlamDiego 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That does clear up some confusion. -- Donald Albury 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer on "Citations of ancient writers and their translations". I'm grateful. Best regards! Read3r 13:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Donald Albury 16:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dalbury. You commented on the deletion nomination page for Heritage Guitars that you were unable to find online documentation establishing the company's notability. The company has been documented in print, however (in at least two books published independently of the company), and these books have been used as references in the article. Do you think such print coverage is sufficient to establish notability? Nick Graves 16:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this either on the article talk page or the AfD talk page. -- Donald Albury 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You flagged my username (Merkinmuffly) as inappropriate. I read the article on inappropriate usernames and I agree that this name could fall under that heading. However my intention was not to reference the slang terms but rather the character of Merkin Muffley from the film Dr. Strangelove. Which, admittedly, itself refers to the slang terms. Anyway, I'm fond the of name (and the film) and it's served me well as a username for several sites, since it seems rarely to be taken. I'm wondering if you're personally offended by it or just noticed it as part of some kind of automatic flagging. If so, is there any chance we can wait to see if someone is genuinely offended by it before we force the name change? For what it's worth, in my experience, the people who know what merkin means usually know who "Merkin Muffley" is, too.Merkinmuffly 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not personally offended, but as an admin I do try to apply our policies. I recognized that you had probably chosen the name in good faith, which is why I left the message rather than blocking your account. I will ask for comments from other admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard before acting. Btw, I first saw the movie when it came out in 1964. -- Donald Albury 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I didn't see anything on the request for comment (username) page, I thought I'd bring my opinion here: A person would have to try to be offended by this one. "Merkin" in of itself is no more offensive than, err, toupee. Well, maybe a tad more, but anyway... and "muff" is again of offense only is narrow circumstances. So for my bit it's acceptable. - brenneman 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Things get cleared out fast there. After I made this comment, it looks like the section was closed and archived very quickly. I infomred Merkin of the decision directly on his/her user page, here. -- Donald Albury 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, thanks for being a conscientious admin, and thanks for polling the public re: my username. I feel vaguely exhilarated to have been the subject of such contemplation. Cheers. Merkinmuffly 03:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. If anyone else questions your name, or if you have any questions about something, drop a note here. -- Donald Albury 11:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce) Comment: Not everything gets cleared out fast around here... check out CAT:CSD on a regular basis for an ongoing backlog. You're doing great as an Admin btw Dal, and I for one appreciate your willingness to add this to your considerable contributions here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a couple of goes at the image 'speedy' backlogs, but I'm still trying to figure out how to fit it all in. What bothers me is that I haven't started a single new article since becoming an admin. -- 11:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been told the key is to block out time for "regular" editing. No idea how well that works because the last article *I* started was before becoming an Admin. Since then its been almost all blocks, deletes, policy education.... My hope is that if we reverse the trend of editor-to-admin-ratio, which is currently sliding in the direction of more editors per admin, we'll once again have more time without neglecting the Admin side. Bishonen, Geogre, Bunchofgrapes are three who have managed to write not only articles but featured articles while being an admin, and there are others - so it can be done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering dropping ANI from my watchlist to free up some time. :) -- Donald Albury 12:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a view that folowing the successful storming of the guns, there was a break down in Brigade organisation, command and control which led to a number of the Light Brigade being captured and being unable to withdraw as a unit. This was possibly due to the loss of officers and an absence of clear instructions to subordinate commanders by Cardigan. Insert non-formatted text here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.96.217.220 (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Since you seem to be the admin. involved with the situation, I wanted to pass on that User:Linguist_J has again made a legal threat on her talk page (despite her promise not to do so). I don't believe this was done maliciously. She seems to not understand the extent of the "no legal threats" rule. I've attempted to communicate with her about the situation and be helpful, but it seems best if I step out of it. She also seems to continue to misunderstand the point of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam, saying that by listing her site there I am implying that it itself is spam. I was wondering if you might be able to communicate with her on the subject. Also, thanks for all of your help in the situation. I hope I have not overstepped my bounds as an editor. Nposs 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked her again, and left a message. She can still comment on her talk page. -- Donald Albury 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion requested: She keeps deleting all the documentation I had added to her talk page about the spam[5] saying it does not apply to her[6]. I think that's disingenuous, but I'm no admin and I may be looking at this incorrectly. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 04:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Placing that information on Linguist J's talk page could be considered harassment. I advise you find more neutral ground, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, for that material. Please note that users have a lot of latitude in managing their talk pages, and there is no policy, or even consensus, to prevent any user from removing anything they want to from their own talk page. -- Donald Albury 15:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice -- I asked for a second opinion so I could avoid stepping over any line. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dalbury and Happy New Year to you and yours. You recently deleted an artical National Alliance of Family Councils. Is there any way to get it back? I did place a hangon on National Alliance of Family Councils artical to give the original writer time to re-write. I must say that when I first looked at it I was going to tag it for speedy deletion also but than changed my mind when I read more into it. I believe this topic will make a great artical. However, I had asked the orginial author to rewrite to make it conform to current Wikipedia standards. If no one vol. in the next couple of days....I'll handle. Thanks for your help. Shoessss 18:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had answered this. Oh well, I can userfy the article (restore it as a sub-page to someone's user page) so it can be worked on. Let me know which userpage would be best. -- Donald Albury 01:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why you deleted this article with the somewhat cryptic explanation "no information on copyright status"? Were you trying to delete an image? Savidan 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears so. I've restored the article. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. -- Donald Albury 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be all right if my older sister created an account here? We will edit from the same computer and the same IP but I just don't want her to be considered a sockpuppet. I would never do so. Thank you. --Shaericell Talker to Triplets! |Email Me 01:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That should be OK. However, I advise the two of you to work on different subjects and articles to avoid any suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. -- Donald Albury 01:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, Mr.Albury. I am her sister. Thank you for your permission. --Mocca Latte (Talk) 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) P.S can you delete my image Image:BrendaT.jpg? I don't really like it.

I've added additional information. It was self scanned - hopefully that would be sufficient?

Karn-b 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. -- Donald Albury 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Userbox talk page. Ian¹³/t 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dalbury - Thanks for your message about the copy right status of Image:NYC subway riders with their newspapers.jpg. This image is in the public domain. The photographer, Travis Ruse, has a photoblog of the NYC subway (at www.travisruse.com). This image is one of his outtakes and is posted on Wikipedia with his consent and agreement to release it in the public domain. He and I discussed it at length by email. I can forward these to you or you can email Travis directly for confirmation. Neither he nor I understand precisely what designation Wikipedia is looking for. Wv235 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

He needs to explicitly release the photo. I suggest using the GFDL. He should e-mail a statement saying that he is the creator of the image, and is releasing it into the public domain or under the GFDL or a similarly free license, to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". -- Donald Albury 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the Morikami Park article. I've tried to clean up some of the recent non-NPOV stuff. However, Mokumbear seems to be using the article as a personal crusade against the evils of the way the park is now, and has been adding it back in. Things like "ugly, locked, high black fencing" and "The current appearance of the park is greatly blighted by the appearance of the fencing. It's former peacefulness is shattered by the lack of easy, free public access."

I shan't engage in some protracted edit-war. I'm hoping that you, as an administrator and someone who seems to be interested in the park, can figure some way to deal with the situation better? Thanks for your help. -Ebyabe 14:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And he just started doing the same thing to Morikami Museum and Japanese Gardens, FYI. --Ebyabe 14:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted everything he added because it was all original research, let alone the POV he was pushing. -- Donald Albury 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Now lets see how long it is before he starts doing it all over again. Bets, place your bets. :)

Certainly does seem to have something in the craw about it, that's for sure. Anyway, cheers, mate! --Ebyabe 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to drive by the park later to see if anything has changed recently, but as I remember, a portion of the park with picnic shelters that used to be open has been behind that fence for a number of years now. -- Donald Albury 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you have taken some time to drive by the Park, Dahlbury. Barring the public free access to the Park is a significant change indeed.

Look at my point, what would you think if Central Park in NYC, Golden Gate Park in SF, or Jardin du Luxembourg in Paris one day fenced off their parks and began charging admission, after years of being open to the public?

Can't you see the irony that George Morikami "would not sell his land at any price to developers" according to Virginia's Aronson's book, "Konnichiwa Florida Moon", yet after he donated the land to Palm Beach County, they have changed the atmosphere from a public park that was a peaceful, zen experience to something resembling a private country club?

Even the organizational structure of the Park has changed. This once public park is now a joint public/private entity.

I have corresponded with the author, Virginia Aronson, and she also feels that George Morikami's wishes for the Park have been subverted and the current entities running the Park have lost vision of his wishes, and are bit by bit ruining the park.

I really hope the both of you will take the time to read Virginia Aronson's book, "Konnichiwa Florida Moon" about George Morikami, his life, the Yamato Colony and his designs for the park.

I do not appreciate the continuing personal remarks being made here against me because of my edits. This is not consistent with Wikipedia policy.

I want to document my facts, all I need is guidance on how to cite sources.

Some can be easily cited. In the interest of being fair and balanced, some clearly obvious things such as "the park is completely enclosed by chain link fence now" can be hard to cite, not that I am not trying. If you drive past the park, you can see it for yourself.

I have tried to incorporate your suggestions, make my edits more neutral, and eliminate my personal bias. Why can't you work with me so I may contribute positively to this site? I am open to suggestion, I just need a little guidance.

Citing Wikipedia policy is helpful, but you would better serve the Wikipedia community if you give me specifical examples how to cite my facts.

Just constantly reverting the site is not helping me to improve my contribution.

Please try to be open minded enough to allow citable facts to be presented on this page.

Thank you... User talk:Mokumbear 09:18, 16 February 2007

I modified the notes on the JPG file. It was from Kunstler's promotional web site. Simple as that. ONLY as a courtesy to him, did I actually email his studio asking permission which was granted. Wiki rule is simply this, "If its promtional art, editors can use it." At least, that's my understanding. Thanks. SimonATL 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Unless the work is positively known to be in the public domain (such as works of the United States government or its employees, or old works, often meaning more than 100 years old), Wikipedia can only use works that have been released under GFDL, or one of the Creative Commons licenses that does not preclude non-commercial use or modification. Mort Kunstler would have to inform Wikipedia (at permissions AT wikipedia DOT org) that he was releasing the work under the GFDL or CC-BY-SA licenses. -- Donald Albury 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to take care when reverting: this one isa good example. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, s---! Thanks for letting me know. -- Donald Albury 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OK; you'd be amazed at how many times I've done it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No I wouldn't. I seem to do something like that fairly regularly. :-) -- Donald Albury 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalbury -

Also, you are correct about the limited use but only in the sense that this was his typical response. But all along, I only "asked permission" as a courtesy to the artist. Since then, I am aware that since it was originally a promotional object, no permission was needed in the first place. Let's remember that this JPG file was only a small thumbnail pic of a large painting, (I've seen some of the artist's paintings at the Atlanta Airport. So my "solution" was simply to remove the "permission obtained" note and change the tag to promotional.

I thought that I was supposed to simply correct the tag on that Theodore Roosevelt image noting that it was from a promotional source and by so doing, I was SUPPOSED to remove the dispute notice. Sorry - I'm not entirely knowledgable about the processes. So after I correct the tag, at least, from my perspective, then what? Thanks. PS - Vandalism is NOT, in any way my intent here. SimonATL 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You still don't understand. The default assumption is that everything is copyrighted. Under current copyright law, a copyright is automatically created in almost all circumstances when a work is created. There are three ways we can use a creative work in Wikipedia:

1. If it is in the public domain. This is the case for works that are old enough for copyright to have expired, or if it was created by a United States agency or one of its employees in the course of his or her duties. That does not apply in this case.

2. The work has been licensed in a way that allows anyone to reproduce it for any purpose. That requires something like the GFDL license or the CC-BY-SA license, for which there is no evidence in this case that the artist has so released his work.

3. The English Wikipedia allows limited "fair use" of copyrighted work, but the "fair use" must be justified. See the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria for discussion of the restrictions on "fair use".

In other words, there is no "free pass" on "promotional" images, and "permissions" from artists that do not take the form of a truely free license are meaningless on Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Its all about timing. You are strong with the Force, young padawan. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that RfA until so late. I thought I had checked there yesterday. Ah, well, I do get somehting right every once once in a while. -- Donald Albury 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was indignant enough over your nosing me out to offer WP:200 support, and now I learn that such nosing was essentially inadvertent? That's, I suppose, what I get for not quoting the Bible on my userpage. :) Good on ya in any event, Joe 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I had just discovered that Brad was up, so it was indeed pure luck. :-) -- Donald Albury 04:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the info you requested about where the specimen pine was found. Does it need more info? Fortunately I got the specimen when I did as the tree it is now dying and will have to be cut down :-( Noles1984 14:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Thank you for fixing that. -- Donald Albury 14:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I like plant lists, I don't see how this really helps. I'd say either stub it down and remove the list, or convert the list to an actual list (since as a paragraph its unreadable). And, of course, it would need a reference.

So what sounds better to you - remove the species, or make them look like a list? Guettarda 15:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently deleted the article Leon H. Sullivan Summit. I recently expanded the Leon Sullivan article and was wondering if you could undelete the Leon H. Sullivan Summit article as I would like to link to this, as well as expand it. Thanks, --Dovcamp 01:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted Leon H. Sullivan Summit because it consisted solely of material copied from another source in violation of copyright. You are welcome to start a new article, but please remember that all material added to Wikipedia needs to supported by reliable published sources, but must not violate any copyright. -- Donald Albury 02:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, there -- wondering if you had any comment on this user's current unblock request? (Which is a nice way of saying "Gosh, I dunno what to do." :p) You blocked them, originally, so your input as to the believability of their latest message would be especially appreciated, I think. Thanks. Luna Santin 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I declined the request just a few minutes ago. They still just don't seem to get it. -- Donald Albury 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm! This indicates that I did respond, but I don't see it when I look at the user talk page. Puzzlement! -- Donald Albury 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh -- I've made the same mistake, a few times, not switching {{unblock}} to {{unblock reviewed}}. (Which is another reminder that I should consider merging the two templates). Fixed that for now. :) Luna Santin 03:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! My first response to an unblock request. Now I know. -- Donald Albury 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dalbury, i am uncertain about your reccommendation for delete on this article, its just that i am at a college in Newcastle and our socology teacher told us about this theory, it seems that it has attracted some interest in the sociology under-world! She said that her friend in sunderland told her about it, she disagrees with it, but her friend who is male thought it was ok. i just thought i should let you know, because it may attract some interest..

Please confine comments about the article to the article's talk page, and comments about the AfD to the AfD's talk page. -- Donald Albury 22:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you de-archive the entire page, remove my question and not contact me? Your action was OTT as the 'active' discussion had not been posted to for 7 days... Please don't do that again as it is disruptive as archiving is a necessary aspect of talk page management (someone on a 56k modem would take ages downloading that talk page!)-Localzuk^(talk) 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. I was not at my best when I did that. -- Donald Albury 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to you to determine whether one is considered 'notable' or not. What makes a professional NBA dancer any less 'notable' than a NBA player... money?? or your blessings?? Both are 'notable' achievements, so please do not change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prentiss77 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Determination of notability of people for Wikipedia purposes is guided by Wikipedia:Notability (people). Note that notability can only be established by multiple, independent, published reliable sources. If you can establish the notability of a person using multiple, published, reliable sources, then create a Wikipedia article for that person. Once an article exists in Wikipedia (and doesn't get deleted for not meeting the criteria for an article), you can cite that person as 'notable' in other articles. -- Donald Albury 18:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That logic is not consistant as noted by others listed.

If you have the time, could you delete Talk:Mastek since you speedy deleted the article? :) Regards, -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)