Hello, Rocket000, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Stifle (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bob Seger - Against the Wind (Single).jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:The Chantays - Pipeline (Cover).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the Hoagy Carmichael pop & jazz standard and the Gary U.S. Bonds songs are both famous and entitled "New Orleans", the title "New Orleans (song)" is not specific enough disambiguation. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of several people who was instrumental in cleaning up my List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry page. This page was the first page I created and still remains the page that I have made the most edits to on wikipedia (95 edits). Thank you for your assistance. Since this page received so much more cleanup assistance than most of my other pages I am wondering if it was a focus article of a WikiProject Group. Do you know of any such designation? It would be helpful because I will be self nominating for admin tomorrow or Tuesday. Please reply at my userpage with any info you may have. TonyTheTiger 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have contributed as an editor to the List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry. It is undergoing an overhaul according to the recent peer review that generated the following feedback. In addition to the changes there, it is undergoing stylistic changes that prevail at lists that have been selected as featured lists. Conversion to wikitable format began with 2002 today because most articles that reach featured list status are in this format. Feel free to convert additional years, add more columns, or add further details. Hopefully many of the editors who have helped edit this page to its pre review state will help improve it to a featured list quality level. I may not return to make further edits until next week. TonyTheTiger 21:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bob Seger - Against the Wind (Single).jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! It's great to see that infoboxes are being created for many of these songs. Thanks for your own efforts in maintaining the list. InnocuousPseudonym 18:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, please remember not to change links to redirects that aren't broken. 17Drew 02:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be changing a link to a redirect that's not broken if the link isn't to a redirect. WP:REDIRECT explicitly states that [[redirect]] should not be replaced with [[target|redirect]]. If the link eventually goes to a disambiguation page, then it will end up being corrected when that happens, but changing the link doesn't do anything for the reader and makes it less easy to read when viewing the direct code. Most of the other reverts were intentional. If the word is capitalized, the link should be too, so it should be [[Pop music|Pop]] and not [[pop music|Pop]]. Bounty Killer is linked above in the infobox, so there's no reason to add a duplicate link. There's also no reason to remove the spaces in the infobox since it doesn't affect what the reader sees and it's harder to read when editing the article; the Template:Infobox Single page formats it with the spaces for a reason. It was my mistake in forgetting to remove the spaces from the end of the lines for the sample box, so I've corrected that and reverted back. 17Drew 05:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Adding new song articles is one of my favorite ways to contribute to Wikipedia.  :) - carolyn⁸¹ (user • talk) 01:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocket000. Your tagging of talk pages, such as this, is filling up the Category:Spam_pages_for_speedy_deletion with talk pages for speedy deletion. Would you look into this? Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No harm. Once you removed Template:WikiProject The Who from deletion, the talk pages having that template were removed from Category:Spam_pages_for_speedy_deletion. It would be interesting to figure out how a transcluded template caused the talk pages to be listed in Category:Spam_pages_for_speedy_deletion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Before you make more similar edits, note that I've reverted this change for the reasons stated in my edit summary. I don't dispute that some of the changes you made are good, but trying to pick apart the good changes from the bad would be tedious work. May I suggest you familiarize yourself with the guidelines I mentioned, and possibly make changes like this in smaller increments. --PEJL 20:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. In the list you provided, most of the changes are good. However the following are not:

• It should be "studio" per WP:ALBUM#Type.
• It should be ".../..." per WP:ALBUM#Track listing.

Besides those your change included the following problems:

• You reformatted the spaces in the infobox, which should be formatted per WP:ALBUM#Code.
• You italicized the tour name, which should not be italicized per WP:MUSTARD#Formatting. (I see you've already corrected that.)
• You changed UK spelling to US spelling ("utilizing"). We generally use UK spelling for UK topics, per WP:MOS#National varieties of English and convention.
• You removed the commas from a large number of US-formatted dates. Granted, these dates should use UK formatting, but as US dates, they should include commas, per WP:MOSDATE and convention.

Other than that, I can't tell if there are other problems, because you included a bunch of redundant whitespace changes which makes the diff very difficult to read. Consider making such whitespace changes separately, if you feel they are warranted.

I also object to this change. Per WP:ALBUM#Genre (which I linked to in my edit summary), genres should be separated by commas and not capitalized. --PEJL 05:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so cooperative.

• "studio": This is just a code, that gets transformed into "Studio album" and a light blue background color in the infobox. The genres on the other hand are not codes, and are included as written. While there are a number of different codes that all get transformed into the same thing, for consistency it is best to use the same code. Per WP:ALBUM#Type the code that should be used is "studio".
• "Pop art sound": I wasn't aware that there was an article, but I see now that there is an article at pop art. The genre is not capitalized in that article (except at the beginning of sentences, for obvious reasons). Furthermore the genre should be linked to that article, per WP:ALBUM#Genre, which I've now done.
• "..."/"...": Well, that's what the current guideline is. Feel free to lobby to change it, if you feel that is appropriate.
• "utilizing": I believe this is the US spelling, not the UK spelling.
• Commas in dates: US dates are usually written as [[January 1]], [[2000]] while UK dates are written as [[1 January]] [[2000]]. US dates should include commas, UK dates should not. In this case most dates were US dates, and should therefore have included the commas. On the other hand they should really have been UK dates, which I've now converted them to.

As for whitespace changes, what I try to do is looking at the diff and seeing if such changes make the diff much more difficult to read, and not make such changes or make them separately if they do. --PEJL 10:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article is not unsalvageably incoherent, but is clearly non-notable ({{db-bio}}). Just for the future. CloudNine 08:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, completely unexpected here in the wee hours! Thanks very much! –Outriggr § 09:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get the article going last night but I came upon a problem... there's a ton of them! How on Earth do we go about determining notability? -MichiganCharms 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we're making a list, individual bootlegs don't need to be notable themselves, but I know what you mean, we need some standards for inclusion. As with the sketchy nature of bootlegs themselves, we need to make sure we included only actual bootlegs (I mean "bootleg" in the traditional sense of the word). Generally, I would say if we can find enough information to write a short paragraph or so on it, then let's include it. Most of the sources for this information is going to be found on personal sites of collectors and not really verifiable, so I would say for every inclusion we should have at least two independent sources. Unless... you got a book on Who bootlegs. I tried to track down my friend's, but he couldn't find it. :(

I'm sure you've found these sites already, but these are what I've been using.

• http://thewho.net/bootlegs/html/lp_list.html <- A little overwhelming at first, I know, but has the most bootlegs, including obscure variations.
• http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/who/boots/index.html <- Hasn't been updated in forever. Mentions The Who: The Illustrated Discography as his source, which I believe is what my friend's book is called.

I still need to do some research, before I starting putting together an article, so feel free to start it. I'm gonna try to get a hold of that book. I might just go an buy myself a copy.

Another thing we should include is this. - Rocket000 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank you for your support re the deletion discussion, its nice to meet another editor who truly gets what we are doing, writing for the readers, not for ourselves. Thanks again, heres hoping we've done enough, otherwise this could open the floodgates for the deletion of thousands of articles like these, which would be a disaster --Jac16888 15:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about anon's and AFD discussions, sometimes it can be quite an intimidating place to comment, and many anon comments are ignored, just today i was involved in a dispute between an anon and a long term user with over 8000 edits removing the anons comments in a request for move discussion as they were of the belief that it was against the rules for Ip's to engage in discussion. Really i just found that a shock and yet i doubt they are alone in that view, especially as, upon discovering that is not a rule, they have decided to go and make it one. But thank you for both your support, and your very kind words, its nice to have get some credit once in a while. I think i have more arguments to give on the AFD page, but i should probably leave that for since its 2.20 in the morning and i have a pretty high blood-alcohol level. Thanks again--Jac16888 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you believe it? We won, Yeah, we did it, they're being kept, which means that, not only are the deletionists being denied their precedent, but the articles are safe to allow improvement. Thank for all your support, especially as its for a show you don't even watch, if you ever need any help or support with the uphill struggle, look me up--Jac16888 01:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no. You're probably right about the intent in that case, but that's a pretty tough ask of a (very simple-minded) 'bot to try to work that out (admittedly it's not trying very hard at all at present, but a page like that would defeat any set of criteria I could think of for dab-detection). Stub-sorters, being smarter than python regexes, will hopefully be so good as to fix it up. I don't "double-tag" with {{uncat}} on the theory that a stub tag will at least get the article "in the system", and that the requested expansion will very open induce addition of categories. For those long-term stubs that don't "acquire" cats, I've previously mooted the idea of more by-topic "uncategorised" cleanup cats, which I'd be delighted to populate, but that's really on hold pending greater uptake from the various wikiprojects, on being interested in catting all of "their" articles. Alai 02:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of both, maybe, but the bot has plausible deniability. :)

I'm not saying anything against WPJ-tagging of pages (well, maybe some occasional sotto voce muttering...), I'm just a bit disappointed that there's not more active followup on categorisation, on that basis. e.g. if a WPJ is told that there's 865 uncategorised (aside from stub tag) articles in their declared scope, there's more often a deafening silence, than any evident sense of this being a problem they want to take any degree of ownership in. But it's a volunteer project, so it's not like I get to complain about people goldbricking. Alai 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, if you're going to be editing a page for a long time (like half an hour or something), best to put a flag up (such as {{inuse}}. Thanks for all the cleanup. Chubbles 05:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, but I'll be only editing it by sections now. My first edit was a lot of changes because I had two edit conflicts in a row, so I wanted to hurry up and do them all at once. Sorry if I caused you any conflicts. Rocket000 05:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you catching my mistake! Rocket000 06:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks back at you ! > Rugby471 ^talk ⚔ 12:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best alternate account name ever, eh? :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rocketman. Earlier today, you changed the word "arctic" to "Arctic" in the article Fun Home. The sentence in which the word occurred was in a quotation from the book, and in many cases it's bad practice to alter quotations. In this particular case, the original text (being a graphic novel) is written in all capital letters, so it's impossible to tell whether the author meant "arctic" or "Arctic". However, it's worth checking the dictionary for proper usage. Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives two definitions:

1. often capitalized : of, or relating to, or suitable for use at the north pole or the region near it <arctic waters> <arctic animals> <arctic clothing>
2. a : bitter cold : FRIGID <arctic air> b : cold in temper or mood <an arctic smile>

Note that Merriam-Webster says "often capitalized" only of the first meaning. The meaning used in the Fun Home quote seems to me to be 2b, "cold in temper or mood" — so it's appropriate for it to remain uncapitalized. I'm mentioning this in case you've made this correction in any other articles in which the meaning is metaphorical rather than literal — it seems that the capitalized "Arctic" is only used of the actual Arctic region, but when the word is used metaphorically it's acceptable to say "arctic" without capitalizing. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem — thanks for being understanding! In the sentence in question, the author is talking about the "arctic climate" of her family, as a way of describing her parents' emotional coolness and distance. I'm glad that you weren't just going through and changing all usages of "arctic" willy-nilly! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am SineBot you have outsmarted me. I will not violate the 3 (rules of robotics (otherwise known as 3RR)) What happens if SineBot forgets his sig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.236.33 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think that is possible because some of the editors are really hesitant about adding "Foamer" content onto the page. I don't like the four-image rule myself, but, what can you do? If you want to see more images, go to the Commons page, or to my gallery to check out some of my images. Thanks! User:Goodshoped35110s/Welcome Signature 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The template you nominated for Speedy Delete was configured to show the actual speedy tag on each page that it was on, and it also added each one of those pages to the speedy delete category page. I added noinclude to the tag so it would only show up on the candidates for speedy page, per criteria for template speedies. Pretty cool thing, actually.....;) Dreadstar † 05:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Good lord! I didn't even SEE that...oh, man, just shoot me now...lol... Dreadstar † 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a hilarious mistake on my part...<sigh>, I thanked the very helpful Auburnpilot for correcting my blunder..... Dreadstar † 07:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you nominated a few templates I created for speedy deletion. I've added the {{hangon}} template to them. I created these templates for a project to added detailed election results for the United States House elections, 1824 and other existing House election articles. I had to create them so the party names and party colors would render properly using the election box templates, due to the way those templates rely on the /meta/color and /meta/shortname templates. Each party /meta/color has a corresponding /meta/shortname. I used redirects for some of the /meta/color templates for those parties who share colors, but not names, such as Democratic-Republican Party, Adams-Clay Republican, Crawford Republican, and Jacksonian Republican and Federalist Party (United States) and its own Adams-Clay, Crawford, and Jacksonian derivatives. I am almost done with the first of the election article updates, and can start adding the information soon. If there is another way I should approach this, please let me know. Dcmacnut 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which? --MZMcBride 00:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I've just been dealing with a lot of lists lately. User:Madman generated those for me. It's a simple query of the database; if you have IRC, you can log on to #wikimedia-toolserver and find someone to run queries for you pretty easily; or ask Madman. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Thanks for your work on the Template. I have a concern however that the image looks like a sweet, and not really like a life preserver as it is supposed to? Also, I found an error in the SVG's XLM as well. Would you mind if I changed it back? Fosnez 02:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Thank you asking. Most editors just revert with a two-word reason in their edit summary. Yeah, you're right it does look like a sweet. I didn't realize it at the time, since I saw it mixed in with a bunch of other similar-styled icons (Nuvola), and it looked like it was suppose to at the time. By itself, however, it's a Cream Saver. The only issue I have with the current image, is that the outline on the inside is too thick. At it's full size, it looks good, but at smaller sizes it doesn't. Rocket000 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, I'll revert the change and fix the image tonight (I created it and have the orginal.. somwhere :-) Fosnez 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Today, I was denied access to Allmusic because they determined that they were getting too many hits from my IP address. I didn't know that can happen, but apparently it can. Chubbles 23:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, blocked for normal use. Which, over the past month and a half, was, I admit, quite high...I must have written about 150 articles. Chubbles 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed your comment at Wikipedia Talk:Template standardisation - I'd be interested in working with you to get the category templates worked out. The various CfD templates are in particular need of attention, but the others could use some help as well. Are you thinking a design similar to the {{ambox}} design or shall we be bold and make it up as we go along? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that took so long - somehow I got three edit conflicts in a row on my own talk page. Geez....

I'd go with Wikipedia:Category message boxes, simply because they're largely going to serve the same purpose as the article message boxes, with information about the content rather than directions for discussion of the content. I'll go ahead and make a skeleton version of the page based on what's at the article message box page.

As for design, we probably won't need the stackable feature of the ambox, since there's usually only one template message per category. The main issue will be color coding and making them all fit a similar design. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page is ready - or at least it exists now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Shopping in Dublin (Sarah777 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's User:Kurykh if you wanted to know. Goodshoepd35110s 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! ok :) Rocket000 04:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up and the objective comment (vs. a passionate "just delete!"). --Stux 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know! That comment was something else. But it still kinda sucks seeing a TfD and that guy's subsequent mindless, yet laughable comment, attached to something that one is attached to (even if it's a little template). Ah well there's all sorts in this world. FYI I've made the suggested changes to the two templates, even if they remain unused . (yes, I had to do that! ) Anywho, I'm guessing it doesn't change the TfD much, except maybe improve its chances of survival, so I'll just have to wait it out. --Stux 18:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this. I'm thinking about adding a link to it on the Requested articles page. Anything to add/delete? Chubbles 03:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'filter recent changes' feature seems to be catching a lot more of "<" "[" and " ' " after your changes. Are you sure you got all of those regex's right? (my regex foo is weak, otherwise I just wouldn't be openly questioning, I would be investigating) —Noah 06:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one of these two???

• \p(ro|or)n[- ]?(o|star)s?/ {{{I went ahead and flipped that backslash around}}}
  
• {{test\d?
  

—Noah 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page about proposed deletion of Boston sucks, but isn't there supposed to be a note on the redirect's talk page? JamesMLane t c 08:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was a little freaked out at first since everything was happening all at once, but that's how things go. That's one of the things I don't like about Wikipedia's deletion process, it has some tendency to get ugly; well personally I'm not a big fan since I think they're somewhat biased towards deletions (kind of a guilty till proven innocent), possibly leaving small fry articles up to the mercy of frivolous deletions (by no means am I referring to this nomination). That's just my theory. I was concerned about the livelihood of the template for a bit, but I knew waay back when I made these that due to their limited use, they might come under fire. But the discussion seems okay and I'm gonna stay a bit optimistic. As for the wink template, I think a while ago I considered making it the other way: (; but as you can see there's no way to invert the semicolon, making the wink look weird. For consistency it might be possible to just create the template and have it redirect to {{;)}}. Hmmm. It's not something I'm crazy about but it's an option. What do you think? Take it easy! --Stux 06:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Music Barnstar
		Awarded to Rocket000 for you exceptional contributions to music-related articles. Thanks for all you do. ♫ Cricket02 13:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rocket000. I'm alerting the editors who were involved with the Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 7#Adult-child sex (but may not know) that it is now a deletion debate. Since you were involved with the discussion for redirecting it, I felt that you may want to voice your thoughts on its deletion debate as well. I'll see you around. Flyer22 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I understand if you may be worn out on this debate, but once again I thought that you might want to know that the debate over this article is still going on. It is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 21:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've made some progress on the Current Event Icon Request, we'd be grateful if you would have a look > Rugby471 ^talk ⚔ 08:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power/archive1. You commented back when this article was up for deletion discussion, and I don't think you monitor the WikiProjects I posted this notice to. Your suggestions on any tips to get this article eventually to WP:FA, or if you think it is ready for WP:FAC or WP:GAC, would be most appreciated at the Peer Review. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Composers and songwriters. Thanks for all your help so far. Chubbles (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the Wiki article page when I put a hold for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs) 07:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [1]

I could be wrong but AFAICT Sinebot doesn't sign for people who don't sign their posts on any page more than a certain number of times. :-( Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems to be the case. Unfortunately. Rocket000 (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant 66: Richard Meier is a pritzker winning architect. This is his first and only restaurant that his firm has designed. This makes this project a notable Project.

Morimoto: Tadao Ando is a Pritzker winning architect. This is his first restaurant he designed and his first design in NYC. This makes this project notable.

As far as my history, yes I did make an article that was a bit promotional, however it was factual. Unfortunately it was deleted and I have as of yet to write one less bias.

Wikipedia is a good source for information and I appreciate mods protecting its integrity. However, users that have no clue of a subject should refrain from commenting on those subjects and requesting deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.195.168 (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry your article got deleted, but I think you have the wrong idea. "Notability" as it's commonly used on Wikipedia, doesn't mean important. It means "worthy of note", as in there are notes or references on the subject. I don't need to have a clue about any of what you just mentioned, the article had no references. Original research has no place on here. And even if it was factual and you provided links to verify it, there was no independent sources. Having third-party sources makes it notable, not your or my opinion. You're more than welcome to rewrite it with references to credible sources, however, please also take a look at WP:COI. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I notice you've been renaming a few of the BES pages that I've set up. Could you not have changed the links in some of the pages that linked to them while you were there? I'm sorry to sound a little shirty... EkeW (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I've done them now EkeW (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much! I actually haven't got that many - quite a few of them are joke Barnstars sent by Beatle editors. --andreasegde (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ever thought of adding your name to this? --andreasegde (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I just left it off when I put the pix up. I'm working on fixing it... Thanks. Trekphiler (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket000, thank you for taking care of Zlob Trojan article and PHSDL.

I understand the guideliness of Wikipedia and will try to establish WP:notability as soon as possible.

PHSDL is very important not just for me but Wikipedia and Internet users in general.

UnSpam project honey pot has a fllow in it and it is having a negative effect on Wikipedia through Akismet. If you check http://www.projecthoneypot.org/comment_spammer_urls.php you will see Wikipedia.org is flagged as Spam.

I already in two cases had Wikipedia.org url tagged as Spam. Once with SET and Vanessa. SEJ changed is filter to captcha after that.

Internet users cannot quote Wikipedia when submiting comments on bloges that are guarded with Akismet.

For me it is not about which project is better, but the consequenses of applicable technology.

PHSDL is a guard against Zlob Trojan malware redirect domains. UPH picks up all kind of Spam and has false positive if not checked with other test variables. PHSDL domains are alll editor checked.

I know you are doing your job, and I really appreciate it. I've seen you used friendly for notability.

If you can help me in anyway, it will be greatly appreciated. I also left a note for Jehochman to take a look at Akismet UnSpam project honey pot problem with regard to Wikipedia.

Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket000, thanks for the contribution, you make me proud to be a Wikipedian. Igor Berger (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to help :) Rocket000 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the guidance of Jehochman ^Talk I am building new SEO Consultants pages for Search_engine_optimization article, sub section Notable SEOs, Category:Search engine optimization consultants

• User:Igorberger/David Naylor let's do in this order.
• User:Igorberger/Michael Gray
• User:Igorberger/Andy Beard

I have done the ground work, but organizational and making it WP:notability in a proper way is not my strong point.

Also it would be good to have your objective view to the matter.

Please refer to User_talk:Igorberger#SEO_Consultants for additional information.

It is not an emmergency, so do it in your free time, Thank you Igor Berger (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will add additional information into the sandbox as I find it. Oh, and let's use my sandbox, if that is okay with you.

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For suggesting Friendly's new "tag grouping" feature. This is something that Friendly should have been doing all along, and thanks to your great idea, now it is! Kudos! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Regarding this edit, en dashes need an ampersand before them to render properly (–). Your edit just wrote "ndash;" in the infobox. Please be careful about this and make sure to preview your edits with AWB before saving them. Thanks --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 23:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean up on concept album. Most of those are newer edits, some which still need more work to flow with the article. in case you are curious this is what it looked like before I took it over http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concept_album&oldid=153579980 Ridernyc (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Palo colorado in PR refers to C. racemiflora and other species (eg Ternstroemia luquillensis) that are "red" (colorado).For that reason the name is not capitalized when it is describing the forest. At the species level it should be capitalized. Joelito (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All other Student's Union radio stations in the UK have a wikipedia page why shouldn't Radio Noize, the official radio station of the University of Wales, Newport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyRoberts1987 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, while the editor misspelled "Kazakh", it was in reference to this. Whether or not the character is ethnically Kazakh is another matter, but nonetheless. Octane ^{[improve me]} 06.12.07 1603 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your note regarding your conflict of interest policy. The reason why we attempted to update Wikipedia's entry on the North American Securities Administrators Association is because it contains inaccurate information. If the goal of Wikipedia is to provide users with accurate information, it would seem to make sense to allow those in a best position to know, in this case NASAA, to correct the inaccuracies of others. I look forward to hearing from you as to how we can both make sure that the infomation on Wikipedia is correct.

Thank you.

Bob Webster, Director of Communcations, North American Securities Administrators Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by NASAA (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I requested to have the image deleted but it's because I have decided that having one of my active identity documents available for the world to see is a bit too uncomfortable to bear, even though all the personal details were escrewed. Partly because it may open up opportunities to fraud and also since I'm travelling soon, there may be some red faces at customs if I had to explain why my residence permit is rather similar to an image available on Wikipedia, so similar that the dates of issue are identical :S ....so I've decided to avoid the possibility and requested to have the image brought down. Hopefully when I have no need of the permit in the future I will be able to upload the image again. ----龙★Ukdragon37★翔^talk 18:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

screw you

Man, I RfA nom you on Commons and you repay me by filling up a whole screen on my watchlist with this! :) Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how helpful it is when you do cleanup tasks like that. Just by adding links to the TO's, you highlighted two artists that were so obviously notable that I went and immediately wrote their articles. Cheers Chubbles (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of modesty, I should point out that my contributions are dwarfed by TUF-KAT, who used to work feverishly at RA. According to this, he's written over 3500 articles, nearly all about music. If you've edited in music on Wiki, you've edited a TUF-KAT created page. I'm just filling in the cracks. Chubbles (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GreyAlbum.gif. 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) 20:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of your edits turned all "<br>" into "<br />". Can you point me at a description of "br" that will describe what the difference is? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rocket000 I come for help one more time. Can you help me out to make Andy Beard notable per WikiPedia. Also your input here would be desired Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard#Andy_Beard Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to answer or add a question to this page. --Answer that One (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article I've Had Enough (The Who song), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of I've Had Enough (The Who song). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am curious to know why Image:Imperial_stormtrooper.jpg was deleted? I still don't quite know my way around image copyright policies yet so I'd like to learn. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That image was deleted because it was released under CC-BY-ND-2.0 which means the author does not allow derivatives. All images on Commons must allow others to create new works from them. (They also have to allow for commercial use.) Another problem is that photographer created a derivative themselves. That Star Wars character is copyrighted, so even if you took the photo yourself, it may not be allow anyway (although I wouldn't speedy it as it's kinda a gray area in copyright law). Somethings you just can't reproduce, that's why this Wikipedia allows fair use. I hope you understand. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are interested in message box standardisation. As you know we have now made the {{imbox}} and {{cambox}}. But before we can deploy these new message box standards we could need some more editors adding their opinions over at the talk pages of those meta-templates. And you might have some good points that we haven't thought of yet.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this and anyhow for truth will we ever be delete. The deletion makes sense because those two is overflow to Metric system. Most people vote to be delete, and when will we delete or finilize the debation. Will you at least vote?--Freewayguy (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they will be deleted. I don't see any opposes. You got to keep in mind, the deletion process on Commons is a lot slower than here, but don't worry, it will get taken care of soon. Rocket000 (talk)

You say soon; by how much longer, because usually they get delete between 7 and 11 days. Or did we change because we get more and more files every day, and we get more and more files to ask for file deletions. Or we change it now; now normal files waits at least 12 to 20 days. And you say those two might be delete.--Freewayguy (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One down. The other one has no votes besides yours, so give it a little more time. Rocket000 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; one at least is better than none.--Freewayguy (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't upset you too much, but I had to close the other as Kept. When it comes to images that are close but not exact duplicates, it is entirely up to the community. With two keeps and no deletes besides the nominator, there was little else I could do. No consensus also defaults in keep. Hope you understand. Rocket000 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Its okay; actually none of these 3 miages is exact copies. I do understand now; maybe because Commons is getting more and more populate and over times rules might change. I thought the DR now will not close until at least 14 days but the Commons say 7 days. Now when I ask uploader to upload the image I just have to be careful not to ask them to upload the image have been exist. I've ask Ltljltlj to upload more; but now he's not able to make many contribs maybe he's graduating from college, and havealot of test to study, so I will not bother him that much, I understand peoples all have lives other than Wiki; actually I agree about keeping the image, after time users mature a little bit.--Freewayguy (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sometimes people does delete articles impulsively puttig pink tag on articles and lack patience. Somebody on JA Wiki delte my article so fast (Jap version of Formation and evol of our solar system), without letting people make corrections, if the name is not right they can move it. I hate more whe popel just delete my articles on any Wiki lang.--Freewayguy (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. On January 22nd you tagged one of my images (Image:JarrahFence gobeirne.jpg) as a Featured Picture on Wikipedia. I know the image is featured on Commons, but I don't think it went through the featured-nomination process on Wikipedia. Just checking to see if you know something I don't, otherwise I'll remove that notice. Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I took care of this CfD and it appears a few of them were miscategorized. I added the FP template simply because if they were already marked "Wikipedia featured desktop backgrounds" it only makes sense they are FPs too. I caught a few this way, but I guess overlooked that one. Sorry about that. Rocket000 (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it on Commons. I guess the page could be deleted here now. Rocket000 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually why did you delete my old deletion project page, just by moving it to another project page. I just got too lazy to start a clean new white page, so I just white out the old one and start a new ones. About deletion questions, I see some images is not upload by admin, but they get delete so quickly for what. like File:Interstate 95 (Maryland).svg only went through less than 12 hours, and none of admins made it. OnWikinews, the article only gets 2 days before they get delete with orange or pink tag post. Why do articles on Wikinews needs to get delete so quickly, some I just made and spend my time making it and the next day is gone Why is that?--Freewayguy ^{Talk Contribs} 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also Image:I-215 (Utah).svg has also been opening deelteion debate too. County Lemonade copy exactly from another image. You can comment if you want.--Freewayguy ^{Talk Contribs} 00:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't reuse deletion pages for different images. You must make a new nomination. I hope you are aware of the "Nominate for deletion" link in the Commons sidebar. That makes it really easy and really fast to request deletion. I don't know why Wikinews deletes things so fast. I hardly ever venture out that way. I'll take a look at the request now. Rocket000 (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just now created an article on an Austrian artist by copy+pasting from my sandbox "User_talk:WeHaWoe/TestSite" where I had invited one guest to contribute. He agrees that /Testsite may be speedy deleted now it is published, to avoid useless stuff (his timestamp: 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)). Can you please do so? Or shall I put a Speedy request template there before? TX, WeHaWoe (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there comes a question with it ;)

Would I be allowed on enWP to "hide" my sandbox by not giving any link to it (as I did), or would such be very much depreciated here?--WeHaWoe (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I'm not an admin here. Only on Commons. :) You can't "hide" any wiki page, but of course you don't need to link to your sandbox if you don't want to. Rocket000 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that you're not an amin here. So, I'll do it by "speedy". Thanks. WeHaWoe (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to have a native English speaker to read+correct an article that two native German speakers wrote (one of them was me). What's the way to apply for such? When looking up "Babel...", I get hundreds of "hits", but most of the users would not be active for quite some time. Is there (I suppose, there is!) a better way.?!

Besides, I think that "proofreading" is not exactly the same thing as wanting to have a text purged from misspellings and may-be inappropriate terms. Right?

So, how to apply for such? The article in question is Karin Schäfer, facts are given+checked, our English is not. (Again: This is not to ask YOU to do such job, but to ask for the best way to apply to the community). Best, Wolfgang WeHaWoe (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On advice by user:Rama I try out Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Improving_on_probably_.3B.29_less-than-perfect_English now; unless you have a better idea, this conversation might be closed. ;) --WeHaWoe (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been busy. I took a look at it and it seems fine. Rocket000 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm very, very grateful for your work on {{Pre2}}, it's much appreciated!

Would you be available to help me more on it? I'll write what I'm thinking below, but if you don't have the time/energy/etc. to help, that's absolutely fine - you don't have to read it!

Firstly, about the fact that it doesn't work: It's because you can't put a template inside <pre> tags, or a {{{1}}} parameter either, it seems. So, what I'm thinking is this: option 1 is that there might be a way to avoid the problem, similar to the way that people have some sort of code to avoid using generating a ~~~~ signature; I can't remember exactly, but it involves "~~" + "~~" and I believe (don't quote me on this) that it's either in normal wiki templates, or with javascript.

So, it's possible something like that can be done, but my fall-back has now not worked at all, which really confused me. I tried a much more simple approach - reducing the template to the opening <pre style="{{{blah}}}"> tag. I thought that when people would use this template, they could still choose wrap or scroll, but the contents would be put between {{Pre2}} and </pre>. It seems that doesn't work at all, and in fact <pre> tags are funny in loads of ways in templates. It didn't work when, in my sandboxes, I used a template with the contents simply as "<pre>", just to see if the method would work. Starting a <pre> tag also means, it seems, that <onlyinclude> or <noinclude> tags don't work - they're simply rendered as contents of the <pre>. So I think this may be a very very very tricky one to get to work.

If the worst comes to the worst, {{pre2}} can just contain that style="{{{blah}}}" info. Trouble is, the template's getting ever less useful; it's been pointed out that the whole point of <pre> is to avoid word wrap; white-space : normal; can be used to give the same effects as the other aspects of <pre> do, I think (everything apart from no line breaks -- but of course it won't look like a <pre> looks like in Wikipedia). So I wonder if there's a way to just have a div with the class to make it look like a <pre> with each skin's customisation, but without having to go to the lengths with wrapping.

If this was fixed, it would be completely perfect for {{Pre2|scroll}} to generate scroll instead of {{Pre2|scroll=yes}} (same with wrap), and I'm not sure what {{Pre2}} without a parameter would generate - whether it would be more helpful for it to generate wrap by default.

Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - that's great, thanks; it's not really an important template so I don't think it's worth spending time doing really. Scroll could always be Pre3 or something. Take it easy, Drum guy (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah wow - the commons thing is perfect! That helps a hell of a lot - you are a genius! Drum guy (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, all I can say is that you are a genius. It actually works! Thanks for your help, Drum guy (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come some image like File:Interstate 240 (Oklahoma).svg and File:Interstate 95 (Maryland),svg, File:Interstate 8 (California).svg and File:Interstate 110 (California).svg needs to get delete so quickly, like once right after i put the pink tag, even though they don't get upload by admins, or somebody else upload the image and said its okay to delete?--Freewayguy ^{Discussions Show all changes} 02:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess the uploader said it's okay to delete them. Further discussion wasn't needed. Rocket000 (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I knew that, I wanted to avoid letting a vandal upload some weird image in its place. Thanks MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to leave a note regarding your contributions, they are indeed great so keep it up! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. Keep up your good work too. :) Rocket000 (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all the images like File:I-5 (Oregon.svg has been delete right away after blue tag automatic tempalte for scale-down images. Does this have to go through normal 8 days of discussion or Template:Duplicate don't need to. Because User:O have link me a Template:Duplicate on Commons when comes to a exact scale-down images. I wonder why Duplicate tempalte flag makes images delete so fast? I thoguht Commons deltion process is alot slower than on Wiki.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Marvin Franklin and I ran for U.S. Senate in 1986 in Hawaii and got 7,914 votes, do i rate a Wikipedia mention? I was 2nd in the GOP primary.

hey, you think you can go to the how to fix your signature discussion and help me please? i dont know how to use this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've seen your name on the project template and I permis myself to ask you help: I've just created a new portal Portal:Lyon and I would like to create the templates for the subways, trams, bus. They already exist on the french wikipedia of Lyon metro for example. would you accept to help me ? Thank you Lulu97417 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just blindly copied another WikiProject pages & links & renamed them. I did not know what to do about the log but copied it anyway. Since I am mostly inactive nowadays, feel free to find the bot/delete it as you deem fit. AshLin (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you said you'd like me choose a license for one of my images File:End of April 2-10.jpg but i'm not sure how. Samasnookerfan (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a goof on my part. I have no idea as to why that family was created as a genus article. I will investigate further and I will tell you when I find out why. As for the context, there is a discussion about the large scale creation of stubs that is going on now. I believe there is a discussion going on here [2] but the general idea before was that animals deserved articles, even if they were incredibly short. I am fixing theCircular_referenceing that you pointed out. They should all be fixed by Tuesday. Thanks, and don't hesitate to point out more of my slip ups! Tim1357 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rocket, cheers for redirecting synonyms to species articles. Can I ask you also add said synonym to the taxobox? It's usefull to have a list of old synonyms present when making new species articles (like I am doing most of the time). Furthermore, it might be usefull to have these listed for making wikipedia a good source for finding the current species name for archaic taxonomy (which is used in the Hampson plates I'm working on and the Lep. Indica that Shyamal was working on). On a related note: thanks for pointing out the "Lettered Sphinx" articled which was featured two times on wikipedia. I merged them as you might have noticed. A good example of why the work you're doing on creating the redirects is important! Thanks again. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's mainly why I was doing it - to avoid duplicate articles. I noticed a lot of people have been using these taxonomy databases (ITIS, EOL, etc) to create new articles. Unfortunately these sites don't care about the current status of the names. I guess seeing the word "valid" (i.e. available) doesn't help when people don't understand taxonomy. I normally don't enter every synonym in the taxobox. Most are useless to the common person. I also dislike listing common typos as synonyms. Not all of these are even technically synonyms since they were never published. I just ran into a genus recently that had 80+ synonyms. Listing all these in that little box just wouldn't work. On Commons, our solution was to make the synonyms box scroll (see the usage examples). This is about as much space it can take up without someone complaining. :) My main work is Commons but I try and sync up the classifications here if I can. Rocket000 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just recently enlighted about the function of these brackets.. I am not a taxonomy expert, but I like to think I'm learning. Untill recently I wasn't paying attention to them at all, but I will from now on. Cheers and thanks for all your help! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a wikimedia commons expert, could you do me a favor? I requested a move of Acylita_disticta.JPG to Acylita sanguifusa.jpg, because I gave the file the wrong name by accident. There is a message that a bot will do it, but is is taking forever! If you can help speed it up, that would be great! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bot stopped working on the 13th.[3] :( Rocket000 (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea how I can get it moved? Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only way is to upload it again under the new name and delete the old one. Admins did have the ability to rename files for a very short time but apparently it caused too many problems. Rocket000 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, we just got the ability to move images now! So,  Done. Rocket000 (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers man! Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What did this and the other ones do? ÷seresin 23:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, when I was looking at some older signposts, such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-08/Features and admins, the second parameter was not set so some of the links looked like ([[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/.../archive{{{2}}}|nom]]), i.e. not even making a red link. Rocket000 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, that script you posted at WT:Redirect#Visualizing redirects is great, I find it very useful. However i've notived that once a link has been visited it does not show up as green anymore.. could you show me how to modify the script so that once a redirect link is visited it changes to a different shade of green? The other customized CSS code that User:KimvdLinde posted used .mw-redirect:visited {color: #009900;} .. but I don't know how to integrate that into the .js script (I'm not good at coding), could you help me with this? Thanks. -- œ^™ 01:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have my browser set to never change the color of links so that's something I didn't think about. You can add the line:

highlightRedirects.addStylesheetRule('a.mw-redirect:visited', 'color:#009900');

directly under the other line that starts with highlightRedirects.addStylesheetRule... Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh great.. thank you. -- œ^™ 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocket000. I have left a long response on a comment you wrote some months ago, see File talk:Ambox content.png#Problem.

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For all your work on synonyms, images and classification

Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! =) Rocket000 (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Thats great! I will get to it next week. Don't forget to mention it on the wikiproject page.. Thanks for the hard work. Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is a lapsus in all other places? Not able to find a good source for this. Thanks for finding several spelling errors in the rest. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems to be a pretty common misspelling. See NHM and funet for some refs. Rocket000 (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think I will leave them on the list for now.. I like to see my progress myself too.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More to upload Hi Rocket, I've been working on your recent uploads in the Dioptinae subfamily (great find!). It seems there are more free images to upload though, see: http://tolweb.org/images/Dioptinae/138571 It seems there are images for just about every member of this subfamily. Amazing.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I was only looking through your tree on commons and didn't think to search for the files themselves.. Great work! Lets see if I can get this whole subfamily up on wikipedia.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep you updated, I made a page for the Dioptinae subfamily and made species pages for all Josiini species (since there where images for all of them). I made the genera pages for Dioptini and a hand full of species (the ones with images and two North-American ones). Let's hope the Dioptini will get uploaded to Tolweb too, because I would like to make all of them.. I noticed the images are available on another page too: http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?guide=Dioptinae&flags=HAS: But sadly, they claim they are copyrighted, although they are uploaded by the same person as on tolweb. There is a contact adress of mister Miller though.. jmiller@amnh.org Maybe we could ask him if we can use these images? But then we would need a commons permission thing (OTR?? something ticket) wouldn't we? Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he probably will upload them I guess. I'd be happy to ask him if he doesn't in the near future though. I might send you a concept email first if you don't mind, since you are more familiar with the limitations and conditions of Commons. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, is there any possibility to use photo's with a licence restricting use to wikipedia only? I have been in contact with the person behind the moths of canada (http://www.cbif.gc.ca/spp_pages/misc_moths/phps/mothindex_e.php) some time ago. He didn't object to the use of the images (which are nearly all Canadian Macro moths) on wikipedia, but his organisation cannot release their material under a creative commons licence. Maybe you would know of a solution? Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are right.. I found it somewhere else (the site that has all the pics, but is not creative commons licenced). I thought I'd cheat a little and upload it anyway (in anticipation of it being uploaded to tolweb in the future), but it seems it isn't the right picture anyway, so no need for the cheating. Feel free to remove it. Maybe the correct one will be uploaded to tolweb in the future.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! That list is going to take me forever.. :) Well, there are tons of free images on this site: http://www.forestryimages.org/browse/order.cfm?id=131 I uploaded a bunch, but there are still a lot left. On Flickr, I know one guy who is constantly uploading Lep pics, http://www.flickr.com/photos/dhobern/ But I guess you know him allready? I uploaded a pic of every species over a year ago, but I guess he must have uploaded tons more by know. He has them grouped by subfamily, but also by date, so that might prove helpfull if you want to check if we have the newer pics on commons Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I stumbled on that site before.. That is a lot of uploading and whats even worse: extracting work.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have listed this category for discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 23. (you created its predecessor Category:To do, The Who.) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Hearts Filthy Lesson cover (US).jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bob Seger - Against the Wind (Single).jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Rain (Manchester band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rain (Manchester band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]