User talk:Davidwr/Archives/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Davidwr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Jimbo is God
Haha, opinions on wikispace don't belong on articles. According to articles, Jimbo is co-founder and not a religous figure. According to Wiki Space, he is sole founder, is a religous figure, and has 8 legs and giant angel/demon wings. =D<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Best spaghetti monster reference ever!<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Cylon
The article title is already disambiguated with "(Battlestar Galactica)" so there is no possible way a person seeking another type of Cylon would accidentally go to that page. The point of dab hatnotes is to lead the reader to the correct article. Just64helpin (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually after looking through the disambiguation page I see your point. Just64helpin (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A third opinion has been written and posted at User_talk:Wiki11790#WP:BLP. Happy editing! Atyndall93 | talk 11:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Some Things Never Change (disambiguation)
Okay. I had it G6'd because neither the Tim McGraw nor Sara Evans songs had actual pages (the Evans song was a redirect; given that it was a #26 hit that flamed out, it's very unlikely that a non-stub article could ever be written on it). The McGraw song, though a #7 hit, flamed out real fast too, and was just a blip on McGraw's radar as well, so there's probably not enough info for an article on it either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
tagging blps
Hi David, I posted a comment about your idea here. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Reorganization of Joe Barron Scandal sec and addition for balance at Prestonwood Baptist Church Page
Hi David, I wanted to let you know that I reorganized the Joe Barron Scandal section on the Prestonwood Baptist Church page, and added an additional opinion to balance out the one opinion that exist within that section. I felt that a separate headline and subheadlines were now needed on this section for clarity and readability. The content on this section, in order to make it balanced, not unduly censored, and informative needed to be expanded, and when that occurred, it subsequently needed the additional structure and separation from the rest of the History section. Everything in the section is cited, and I'm sure, both sides will find information that they would not like in the piece. It is for this reason that I'd like to ask you to consider keeping this section in place and balanced in it's content. I know that there are a few Pro-Prestonwood Baptist editors who edit out anything that is slightly negative towards the church. I am "Pro-Prestonwood" as well, but believe that a balanced, sourced, and informative section serves the purposes of Wiki and helps the church to be held accountable and remember the history that CAN guide their future.Romans9:11 (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
David,
Please keep an eye out for the vandalism that just took place and is noted above. These edits were unwarranted and give undue weight to this subject as previously discussed and agreed upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnb316 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
That was to Baby
Jeff is his son. But you handled the situation perfectly, no qualms with you David. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Andrew Johnson
what does it matter? maybe i searched andrew johnson knowing he was a POTUS so i could get that exact link..... WillC (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Talk:Lloyd John Ogilvie
Sorrt for that. It was a mistake. Thanks for your correction. :) Solar-Poseidon 11:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not edit closed AfDs. You may continue to edit that table at some other suitable location. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- We need to set up a centralized discussion page for these articles so that a user doesn't go happy nominating every single article individually. We can talk about merging the 27 or how to expand them, etc. --UWMSports (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio for my comments on that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll do it. I'll also remove the long list of mine when the transition is complete. --UWMSports (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to say you're doing a great job spearheading the Ohio HS effort. I know we disagree, but if you can improve those articles it would be great for Wikipedia. Goodluck! --UWMSports (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Image Placeholders
Hi, david. I'm getting conflicting messages about the use of image placeholders. According to a long (long, long) discussion in WP:Biography in April, it seems there is a new consensus against the use of them in infoboxes. I've only just found out about it because someone zipped through several of my pages and removed the placeholders. I was going through the bios on my watchlist and tidying them up -- including removing the placeholders -- only because I'd prefer to sit out a battle over something fairly minor. However, I am in agreement with you -- I don't mind them and they do serve a good purpose. So, I am not sure what to do about this. As far as an image for the Bil Keane page, I'll find one to upload and that should take care of that page -- at least regarding the image. CactusWriter 12:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Tongwynlais
Hello. I support semi-protecting Tongwynlais. It keeps getting vandalised by I suspect the same person. How do we go about this? harris 578 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hole in the wall
Thanks for info, but I've lost touch with that article, so have no comment one way or the other. Ty 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
BLP templates
In case the "noise" at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement#Abused_BLP_patrol is a bit much, I wanted to point out I created the templates you asked about at {{BLP Spec Article}} and {{BLP Spec Notice}}. Cheers. MBisanz talk 05:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed you. Yechiel (Shalom) 17:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I've added a PROD tag. There is no conflict of interest, by the way. I neither knew of her or of her business before visiting the Poole Athletic Club page today, where it was clear she or someone connected with her business was plugging it. From that I decided to look at her page. She is quite clearly non-notable and I am saddened it hasn't been put up in Articles Nominated for Deletion. Never mind. Hopefully no-one will contest the PROD in five days. 86.133.48.32 (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Davidwr/Archives ... My bad on the sloppy addition of the {{Oldprodfull}} tag to this article's talk page ... Too Many consecutive hours at the keyboard, I guess. :-)
Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 14:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Section 4.4 of PCUSA article
Hello;
I'll shortly provide a citation to clear up the date issue (2006 vs. 2008) on the original PCUSA/OIR statement. I'll also update the References section and reference numbers so that the original statement and the revision/expansion are both referenced, and in a way that makes sense. The current reference #21 is intended to link to the original document, but points to the revision/expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piranhabros (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Update: I cannot find a link to use for the citation, at least not one to the May, 2008 version of the document, which would show explicitly that the correct year the Interfaith Relations document is 2008, not 2006. The HTML page at http://www.pcusa.org/interfaith/vigilance.htm (used in Reference #21) has a download link for an Acrobat version (http://www.pcusa.org/interfaith/pdf/vigilance.pdf) of the HTML document. The PDF file has a date of June 2008 at the bottom. From this, one could infer that the prior (May) version of the document would have been May of 2008, not 2006. And as it happens, I know 2008 is correct from personal experience with the various organizations mentioned. But in any case, I'm probably happy to go with whatever resolution you might want for this issue. Piranhabros (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES talk 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Editing while high
I do have a history of constructive edits while high. Practically all my edits since day 1 have been while i'm stoned. I'm too busy to be on wikipedia when I'm not smoking weed. Got too many irons in the fire, ya know? i'm high as a kite right now in fact. JeanLatore (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- As pointed out on your user talk page and the failed AfD, as well as a walk through your contribution history, a significant number of those edits were not constructive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, you gotta take the good with the bad, my man. JeanLatore (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Before running for administrator again, your good:bad ratio needs to be at least 99:1 if not at least 999:1 for the past few thousand edits, with no seriously bad edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand. I believe most of my non-productive edits came in the first month of my participation. I think right now i'm probably at 99:1 over the last 500 edits. How would you rate it? Can you give me some specifics? JeanLatore (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Without taking the time to look tonight, I would suggest you look at your recent edits and see how many have been reverted within 48 hours. Also, if you've made more than 500 edits in the last month, don't stop at 500 edits, go back a full month. Seeing how many of your edits got reverted is a good starting point. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand. I believe most of my non-productive edits came in the first month of my participation. I think right now i'm probably at 99:1 over the last 500 edits. How would you rate it? Can you give me some specifics? JeanLatore (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Before running for administrator again, your good:bad ratio needs to be at least 99:1 if not at least 999:1 for the past few thousand edits, with no seriously bad edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, you gotta take the good with the bad, my man. JeanLatore (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
RFC
Good observation. I intended the list to give shape to the discussion rather than to limit it. What I really hoped to do was to give a process-level focus, since there's a serious worry of people trying to hijack the thing to rehear their own cases. DurovaCharge! 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Cardiff123098
98 % sure the above is using an IP address yet again while banned. See Tongwynlais --Snowded (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm willing to assume good faith unless a CHECKUSER proves otherwise or the editing style is uniquely distinctive. I've seen at least two different "local" cell-phone-company IP addresses edit this and related articles recently. It's possibly but unlikely that both are the same person, unless the person has a roaming data plan. Unless these edits become disruptive in their own right, I'm willing to treat them as if they were someone else, probably a new editor. Of course, edits which add unsourced or unencyclopedic material should be tagged as such and discussed or possibly reverted and discussed, just as it would be with any other article. If you want to initiate a checkuser, feel free to do so, but I doubt it will show anything unless there is something to tie this IP address back to a banned user. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well its an amazing coincidence that said IP inserts the same points he makes on the talk page. You are very good to him! I did my best over several comments before I gave up! --Snowded (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you?
Tag the other U.S. Open and PGA championship logos like you did for the '87 Open? Thanks! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
RE: Temporarily userfy Dominion of British West Florida
All history now located at User:Davidwr/Dominion of British West Florida. Just tag {{db-user}} when you're done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Better yet, drop me a note when you're finished so that I can move it back. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted. No problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
One of the changes somehow managed to hide about 30 votes. Likely accidentally, but I reverted back to before it happened. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You appear to have commented in the wrong section. Epbr123 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh! I was about to come here and tell you that I'd fixed the section for you. Acalamari 16:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, to both of you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A "new" article for Malik Obama----
is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weigh in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Writing error
You can't even type. How can you vote even count. "A penance, make nominator write Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion in calligraphy and sell the prints to raise money to fight illiteracy."
A penance, makes a nominator write Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion in calligraphy and sell the prints to raise money to fight illiteracy." 4.129.65.144 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing my defective keyboard to my attention. I will korrekt the errror. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Our America (disambiguation)
I have nominated Our America (disambiguation), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our America (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Our America (disambiguation)
There's no need to keep the dab anyway, since it only disambiguates to one page. Mind if I tag it for speedy per criterion G7 (only author requests deletion) since there's no real need to keep the dab around anyway? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
List of former Woolco locations
I don't think that a sourced list could ever be made for former Woolco locations, seeing as a.) the chain closed in 1982 in the U.S., and b.) there were THOUSANDS of them in the U.S., Canada, and the UK. This diff should give you an idea as to how much I removed — I did the same thing for a list of former Montgomery Ward locations that was almost entirely unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Stacey Dales stub bio
Why was the photo removed? Russpitt (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
My RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RFA, which closed a short while ago as a success. Also, I would like to thank you once again for switching to supporting me from your neutral stance. It was completely unexpected, and I appreciate it greatly. As I mentioned at the RFA, I will be taking it easy with the button usage, and will only be doing SNOW admin enforcements initially. Once I have the confidence, I will wield the mop with more power, but with (I hasten to add) even more care. Once again, thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
My RfA question
Hi. I answered your question at my RfA. If you want to list some fake usernames, that's fine, otherwise I can't really say how I would handle "borderline" names in future. It's all pretty relative and subjective! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Nick Copeman
The Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations - it also explains that he changed his name, but nowhere does it say that he uses the name "Nutter". Not only that, but try using both names on Google. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Wandsworth Parks Police
Hi sorry didn't see the duplication as the other duplicated part was in the larger body of text. 92.3.127.144 (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Christian Music
The references to the material was at the end. I shifted some around. Maybe this will make you happy. This is not original research to anyone who studied early Christianity and Paganism in the Roman empire. I doubt if there is a Roman historian who is not aware of this material. It is old hat. It may be new to you. But it is certainly not orginal. Most people just don't dig enough. They are just not THAT interested. Read Ramsay MacMullen's studies. This is his field of expertise. You must know Christmas comes from the Pagan holidays. When Pagans became Christian's they brought what they treasured with them. If this had not occurred Christianity probably would have died out because it was too austere and lacked appeal. Kazuba (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
DanceSport
Dear Davidwr:
Thank you for your message.
I am new to editing and so am interested to discuss these matters with you.
I am not sure what the etiquette is when one discusses such things so I will launch right in, with respect.
Do you have authority to mandate changes in texts posted on Wikipedia? or are your comments only personal opinions? If so, how would we settle any differences of opinion between you and me?
I would like to point out two things.
First, you made a clerical error by repeating "WDC" a second time when you meant "IDSF". I should like to correct that, if you don't mind.
Second, from your comments I am concerned that you do not understand DanceSport's position in the Olympic system. There has not been such a thing as a "demonstration sport" in the Olympic Games since 1992; the concept was abolished. IDSF is recognized fully and solely by the IOC as the sole representative. The IOC has recognized it as a sport, as of 1995, and recognized IDSF as the sole representative as of 1997.
Finally, why did you choose this point to reduce the length of the text on DanceSport? As the older text was lengthier and had apparently been up for some time.
I look forward to your responses.
Thank you.
DanceSportFriend (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen
Hello Davidwr,
I was hoping that you could spare a moment to add your opinion to a discussion taking place here. Talk:Ysgol_Gyfun_Rhydfelen It is only a short discussion and will only take a moment to read and to get into. Thanks for your help. Harris578 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Guess who is back
If you are up to it our old friend Cardiff of the numbers wants back in (but still has bad habits). See here --Snowded TALK 19:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Watchout4snakes!
I would like to congragulate you on your many sucesses. I've looked at your recent articles and it nearly blew me away! You can talk to me any time. --Watchout4snakes! (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
KAUG speedy
Thanks for the assist but 1) it's important that this discussion conclude with consensus so that the next hundred or so of these cleanup deletions goes smoothly and 2) if consensus goes against my intentions (which are based on policy, best practices, and ease of use) that the disambiguation page remain rather than a blind redirect to a name that matches neither the broadcast radio station nor the airport in question. - Dravecky (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Jordan Francis
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jordan Francis, 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.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:Banners for multiple wikiprojects
I didn't know that. I do it because it gives the page a "cleaner" look. I wouldn't mind, though, if someone reverted it. 'Tis cool :) Thanks for letting me know. Take Care and Have a Great Tuesday...NeutralHomer • Talk 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
chil dmarriage
i might be jumping the gun here, but will you bring up the possible objections on the talk page? Lihaas (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- That was part of the plan all along. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just saw that you recommended to User:David101jam that this article be merged into Choctaw. I think you were too kind -- the page really ought to be AfD'd, on several grounds: 1. Original research; 2. No sources were cited to support the genealogy nor its completeness; 3. the sources given suggest that the chieftanship was at least partially elective, so a hereditary line of succession is somewhat meaningless. It's pretty clear that this is a new editor interested in his own personal family and unfamiliar with our high encyclopedic standards. Doops | talk 23:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind -- I've just noticed the merge discussion and expressed myself there. Cheers, Doops | talk 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- You sent me mail about the "Choctaw Succession". My greatx6 grandfather was a chief, Thomas Leflore, and that's why I made this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David101jam (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand why you made this. The issues are of verifiability, original research, and notability. As written, there is no way for the reader to independently verify that the article is true. All significant content on Wikipedia must be previously published. Also, it must all be notable. The lack of other tribal ancestries being on Wikipedia indicates that there is a consensus that such things are not notable, OR that it simply hasn't come up before. This discussion is the place to debate whether tribal ancestries should be included in {{Order of Succession (Former Monarchies)}} or not, and by extension, whether they deserve articles of their own. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:Crystal Ball
I removed this text from Kendleton ISD: "the article also mentions the school could be closed if things don't improve. See WP:CRYSTAL for reasons NOT to include that in the article." - Actually as per WP:Crystal Ball it is acceptable to state this. "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analysis. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as movies and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." - Because the newspaper articles say KISD is threatened, it is appropriate for WP to say so.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
re: Beat Goes On / Get Stupid
Hi there. Sorry, but I dont feel either one of these is notable enough for an article. "Get Stupid" is not even a full song and any info regarding this can be placed in the Sticky & Sweet Tour article. - eo (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: Please restore List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions
I've restored the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note for posterity: Article is set to die under AfD after failed merger attempt. [discussion]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Barnstars 'R' U
| 100px | The Hidden Page Barnstar | |
- Barnstar respectfully declined on the grounds that I openly cheated and am therefore ineligible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, I admire your honesty. However, I demand no standards of not cheating. I restore it. Feel free to ignore, if honor prevents. :D TREKphiler hit me ♠ 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- To quote from a certain Wikipedia page: If you found my hidden page without cheating (or using cheats), get the award below: davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, I admire your honesty. However, I demand no standards of not cheating. I restore it. Feel free to ignore, if honor prevents. :D TREKphiler hit me ♠ 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Lackthereof
Thank you. Your apology means a lot to me. In a larger sense, the point isn't moot because we're both better for having been able to work with each other. Thank you for the experience. — X S G 01:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
New template
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I really like your {{Current change in status}}. It's very appropriate in these dour times. --Eastlaw (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Use it where you think it is appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
entity status template and Washington Mutual
I plan on removing your re-instatement of the "current change in status" template from the Washington Mutual article, but would prefer that you do so.
Descriptions of the various changes are in the lede of the article, in the info box at right, and described more fully in the body of the article as well, making the template redundant and superfluous. Even worse, it is now misleading. The multiple entities involved and multiple changes cannot be described simply as bankruptcy, which the template presently states, and it is far better for the reader to understand for herself the complicated nature of the transformations. The change readers are most interested in, the two savings banks, are emphatically not bankrupt, and they have completed their merger with JPMorgan Chase and have re-opened for business under new ownership.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Change the status to what best fits the current situation. I haven't been following the case that much to be honest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
AfD for Management assistant
Hi Davidwr. You wrote:
- Please consider withdrawing the AfD for Management Assistant until the merger discussion is at least 5 days old.
What is the procedure to withdraw an AfD? Tx. Bongomatic (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to be thick, but I don't understand your instructions
- just speedy-close it with "speedy keep/administrative withdrawal due to ongoing RfD" with a note that you plan on relisting it on some future date
- Is that a template or just a bullet comment? Bongomatic (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's more complicated than that. See Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure, Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions, Wikipedia:Speedy keep, Template:Afd top, and Template:Afd bottom. Would you like me to do the legwork and close it for you?
- The pertenent guideline is "Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well." from Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions.
- davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- How'd I do?Bongomatic (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent. I gave you incorrect advice on the reason for closure, I fixed it in both places. See you back on 10/1, assuming the merger discussion isn't still ongoing by then. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to be thick, but I don't understand your instructions
D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7
Hi there! :)
As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help with reviewing the article - I've corrected most of the problems that you outlined. I was also wondering if you could take a look at it once more, to check whether or not this article has passed FL status. Thanks --Flewis(talk) 14:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there, the article didn't pass FL. I've re-listed it for peer review and once the issues have been fixed, I will re-nominate. Thanks! --Flewis(talk) 08:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Talk:Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne#Explain_changes cf38talk 15:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow-- that's a big hypothetical. Of course such a list would be unwieldly. Ultimately, you're talking an indiscriminate list. That would be better served as a cat with many subcats. I don't know how you would sift the subcats. I suppose you would progress backward along genealogical lines. I don't know how far removed from the descendants of the current monarch you would want to wander. The line does not look to be in danger of going extinct. So I don't see any significance beyond a certain degree of plausibility that a person would actually succeed. I would say that anyone not a direct descendant of Queen Elisabeth or one of her sibs would be lacking in sufficient significance to be included. Bear in mind that I never thought about this until now, and I know nothing of royal succession beyond the fact that it can become quite messy.
How far removed from the Queen do we have verifiable information? I'll have to look more closely at the whole mess, which will take time. Dlohcierekim 20:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:BobAsprin.jpg
You deleted File:BobAsprin.jpg as "unused non-free image" at 09:45 24-October-2008. It was used on Robert Asprin until 10:14 the same day when it was removed because it was "a deleted image." Please restore the image and restore the use in the Robert Asprin article. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I hit the wrong deletion reason — the image was in fact deleted because it lacked a rationale explaining how it qualifes as fair use. I have restored it and redeleted it with the right reason. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the reason for deletion: According to the log, the image was on BoingBoing under the CC Share-alike license. The image is here on BoingBoing. Given that the author of that BB post, Cory Doctorow (and here and here), is the science-fiction writer and author of CONTENT: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright and the Future of the Future, it's very likely he is authorized to release the picture under that license if he isn't himself the photographer. As an image released under a free license, it is not a "fair use image." Please review this information and either restore it (and fix up Robert Asprin while you are at it) or clarify the reason why you believe the image is not free. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a sharealike license, it's a non-commercial license. Non-commercial licenses aren't allowed on Wikipedia (absent a valid fair use claim, and there isn't one). Stifle (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the reason for deletion: According to the log, the image was on BoingBoing under the CC Share-alike license. The image is here on BoingBoing. Given that the author of that BB post, Cory Doctorow (and here and here), is the science-fiction writer and author of CONTENT: Selected Essays on Technology, Creativity, Copyright and the Future of the Future, it's very likely he is authorized to release the picture under that license if he isn't himself the photographer. As an image released under a free license, it is not a "fair use image." Please review this information and either restore it (and fix up Robert Asprin while you are at it) or clarify the reason why you believe the image is not free. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Tehachapi High School
Just want to give you feedback, because I read on the discussion page what you were talking about and it cools like whoever started the Tehachapi High School page is exactly word for word by that first page you mentioned, if you read it and then read about Tehachapi High School. Just wanted to give you my feedback by reading that. If you look under the History page, you can see who started the page and tell them to rewrite it. If I can't think of anything else to write about Monroe, could I put a speedy deletion on the page also?--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- For high schools, you can either speedy-delete the article and immediately recreate it as at least a minimal stub, or do what I did and overwrite it with at least a minimal stub. You can also ask via WP:ANI that specific edits be deleted. There seems to be a consensus that every "normal" aka comprehensive high school that grants diplomas in the United States should have at least a stub. This isn't so important with 9-10th-only grade and other non-diploma granting high schools. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
UT Arlington
Sorry, I don't know much about the school's history. The name added by the IP address just lacked the ring of authenticity. I believe the last name it listed was "Manlove", which is about one step up from adding "gay" to an article. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and put Monroe High School on the same page that Tehachapi High School is on. I put a speedy delete for the Continuation High School pages. Don't know all of the California ones. If anyone does and lists them, then we can include Monroe. There's still a link to Continuation High School, if you click on High School when reading about Monroe. Just wanted to let you know, that is a better move for it.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Continuation High School Discussion
I went ahead and used {{db-author}} to have the pages speedy deleted except for Category: Continuation High schools in the United States and {{: Category: Continuation High schools in California]]. I feel like Category: Continuation High schools in the United States should be moved to [[:Category: Continuation High schools in California, but just my opinion. Let me know how to request a move for that to happen. Thanks.--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Template:Current change in status
Alright, I'll keep that in mind. I'm sorry I haven't notified you, I figured that you would've noticed the deletion nomination in your watchlist anyhow. --Conti|✉ 15:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Continuation High Schools
Got everything fixed now and I had what was Category: Continuation High schools in the United States moved to Category: Continuation High schools in California, which is a lot better because the schools listed are all California schools. You can look at it and let me know if you like it. Monroe High School is listed on the High School page for Kern County. I saw another continuation high school kind of like Monroe and it wasn't on a Continuation High School page for the county, it was on a High School page. It's some kind of school in San Diego. It's on the Continuation High schools in California, if you want to look at it. Hopefully you like the page. I requested a Speedy Delete for the other pages you mentioned we didn't need. I had the wrong kind of delete on there. So, with that, looks like the right kind of category is on the Monroe page now.--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Presbyterian Church Logo
Thank you for your thoughtful comments about vector graphics and your original interpretation of the image upload guidelines . I must suggest , though , that , in the future , you learn more about common practice before removing images on basis of it . Vector logos are acceptable ( and preferred ) as long as they are displayed at a reasonably low screen size or resolution . The standard infobox size is generally a good guideline for that . If you wish to learn more about acceptable logo inclusion practices , I advise that you view the pages for American Airlines , Bank of America , Boeing , Coca-Cola ,ConocoPhillips , ExxonMobil , IBM , Microsoft , Pepsi , the Unitarian Universalist Association , United Airlines , and US Airways . If you scroll down on the Wikipedia:Logos page , you may notice the Coca-Cola logo featured in vector form . Thank you for your concern . I'll put the logo back myself .