User talk:DR04/Archive 2

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 128.187.0.178 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Luna Santin 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding putting on the {{POV}} tag on Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney: based on my experiences with this article, if you are genuinely interested in obtaining movement and engagement with other editors toward improving the balance of the article, I suggest (and invite) you to establish a new talk section on the Governorship article suitably titled, and specify exactly what would or could be improved about the article, section by section, such that it can be turned into a research program and conversation with other editors. Otherwise, in my experience, some editor will remove the tag for lack of well stated reasons for keeping the tag present, and it becomes an argument about keeping the tag as opposed to a conversation or effort toward improving the balance of the article, or generating consensus about changes to be undertaken In the article. Because of the effort necessary to do that properly, I did not volunteer to move the tag. Bear in mind perhaps 50 to 100 editors dip into the article with some irregularity, 10 of whom are single-purpose accounts that only edit the Mitt Romney pages, and that ignores the many drive-by editors with IP addresses only. -- Yellowdesk 16:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Yellowdesk#Re: Romney Governorship POV tag, Talk:Mitt Romney#POV Tag, and Talk:Governorship of Mitt Romney#NPOV Tag for more information.

I was actually not disputing the neutrality. See above links for more info. I must admit, even though I'm a Barack Obama fan, I'm also a Mitt Romney fan and probably wouldn't be the one to throw up a NPOV dispute for my own reasons :). Chupper 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a mistake. Just that some of the editors on that page are jumpy and grumpy. -- Yellowdesk 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Next time, just move it into the person's user page and post a warning like {{Userfy warning}}. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 03:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF means that I assume the user just didn't know better. It'd be a little harsh on a newbie (although I know this user has been around for a while). Even if it's just another Myspace page, I'd warn the user before prodding. Xiner (talk, email) 03:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think you meant the redirect from article space...I'm not an admin, so...:) Xiner (talk, email) 03:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I saw your edit to Affirmation and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. We would be delighted to have you! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you let me know whether you're interested or not, please? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, OK. Aversion therapy is kinda horrible, I saw it being used in Latter Days (which is why I was so interested in your work on Homosexuality and LDS). See you around then! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I saw you posted to the Chicago Spire talk page that you have site plans & an example floor plan? Where did you get them from? Are they fair use? (no copyrights)? Or do you have permission to use them from the copyright holder? Either way, they would be a great addition to the article! Let me know. I can put in the copyright tags if you need help with that. If they are copyrighted we would need permission from the copyright holder. Thanks! Chupper 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Here are some that I just uploaded. If you can come up with a better copyright tag then let me know.--Kalmia 05:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:400 N LSD floor plans.jpg

Image:400 N LSD site plan.jpg

I've offered some comments, such as they are, on the architecture wikiproject peer review. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 01:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of an addendum to the review now if you'd like to take a look. Hey! what's that above? Plans! In the UK building plans remain the copyright of the architect unless they're released as press-pack images. You can however - do your own, based on the information you've got there - hand drawings might be nice. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Chupper, thank you for adopting me! (Jothelibrarian 10:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

Hi. Hope all's well with you! I've been working on a re-write of the article on the Bodleian Library, my former place of work! I've put the draft up on my userpage (Jothelibrarian). Any change you could take a look at it? I am sure there are tonnes of mistakes! The one that is most obvious to me is the truly hideous formatting of the footnotes at the bottom. I've read the sections on citation style in Wikipedia Help, but I still seem to have made a bit of a mess of them! Any suggestions would be most welcome. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jothelibrarian (talk • contribs) 23:24, 9 February 2007 UTC.

K, thanks. 66.216.226.200 04:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks so much for your comments on my draft. It's stupendously quiet at work at the moment, so i've been playing around with it a bit more. I've taken the plunge and duly uploaded it - now I wait for the chaos to start when people spot blunders I've missed! It's a bit scary, this 'instant publishing' lark... (Jothelibrarian 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

The article did not assert the notability of the subject, but, as it was obviously inherently linked with the Oxford libraries, I deemed it best to redirect. I couldn't find anything to redirect to, and so nominated it, with a request that it be made into a redirect. As the subject is covered in the article that the page now redirects to in more detail than it did originally, restoring the text would be a bad idea. J Milburn 21:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to? It is fine where it is, there is no need for it to have its own article. If someone was willing to write a lot about it, then yes, it can be placed in a new article. However, there isn't too much to be said, and as it is so linked to library in question, it may as well stay there. I understand it isn't quite the same, but we don't have seperate articles for Microsoft and Microsoft.com, despite the fact that both are notable. J Milburn 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Provide the usual verifiable third party reliable etc etc sources, and I have no objection to there being a seperate article, should there be enough written so that it would be impracticle to have it on the library article. However, if it is just going to be a stub, I think that working it into the library article would be the best option. J Milburn 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin! Don't feel bound by what I say- I am just offering my opinion. J Milburn 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't any knowledge of the subject either- I just think that if it did become an article, it would be a sub article, in the same way that The Cure discography is a sub page of The Cure. I mean, you wouldn't have a one line stub for the discography, would you? You would redirect it to The Cure, and contain the info there. Happy editing! J Milburn 22:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there - I did the redirect after assessing the page; the Oxford digital library article was just a one-line description, while the Bodleian Library article had a single paragraph. I didn't feel it was worth splitting out of the BL article as it was still barely a substub length, so I felt a redirect was best at this moment in time. If you want to turn it back into a stub then feel free, I have no strong feelings on the matter. Qwghlm 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Chupper! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off I agree that there needs to be a page for it. How hard have you looked on the internet for information on this area? I have found that it is an unincorporated area here [1], along with this others:

• Derinda Center, Illinois
• Massbach, Illinois
• Morseville, Illinois
• New Diggins, Illinois
• Rodden, Illinois
• Schapville, Illinois
• Willow, Illinois

All of these places in all actuality will need articles, but information about them will need to be found. Here is another link. [2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kranar drogin (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Can't believe I didn't sign my last one there, sheesh. Ok, well if you want to create stubs for all of those, you are more than welcome. Just let me know when you do so we can add them to the templates and stuff. I created the list up above as links there if you want to stub them. Also, I will be creating the township stubs for Cook County today since I see you are part of the Chicago project incase you wanted to fill them in more. Just keep an eye out there.--Kranar drogin 16:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

THere is nothing in here that states that you can not create the page for it. If you search the web hard enough, I am sure you will find someone who has done a paper on it or something, i have found some pretty amazing things on little known areas of Illinois. Other states give unincorporated villages their own articles, I don't see why Illinois can't do the same. --Kranar drogin 19:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Terraserver shows the USGS topographical map, Rodden is in the SE Subsection of Section 18 in Elizabeth Township. It doesn't look like much from the aerial photo, maybe an old railroad stop near the top of the grade, there can't be much to say about it. Create Rodden, Illinois as a redirect to Elizabeth Township and add the info there, then a Google search for Rodden should take readers to the township article. Wikipedia:Notability doesn't say much for localities, but a lot of pages get added and deleted here everyday. I'm a bit worried that the township articles might be considered non-notable considering the population of some of these. --Dual Freq 20:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

...is not expected! I've done a little re-editing, as when I went back to it I wasn't so happy with how the ODL stuff read, so I hope I've improved it and made it a little clearer. Thanks for your help with it! Jothelibrarian 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No Idea what you are refering to. I tried commenting on how much I liked the film and his role Not to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.34.190 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 February, 2007 (UTC).

don't apologise for the length of your response...you obviously take a lot more time than most on these issues, which is not only honorable but refreshing.

you've got many good points, and i've seen many incidents of large criticism sections, so i completely understand and agree. admittingly, i came to the article to check on the several recent criticism i had heard on Bono from fellow grad students, so i'm not someone who's spent any real amount of time working on the article. the articles i do work on tend to have more base issues to contend with (non-stop vandalism of Slavery and long biblical exegesis (with relentless bible verses that require hours to verify, even with online editions) on Christianity and Slavery), or the very long debate as to whether or not Ted Haggard should be labeled gay. The Bono article, on the other hand, is actually quite refreshing not only for its precision but also its brevity, and you and others have done quite a good job on it.

It's probably much better to err on the side of caution on criticism sections, and brevity seems like a great policy. If i can mention one observation about the criticism sections and how i use them not just as an editor but as a wikipedia reader--oftentimes a wiki article on a subject is the only place to find a succinct reference to criticisms heard elsewhere but laborious to find. it was only after checking the wiki article first and then opening 15 different tabs (firefox rocks) of articles about bono that i came to the conclusion that the bono article was lacking in criticism, and my fear is that the brevity in this particular case appeared tacitly as bias by ommission of what appears to be both diverse and considerable criticism of Bono.

caution is what led to me posting the idea of expanding the criticism section first on the discussion page before actually doing anything on the main article (one of my biggest frustrations with some of the other pages i've been working on, especially after days of arguing finally come to an agreement only to be repeated again after a new editor comes to the page.

thanks for the quick and thorough response. your work is more than appreciated (and probably mostly thankless). will wait a little longer to make the suggested changes (the heading of criticism with two different short paragraphs seems the best idea) mostly because it's a rare sunny day where i am and a walk in the park seems to be a fine idea. cheers, and thanks again.--Chalyres 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope; I always recommend a peer review for further improvement. I generally don't like to look over things for minute problems; I just like telling people if they're good or not :) DoomsDay349 02:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chicago Spire.jpg. The image description 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterkeith99 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Aw shucks! Well, you efforts have hardly been lame either. I’ve always wanted to develop the biographical aspects especially the under 20 years. One day soon I hope. Do you have U2 by U2? That would be my primary source when I get around to it. Check out the U2 article. I did major expansions of the Unforgettable Fire and Joshua Tree sections. Only two months ago, those sections were pathetic – just a list of singles and release dates. I was also responsible for all the quotation boxes. I think they could also be a useful tool on the Bono article if you can find some good quotes. Merbabu 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PS, you deserve a barnstar too for your work on the article - but, i fear giving you one would make us look some pathetic mutual admiration society, so consider yourself as having just received an invisible barnstart.--Merbabu 04:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah - i think you are talking about "Bono on Bono" (yup, interviewer is French). I;ve read that a couple of years ago - yeah, Bono rattles on. But, I was referering to a big colour coffee table-style book on the band called "U2 by U2". (by the band). Merbabu 04:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)