Archives

/archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4

Sorry! Real life got to a point where I couldn't take WP seriously. Amerique^dialectics 06:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I am impressed and very pleased with your recent edits and changes to the UC Riverside page. Keep going! :-)

Cosecant 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you about the suggestions vs. real editors. And it's Wikipedia, you can't really get in anyone's way. I appreciate your edits. I do worry that bringing in the Royalists to the Parliamentarians here might be too much info, but I guess I'll see how the FAC reviewers feel about it. About the Jesuits, I've tried to flesh out the exact connection between the school and the church, which is through the school governance by having Jesuits at every level of organization. So I want to note that there is a board that runs the school, but Jesuits have some influence over that too. I know there's still lots to do on the history article, but I do cover the founding in detail because there was a bit of an edit war with users who felt 1634 needed to listed be the founding date. Thanks for your wishes with regard to the FAC. It seems there is a lot to do yet, so feel free to sink your teeth in where you can.--Patrick 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amerique, I believe that the U.S. News & World Reports figures are correct. I am pretty sure that the UCR magazine is only accounting for private donations and not taking in account the cumulation made from major private companies and community institutions. College Watch 18:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some discussion of this at Talk:University of California, Irvine#Endowment again. Gogo Dodo has replaced the US News figures across the UC campus articles with figures with UC references. I find it perplexing that US News would over-report UC endowments, as conceivably they would also get their information from the UC, but there doesn't seem to be another possible conclusion. No way has UCR's endowment shot up over 400% in less than a year. Amerique^dialectics

Also, the ref I listed from the UC Regents Office of the Treasurer provides a breakdown of the endowment consistent with the UCR magazine's account. [1] Amerique^dialectics 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. Congratulations! Best, Amerique^dialectics 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amerique! Thanks for following through on the WikiProject. I was about to push ahead with it, but real-life obligations and my own laziness got in the way. szyslak 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Amerique :) How have you been. Its been a long time. Do you remember me? You just popped up on my watchlist (dont ask me how or why. I dont even remember watchlisting you) and I thought I should drop by to say hi. So, Hi. :) Sarvagnya 16:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. I survived. I've survived nearly a year and a half now :). And guess, I've done reasonably well (atleast one serious FA contrib and a dozen or so dyks, a portal, many other non-trivial contribs and generally helping WP:Karnataka lead the Indian wikiproject pack). Did learn a few important things from you during our interactions which have held me in good stead. Of course, I can only ask that you dont draw conclusions based on the flamebits you might have seen strewn on my talk page when you dropped by. That is invariably only one part of the story :) I usually stay out of trouble, but sometimes trouble seems to come looking for me. :D. In the past one and a half years, I've watched several conflicts from the sidelines and been involved in a few myself and I must say your handling of the Belgaum thing was truly exceptional. Only regret is perhaps that you let go just as we turned a corner. I dont blame you for that, though. Hey.. hang on a while.. let me go find you a barnstar. Sarvagnya 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amerique:

Sorry to bug you, but I think you resolved the dispute with Coolceasar on the UC Hastings page very nicely. I now note Coolceasar has been making biased (who knows why) assertions against Hastings on the general UC page, editing the page so the Hastings is not considered a UC but only an affiliated institution. There is a long exchange back and forth between Cool Ceasar ands another Hastings grad (not me, I came in at the end), but I think the situation needs third-party input, somebody who didn't go to Hastings and can include their opinion on the evidence.

Thanks,

216.38.135.218 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your post on the UC talk page. (That debate was a year ago, btw, and probably had more to do with the personalities than with an editing issue. I am not even sure what the specific editing issue was about.) Amerique^dialectics 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of UCR Citrus Variety Collection, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.plantbiology.ucr.edu/about_us/?citrus_variety. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:A Gary Anderson Graduate School of Managment.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. --OrphanBot 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great userbox! I thought you might be interested in this edit I just removed: [2] (not sure what sock was used to insert this, though...) Amerique^dialectics 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found him: his only edit[3] Amerique^dialectics 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a little futzing with it; it's Szyslak's work. I'm not sure that's a sock, and it's not ST's usual ISP. Someone may just be trying to add legit info. Watch the IP and see what happens, though. [EDIT:] This doesn't seem very ST'ish. The NN removal was correct, but I don't think it's a sock at all. Ignore the preceding. I may have gone totally round the bend. --Dynaflow babble 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let me apologize for templating you there, but TW did it automatically for me. I hate to nominate this article for CSD, but it looks like the majority of the text was cut-and-pasted from the source that you gave, which is copyrighted. If you can can remove the copyrighted information or make an assertion of permission, I'll be happy to withdraw the speedy nomination. Cheers! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you're still working on it, so I withdrew the CSD and replaced both tags with an {{inuse}}. Sorry for the mix up. I definitely meant no offense! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as one of the people with a picture on Wikipedia:Facebook, figured you might be interested in knowing that it is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your 23 Nov 2007 edit of the Inland Empire (California) article. I couldn't believe what had happened to the article after my hiatus. DeeKenn (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I guess (s)he had it coming. Thanks again! DeeKenn (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just any FYI, but when you double moved Template:Los Angeles Sports to Template:Los Angeles and the Inland Empire Sports then Template:Greater Los Angeles Area Sports, you broke all of the inclusions of the original template. I fixed all of the articles only to realize that once I fixed the double redirect the inclusion worked fine (d'oh!). Anyways, everything is fixed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]