User talk:Pollinator/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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 →


Contents

Agronomy portal

Hi, you seem to be a quite active user on agricultural subjects. I would like your help in improving and expanding the the Agronomy portal, found at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Agronomy. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I think a lot of things need to be done, i.e. adding Agronomy news (e.g. from a XML newsfeed) etc. All red links in the portal should be filled with something more informative. Don't be afraid.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

You may be interested in participating in this vote. KHM03 15:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:Honeybee name change?

Hi Pollinator, Just wondering what you meant? I got Apis mellifica from the commons page on honey bees. --Fir0002 01:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've corrected the error on commons now - MPF 13:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

a request for assistance

I created a Christian apologetics area. I thought it would be helpful. It has precedence as there is a Mormon apologetics subject area. It needs to be Wikied up and made to look nicer. Also, please add content.

ken 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Pic of the Day

Hi Pollinator, Just to let you know that your Image:Anolemeal6127.JPG is due to make a reappearance as Pic of the Day tomorrow. I've reused the same caption as last time, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/August 24, 2005. -- Solipsist 21:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the award! It's now proudly displayed on my user page! KHM03 11:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Reversion abuse

Please read the talk page on the list of born-again Christians. WP needs an encyclopedic standard of evidence. In your reversion, you removed quite a few citations that I located to support the inclusion of names. Rather than create a gossip page with "as many names as possible", please find a citation for any names removed, add it as a link, and restore the name. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:16, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

I have no objection to your removal of a name you find erroneous. My objection is to the removal of multiple names because you have NOT taken the time to investigate. Many of them can be verified by a simple Google search, but, despite your claim, you obviously haven't bothered. This is borderline vandalism. This list is watched by several respected Wikipedia editors who do not allow "gossip" to stay, and do not deserve the work you are trying to dump on them. We have no desire to "pump up" anything. Pollinator 01:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Pollinator, for giving us a hand on the List of born-again Christian laypeople article. If only people like this guy would stick to eating lotuses! I'm feeling tired. But your help is so much appeciated. David Cannon 01:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Offnote

Pollinator, Funny about your dog circling....lol I have three dogs and never gave it much thought about that. Scott 10:26:27, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

New Orleans IS transforming into New Venice

Now why do you think it should be reverted? Can't you see how obvious the truth is? Global warming is only making hurricanes stronger every year so they'll have no choice but to build the city on stilts like Venice and Bangladesh, and rename it New Venice.

If you don't think so, then what will they do to prevent damage from a hurricane this strong next time??? I think the cost to restore the city is too great, wouldn't you say? Especially if it'll occur EVERY YEAR, as hurricanes get stronger & stronger (and they WILL).

Lulu again

Hi there! Would you object if I protected the List of born-again Christian laypeople page? It seems I can't do ANYTHING with it now, without Lulu threatening me (in his latest note on my talk page - he says he'll get the page locked and "other action might be appropriate too." What's your advice? David Cannon 11:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA support requested

Greetings: As you are aware of my work on various bee articles (Africanized bee, Top bar hive, etc.), I am soliciting your support in my request for Administrator status[1]. Thanks, - Leonard G. 15:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC Support

Pollinator. Not sure if you have been following, but please check out the "conversation" at Talk:Fruit#Stupid Fruit Facts. An anon has been persisting in deleting a statement he just does not like (will not correct it if wrong). When I advise him (on talk: pages) that one cannot just delete facts that were true becuse of a POV, he has attacked me. I did not enter the "offending" fact, and his responses seem increasingly irrational to me. His ISP is from somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area, so his accusations that I am some kind of typical Eurobashing, "racist" American are a real mystery (since he knows nothing about my sex, race, etc.). I finally blocked him after warnings, but his/her responses to discussing why he cannot do what he wants to seem over the wall. To do an RfC more than one editor has to be involved, which is fine with me as I really am only trying to uphold the civility of our rulkes and care less about Carrot Jam. - Marshman 23:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Insect picture links...

I saw your comment on removing the link. I considered removing it, but if you look at the license for the photos on the sight, they are released with something that looks compatible with GFDL to me (as opposed to some of the photos behind the other links). For someone who can identify the species the images might be useful in some of our articles, so I left it so that perhaps we could use it to upgrade other items. Wikibofh 04:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I would not be adverse to returning the link, if that page editor is willing to do a bit of cleanup. I realize that we aren't responsible for the content of sites we link to, but that was a bit too blatant an error for me - on a site that supposedly is all about insects. Pollinator 15:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Oatka_milk_8933.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oatka_milk_8933.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged imaged will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:27, 26 Sept 2005 (UTC)

Once again: All images I upload, unless otherwise noted, are mine. Pollinator 05:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you because another user pointed out the same problem with another image. I could not find a message saying that any image you upload is automatically GFDL. If you want to release all your images under the GFDL license (what I assume, given the copyright tag which you later applied to the image I flagged), please indicate that on your user page and tag any image which you upload with {{GFDL-self}}, otherwise it may be deleted. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for instructions. Cheers, Andrew pmk | Talk 19:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Awardbarn8466.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Awardbarn8466.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Arnie587 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Rfc

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay KHM03 12:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers

Pollinator, thanks for reverting all those spam links to that "Modern Apparel" site. I was going to do some of that myself, but when I saw how many of them there were, I just couldn't face it. Cheers, A bit iffy 09:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

picture label

Hi, Pollinaor; In going over the spider section, I noticed that your very fine photograph of a flower spider in the Misumena section is not (as labelled) Misumena vatia, but is instead Misumenoides aleatorius. The reddish chevron on the top of the abdomen is characteristic. M. vatia has a a clear back, but one to several red 'dashes' on the upper edge of the side of the abdomen when fully adult. Younger females have no abdominal markings at all. I'm not sure how to go about moving the photograph from Misumena to Misumenoides, myself - perhaps someone more knowledgable could take care of that. As a dabbler in macrophotography, I have some small idea of how difficult it is to get photos as good as yours - great work!

Thanks, my IDs with arachnids are always rather weak, but that's the nice thing about Wikipedia, in that someone can correct errors. I am only popping in right now, without much time, but when I have more leisure, I'll move it to the proper spot. Pollinator 20:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Cesareaphillipi2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cesareaphillipi2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. Thue | talk 11:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks

It is strangely touching to be awarded a whole barn! Thankyou! To be honest I wasn't sure anyone even noticed I was doing anything so it is gratifying to get some feedback. If you are interested in insect/plant relationships check out the brilliant HOSTS, for me the second best site on the web! Richard Barlow 09:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Dave, Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I want you to know that I love your Genesee photos. My father was born near Mt. Morris. I've only visited that area once, so it's good to return via lovely photographs. Also like your Callicarpa. Would that they set fruit that profusely each year. We share many common interests, so no doubt our paths will cross happily many times. Thank you for your hard work on topics that I want to know more about. Best, Nan

abdomen problem

I was wondering if you might do me a favor, if you've got a moment. For some time I've been trying to find someone who can fix a problem among the bug-related pages. The article abdomen refers specifically and entirely to the human abdomen, but many arthropod pages, including insect, spider, ant, and bee link to it. I don't have the expertise to do it, and such things creep me out a little anyway, but if you wouldn't mind writing a short simple article defining an arthropod abdomen I'd be very grateful. I'd be happy to go around and fix the links is the right page to change the links to existed. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support of my RfA, which I have formally withdrawn. The full text of my withdrawal and statement of appreciation is on the RfA page. Best wishes, Leonard G. 03:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Bluegrass stone wall

Enlarge

Hello! Every time I see the image of the bluegrass stone wall, I wonder where the picture was taken.

Do you remember the highway or where it was taken?--FloNight 16:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It was just north of Harrodsburg in front of a prison. The prison staff had been restoring the old wall to as near to original as they could. Pollinator 21:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, I know the location.--FloNight 01:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Black River (South Carolina)

Hello, sometime ago you added a fair bit of content to Black River (South Carolina). As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to created them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other places you learnt the information that you added to Black River (South Carolina)? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any items of information that you challenge, or you regard as unreliable? Is so, change it or, let's discuss it on the talk page.
But to put a blanket requirement to verify is over the line, and is an insult to an editor. I have reached an age, where I have collected a great amount of information; with, I'm sure, a high degree of accuracy, but sometimes from sources clear back to boyhood. I am not about to retrace all my steps to find all those sources. I only reference material I write for Wikipedia, if I feel that it is controversial and likely to be challenged.
If an editor puts "off the wall" edits on wikipedia, then they can be reverted or modified. But a writer with a long history here, and with a lot of good solid edits, should not be subject to the kind of insult you have just given. Pollinator 21:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I caused any offense, but it has been Wikipedia policy for some time that all entries should be referenced. - SimonP 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
It needs to be applied with common sense. On many topics I could throw in some references that would be of significantly lower quality than what I wrote. I've seen some ridiculous "reference wars" in some articles, simply because some take a rigid or even twisted approach on this. I usually just throw up my hands, sigh, and skip those articles.
One page I watch has long been dominated by an editor who meticulously references everything he puts on there, but he's put some things on it that are dead wrong, because his references are wrong. One "expert" quotes another, and is in turn quoted, until the version becomes the standard, but it was flawed from the beginning.
Take a look at a Wikipedia editor's past efforts and reputation before jumping on this bandwagon. Insulting and discouraging good long term editors is also a good way to lower the quality of Wikipedia. Pollinator 22:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I saw you just reverted vandalism on George W. Bush, and wondered what you thought about the proposals to curb what's going on there. If you have time, check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and weigh in (there's a bit of a large discussion page, so be prepared.) Hope to see you there. -Mysekurity (have you seen this?) 01:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Barn Barnstar

Hi Pollinator!
Thanks for the cool award! I'll try live up to the standards! --Fir0002 05:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism

I see you reverted "subtle vandalism" on the Charles Darwin page. It must be very subtle, 'cause I can't see it!

Just for future reference, can you explain this, so I can watch for it in future? Camillustalk|contribs 10:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A period was removed, so a sentence was left unpuctuated. Pollinator 16:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Color vs. Colour

Vandalism... the GIF that keeps on GIFing! Maybe you need 2 separate articles, GIF (US) and GIF (UK). Better yet, given that date formats can be customized through cookies or whatever, maybe they could show "color" or "colour" depending on the nationality? Although that might not be the best use of coding resources. :\ Wahkeenah 04:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Polygonum0772.JPG

Would I be correct in assuming from other comments on this page that Polygonum0772.JPG is GFDL, created by you? If so, could you tag it appropriately? Cheers --Pak21 15:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing the MainPage

Hello, Pollinator. You may want to edit this: Wikipedia:Today's second feature/December 11, 2005. Please be reminded that no red links should be placed on the MainPage. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

white county item

wondering why you removed the item in White County, TN concerning Yert! ???

I changed Calvary, which is the hill outside Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified, for Cavalry - mounted troops, which was the obvious intent here. Any other change was inadvertent. Sorry. Pollinator 03:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Christianity, tolerance, and equality

This is an article that was started (not by me!) in relation to Criticism of Christianity. When you have an opportunity, please take a look at it and give your take on the article talk page or make edits. I had redirected it to the "Criticism" page, but the original author didn't seem to care for that option. Any help would be great...thanks...KHM03 13:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Another image

Crunching through fair-use images, I see Image:Honeybee pollen basket 5233.jpg that you uploaded, which doesn't mention where it came from. If it's not a photo you took, we might want to ditch it in favor of some commons image (commons has lots of bee pics by now). Stan 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Lapinmies

I became aware of this user after he left a somewhat aggressive message on Doc glasgow's talk page; I immediately noticed that the user may be engaged in other overly aggressive behavior, anti-Semitism, and vandalism. I'm not asking for any action, but I might suggest this user be watched a bit. Thanks...KHM03 12:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"World's Worst Weed"?

Could you please comment on the discussion at User_talk:MPF#Cyperus rotundus and at my User_talk:Rickjpelleg#Cyperus_rotundus about "World's Worst Weed".

Is there any weed-expert wiki forum you would recommend for this discussion? TIA, RickP 19:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I pray you have a very merry Christmas and a truly blessed 2006. KHM03 19:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Babylon (disambiguation)

Hi Dave, Is it OK to ask you to please revert Babylon (disambiguation) to last good version? (I don't know other administrators, yet).

Happy Holidays, and TIA, RickP 08:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! RickP 18:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Category

Is the category "Pollinator" in place of "Pollination" in vain, or is there another reason? (in the bumblebee article)Gnome of Fury 19:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a new subcategory of Pollination to be more specific and to keep the pollination cat from becoming totally unweildy.Pollinator 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Bob Jones, Sr.

I did a touch up or two and invited the new editor to dialogue on the article talk page. He seems to have good intentions. KHM03 16:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fox hunting in the United States

I also am not familiar with fox hunting in the US but from what I know of other anglophilic pursuits and US hunting laws, the most practical way for it to occur would be as you describe: on clearly segregated private land. I'll keep an eye open and ask around as well, but I personally have met a number of safari hunters and serious fly fishermen (the sort who will travel to other countries to go fly fishing) and none has ever expressed even the vaguest interest in fox hunting. I sure hope I find something more interesting, but this seems to pretty much be a British thing, which is one reason I suspect the article would be happiest with a focus on British fox hunting.... Thanks for your help with this! Rorybowman 23:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mythology

I've put a suggestion at Talk:Mythology#A_suggestion on which I would appreciate your input. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Wooly aphid nymph 7573.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Wooly aphid nymph 7573.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrboltz (T | C) 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Born again

Please take a look at the discussion going on here when you have a chance. I'm trying to work with a new editor who doesn't seem like he wants to work with me, regarding a particular link. Any help is welcome...feel free to let me know if I've acted inappropriately. Thanks...KHM03 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I also have a question you might be able to answer at Talk:Born again. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Billy Graham

(moved anon comment to Talk:Billy Graham Pollinator 03:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Wheel bug 2223.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Wheel bug 2223.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mango ext links

Hi Pollinator - two of the ext links you restored at Mango are dead (maybe why they were removed before?), could you check in case the addresses are incorrect, please:

Thanks! - MPF 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pollinator: As a fellow editor of New York and Botany topics, I was wondering if you could give your opinion and suggestions for the continuing vandalism effecting Herkimer (village), New York by someone who claims to be the Herkimer historian. I don't want to bias your view, so just look at the various talk pages involved. Thanks much, Stepp-Wulf 04:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC).

WP:AIV report of Mexico vandalism

Hey there - I had a look at the URL you mentioned (using wget), and it appears to be a Last Measure website. As far as I can tell from an initial skimming, there wasn't anything viral - just lots of shock content, so hopefully your virus scanner will recover. I just thought you'd like to know that you aren't the first to be tricked into visiting such a website. :) Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 09:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Karst topography

I placed the reference tag at this article because there are not only no primary sources, but no sources/references at all. There's no controversy, my point was that there are Zero references for the article. Is it inappropriate to use that tag under such circumstances? I thought that's what it was for. I'll re-read the policy to be sure. I'm wanting to help improve referencing overall, so any comments/advice would be appreciated. Thanks. --DanielCD 12:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hickory

Nice pic, thanks! Any idea which species? I'm trying to identify it, but am being a bit hampered by there being only one small leaf in full view, so I can't tell if 5 leaflets is the norm or just on this small leaf. Can you remember if the other larger leaves had more leaflets, and if they were densely hairy below or not? And was the bark shaggy or tight? My best guess so far is Carya pallida (Sand Hickory) but would like more details if possible. - MPF 13:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

revert template?

Sorry to bother you, but I keep seeing things like Reverted edits by 152.22.0.254 (talk) to last version by Argyrios Saccopoulos. I see practically identical messages everywhere in page histories so I assume it's a template of some sort, but I can't find it on Wikipedia:Template_messages. I revert a ton of vandalism all the time, so I'd also like to know how to do it. Thanks!Argyrios 19:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

pollution

hi pollinator, i probably am more strongly against factory farming than you, but we have to keep this braod hub article on good scientific footing and be very objective. please provide any references to back up your assertion and i shall gladly support a clear plank in this article for the disservice of factory farms, best regards Anlace 06:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

New user

Please take a look at User:John1838 to see if it's all appropriate. Thanks...KHM03 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

5 Civilized Tribes

Hey, the reason I removed the South Carolina category from Five Civilized Tribes was because not all the tribes were from South Carolina. Why don't you just add the category to the individual tribes that were from there?--Cúchullain t / c 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Cleanup Pompey

Dear Pollinator, can you please explain in the discussion page why do you think Pompey needs cleanup? Thanks, muriel@pt 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That was easy! :) muriel@pt 12:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I just had a look in your contribs: i was curious about senior moment meant and boy!... Arent you having fun with vandals today! Good night and good luck! :) muriel@pt 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting permission to use image

Dear Sir, I'd like to request permission to use the image Aphids1533.JPG in the publication: Biology: A Course for 'O' Level Textbook (2nd edition). Details as follows: Image placement: inside page Image size: 1/8 A4

This is a price-controlled textbook produced by Marshall Cavendish International (Singapore) Private Limited, in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, Singapore.

Since this is an educational publication, we hope that you will consider granting use of the image. You would of course have full credit in the acknowledgements. Just let us know how you would like to be credited.

Thanks! Hope to hear from you soon. My email below.

Melanie Sim Editor Email: MelanieSim@sg.marshallcavendish.com

CS LEWIS

It's clear from the many complaints about you that you are censoring without due diligence. You removed the "whip lover" reference to CS Lewis without doing even a basic search on Google. For example, you can find from The New Yorker:

This loving and mother-deprived boy was sent to a series of nightmarish English boarding schools, where he was beaten and bullied and traumatized beyond even the normal expectations of English adolescence. Lewis’s own words about the places are practically Leninist. (One headmaster raced down the length of a room with his cane to beat a lower-middle-class boy, enraged by his social pretensions.) Lewis writes about his last school, Malvern, at such length, and with such horror—with far more intensity than he writes even about serving on the Western Front—that it’s clear that the trauma, coming at a time of sexual awakening, was deep and lasting. It seems to have had the usual result: Lewis developed and craved what even his Christian biographer, Jacobs, calls “mildly sadomasochistic fantasies”; in letters to a (homosexual) friend, he named the women he’d like to spank, and for a time signed his private letters “Philomastix”—“whip-lover.”

You should do more research before sullying my first contribution so willy-nilly.

And, here too:

Consider he signed his private letters during his boarding school days as “Philomastix” – meaning “whip lover.”

And here too:

... regardless of the facts that he was married for four years and before that lived with another woman for nearly 30, or that his letters to his lifelong friend Arthur Greaves discuss both masturbation and sadomasochism.

Sir, your zeal to delete such "scandalous" references is disturbing. Whether or not you are an apologist or simply a poorly informed censor is unclear. I will most certainly review your other presumably biased edits, revisions, and posts. It is sad to see that Wikipedia relies on either such biased, ill-informed, or lazy lictors such as yourself. [User:Lokiloki|Lokiloki]] 08:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the vandalism patrol's job to research controversial statements. Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Otherwise you'll find my response at Talk:C. S. Lewis. Pollinator 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
One cannot libel the dead. But there isn't even any libel given the abundance of evidence in his personal letters. Since these are not online, and since you won't accept "secondary" sources such as The New Yorker (strange, given their infamous due diligence), what am I supposed to do? Scan the letters for you? Lokiloki 19:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Tonawanda_mill_dam_8928.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tonawanda_mill_dam_8928.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.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Question on Fox Hunting in the US

Hello, I was wondering where you got your information for the discussion of fox hunting in the United States (for the Fox Hunting article). I saw that there were two contradicting different sets of information, and I wanted to research both. If you could tell me where you got your information from, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for you time, and have a nice day. -ep

Response at Talk:Fox hunting. Thanks. Pollinator 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Weather

Historic Weather in the US is a perfertly good and useful category. What I see is that the items are listed twice in this category: once directly and then once thru the Hurricane sub-category or the Tornado sub-catetory. Is there any reason for these to be listed twice in this way? I understood this was frowned on in Wiki land. Thanks Hmains 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Response - see Category talk:Historic weather events in the United States. Thanks. Pollinator 17:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What on earth?

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed undone by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot2 15:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Pollinator 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bat

I labeled the link as spam. I should have labeled it as "original research" - also a violation of policy. The link may have good information, but it's not subject to peer review or any editorial control. As a result, it just doesn't belong here.Rklawton 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Alternative medicine

Someone is trying to put Category:Alternative medicine into Category:Pseudoscience. I believe it is highly misleading to make this generalization. Perhaps you would like to weigh in with your comments. Dforest 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

watermelon

I have added a section called "regional trivia". It requires cleanup, but it looks a suitable identifier to me.alex 15:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move for RCC

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 13:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: your comment on mediation cabal page

Pollinator, I'm really blown away by your comment on the Mediation Cabal page. I have addressed that claim over and over and over. This goes to show you exactly why we need mediation. The naming conventions allow no room for claims of "moral rights" to a certain name. They require that we abide strictly by the objective criteria of most-common-usage. The most common usage of "Catholic Church" refers to that Church of which the Pope is head. "Catholic Church" is more commonly used to refer to that Church than is "Roman Catholic Church". Case closed. There are precedents for this. See Church of Christ, United Church of Christ, Church of Christ (Mormonism, International Churches of Christ, etc. If there were a political party officially called "The Best Party", then our article would be The Best Party regardless of other parties' claims to be "the best". Why should Catholic Church be treated any differently? --Hyphen5 01:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you already said that...how many times now? You asked for our opinions. You got them. You can't force a change by browbeating. Enough already. Pollinator 03:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I saw your further comment on Mediation Cabal. Harassment? It seems that you are having a temper tantrum because somebody dares to disagree with you. I am amused by your side's new attitude of: "we don't have to explain ourselves. we just vote!" It's kind of like: "I'm taking my ball and going home!" Of course, you don't even try to respond to my arguments. You never have. I am making a substantive argument and you just want to shut me up instead of responding. Truly unbelievable. --Hyphen5 14:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from user page

So... did you even look at the link I placed on the light pollution page and decide it was irrelevant... or did you just remove it because I posted it there? The link I posted is VERY relevant to light pollution and is a recognized source of light pollution information. It ranks highly by Google, MSN & Yahoo... and is linked to by The International Dark Sky Association. Just because I am a commercial entity does NOT reduce the value of my posts.

As for commercial links... checkout the astronomy page... there are links to a number of commercial / for profit entities. Bad astronomy, space.com, astronomy magazine, sky & telescope, Meade Telescopes, Vega Bray (for profit B&B), Celestron, Televue, . Other big names (with links and even logos) IBM, Microsoft, Ford, General Electric, Harley Davidson. So... if you have a no commercial entities rule... enforce it for everybody. If not... give me a break and leave me alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.130.239.5 (talk • contribs).

Part of my Wikipedia administrator activity is vandal and spam patrol; it is nothing personal against you. Actually your site is a very nice one. But Wikipedia has a rule against adding links to your personal site(s). Using my own judgement, I have stretched that, at times, when a site is very informative AND provides that information free of charge. However, when there is advertising on the site, the site owner is actually using Wikipedia for free advertising. In my book, the combination of a personal link plus commercial advertising - is an automatic disqualifier. I will continue to remove such links as I find them. If there are such links on other pages, they simply haven't been noticed, so I thank you for calling attention to them. Pollinator 18:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Bufo image

The image at Bufo_6759.jpg is not a Bufo species at all, its likely Hyla versicolor or possibly Hyla chrysoscelis. -Dawson 02:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

please do not use your personal bias as a basis for reverting factual edits

President Reagan did NOT kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in Philadelphia, MS... he spoke at the Neshoba County Fair in MS in August 1980, but 1)it was not his kick-off (his kick-off was in New Jersey over Labor Day weekend, with the Statue of Liberty as his backdrop) and 2) although Philadelphia is in Neshoba County, the fairgrounds, where Reagan spoke, are several miles away

Reagan won 49 of 50 states in his reelection campaign vs. Mondale... that is a landslide

There is simply not valid evidence to substantiate a claim that Reagan's tax policies resulted in a loss of "huge" amounts of tax revenues (because a left-wing author wrote a book to discredit Reagan, doesn't make the book true)

The fact is that income tax revenues doubled during the Reagan years, from $517 - $1032 billion.

Regarding the claim that Reaganomics was unsuccessful in stimulating the economy, consider:

GNP 1-1-81 3084.1 billion GNP 1-1-89 5390.9

Increase during Reagan administration: 2306.9 74.8%

GNP 1-1-93 6580.0 GNP 1-1-01 10.060.2

Increase during Clinton administration: 3480.2 52.9%

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GNP.txt


Again, your personal bias is not sufficient to revert valid edits

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rory096" (comments by User:71.147.6.185) added by Pollinator 10:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I admit I should have looked this one over more carefully before reverting. But User 71.147.6.185, you would gain credibility if you would sign in. Most of the periodic vandalism that occurs on this and similar pages comes from anon users, and we administrators on vandalism patrol tend to home in on anon edits. Sometimes it becomes a race to keep ahead of the annoying group of brats and malcontents that live here anonymously. Oh, well. It's time for some shut-eye. Life will get better afterwards. Further, you should sign your posts on talk pages. Pollinator 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


Clown

Hi!

In the Wiki clown article you seem adamant about not replacing "his", "him" "her" or hers" with "them", "their" or "theirs" .

It's been awhile since college but doesn't "their" (as it's being used) work correctly?

Please explain as I want to use the most non-gender specific terminology but don't want to go on making the same grammatical errors.

Thanks, Cashincomedy

Hi,
You are jumping from singular to plural in mid-sentence. As I noted earlier, there are other ways to correct the grammar. For example you could make the subject plural. Pollinator 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Shield

hey,

i just wanted to ask you why did u delete my change in the article canadian shield about the adirondack mountains being an extension of the shield. Wouldn't it be useful for a person who is totally unaware of the shields? Thx :P Ax2kool

As noted in the edit summary, that is stated in the line before, so it is redundant. Furthermore, you said it's been recently discovered, which is not true. It's been known for a very long time. Pollinator 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Cell contents 3506.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cell contents 3506.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 03:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is your bot tagging my images?

My images are clearly indicated as GFDL. Pollinator 03:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to your recent uploads of Image:Cell contents 3506.jpg, Image:New nest 3485.jpg, Image:Gathering mud 3552.jpg, Image:Syrphid with pollen 6506.JPG, and Image:Honeybee pollen 1165.jpg? That's because it's not in the standard form. To make it easy to identify what license an image is under, we've got a set of standardized templates to use: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. In the case of a GFDL license for an image you've created yourself, the template would be {{GFDL-self}}. --Carnildo 04:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:68.98.140.137

I unblocked the ip as User:Flarn2005 (a trustworthy looking user) stated it was a sibling that was vandalizing and has since been lectured for it, I hope its ok with you -- Tawker 03:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominionist org cat

The following groups are all identified as dominionist by both Soldiers of Christ II published May 2005 in Harpers By Chris Hedges and The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party at TheocracyWatch.org and others: Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Free Congress Foundation, National Religious Broadcasters, Southern Baptist Convention. Noting what significant and credible observers of the intersecting of politics and religion say about these groups is hardly "pov." FeloniousMonk 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can just as easily argue that deleting well-cited categories is blatant POV pushing too. I'm willing to work with you in selecting a name for the category that you'll find acceptable, but you just repeatedly deleting categories strongly supported by significant and reputable sources is not going to resolve the impasse. The ball is in your court now. FeloniousMonk 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
They aren't "significant and reputable sources. The sources are promoting a definite POV. And it's not well cited either. Quote their accusations in the article, if you wish, but you take their POV when you assign a category. Pollinator 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Pollinator, read the conclusion that the arbitration committee reached on a case about categories. case I think it applies in this situation. We, the editors, don't find the truth. We put verifiable facts we find from various reliable sources in the article. Then we categorize so readers can find the information. Putting the article in a category does not declare a fact. It is a navigational tool that reader use to find information. I think the arbitration committee used good thinking in that case and we should apply it here. FloNight talk 03:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your vote in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 15 might be in the wrong place

Hiya. Your vote: "Delete as well as the blatant POV pushing categories associated. It's one thing to mention in an article that someone is accused of dominism (always by the left), but to put a group in a list of "domininst ogranizations, based on a fringe accusation, is so POV that I can't believe it's being proposed." was actually recorded against {{db-web}} not Template:Dominionism. I think you may have accidentally put this vote into the wrong section. May I suggest moving it to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 13#Template:Dominionism instead? Thanks! GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Links in Typography article not link spam

Dear Sir, the links you recently removed from the Typography article are not link spam, viz—

Typo.cz - information on Central European typography and typesetting

Not a commercial vending site. It's a journal on typography.

MagTypo.cz - An inspiring European bi-monthly magazine on typography, graphic design and visual communication

A European online magazine dedicated to the study and practice of typography. It is not a commercial vending site, but could not survive without commercial sponsorship.

Web Typography

Not a commercial site either. It has a few links on it to commercial typography-related sites, but so does virtually every non-commercial typography site, simply to help them stay online.

Typography for headlines A collection of great examples of creative uses of typography for article headlines.

This is a combination web design/photography blog plus online portfolio of the site owner. A borderline case.

Macro-Typography: A Style Guide

Combination of guide to web typography with a "consulting page". Borderline between commercial/non-commercial.

Typographica—a daily journal of typography

Did you read my description of what Typographica is? It's a daily journal/blog on typography. It has commercial sponsors, but otherwise is not a commercial site. Contributors to Typographica would like to upbraid you for leaving them out of the external links list of the Typography article.

Typophile—the focal point and meeting place for typography & typographers

Similar story to Typographica. Typophile is not a commercial site. Far from it. It is a collection of discussion forums on typography, type design and graphic design.

Please stop indiscriminantly removing external links from Typography and its related articles ad hoc without first clicking the links to ascertain what kind of sites they lead to. If you think a site may be commercial but you're not sure, please ask me (I'm an accomplished typographer and type designer with substantial knowledge of the industry). Kindly wake up to yourself.

Thankyou Arbo 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wide awake, Arbo. There are people making a lot of money off Wikipedia. If the link is to a page that goes to a site that is selling something the link is going to be removed. Period. I checked every site that I removed.
Unfortunately that leads to the loss of some good material. But Wikipedia is all about being FREE. It is not a medium for advertising. If you are not happy argue your point to change the policy. Pollinator 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm wide awake, Arbo. There are people making a lot of money off Wikipedia. If the link is to a page that goes to a site that is selling something, the link is going to be removed. Period. I checked every site that I removed.
Unfortunately that leads to the loss of some good material. But Wikipedia is all about being FREE. It is not a medium for advertising. If you are not happy, argue your point to change the policy. Placing commercial links back on the page will be treated as vandalism. Pollinator 13:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not that simple, and you are oversimplifying it. Your interpretation of what constitutes commercial links is narrow and unrealistic.
Unfortunately that leads to the loss of some good material.
That's not realistic.
If the link is to a page that goes to a site that is selling something, the link is going to be removed. Period.
That is the most unbelievably narrow view of commercial versus free entities on the internet I've come across. How many degrees of separation from commerciality are considered link spam?
If you are not happy, argue your point to change the policy. Placing commercial links back on the page will be treated as vandalism.
Vandalism? C'mon. First you called it link spam, now you're painting it black by labelling it vandalism. Where are the Wikipedia policy or guidelines that define these kinds of external links as vandalism? Please show me.
Wikipedia is all about being FREE.
Wikipedia is all about making knowledge free, and Wikipedia itself is sponsored by commercial enterprises. I realize that is not an open invitation for commercial concerns to advertise on Wikipedia, or obtain web traffic from links to their websites, but that is not the point of linking to sites like Typographica, Typophile and Typo.cz. They are knowledge sites which could not exist without sponsorship.
Arbo 17:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I haven't seen any locaton where you are pursuing a change in policy. You only restored the commercial links. As noted above, this is a type of vandalism. Note that someone else saw the opportunity and also restored another commercial link. Well the links are coming back off, in compliance with Wikipedia policy.
I am not unsympathetic to your position, however, before they can be included, there must be consensus, and clear guidelines, of what basis to judge when the content of an external site justifies the violation of the general Wikipedia policy of no advertising. Please let me know where and how you are pursuing this new definition of the proper use of links to commercial sites. If you succeed, I'll return them, or allow you to do so. Thanks. Pollinator 02:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to spare to get involved in administrative or bureaucratic goings-on.

The basic problem with your "policy" on links to sites containing links to commercial websites is this: Wikipedia is full of such links, as well as direct links to commercial websites. For example, in the Typography article there is a link to Planet Typography, a website with links to commercial websites. Many of the related articles on Typography such as Font, Typesetting, Desktop Publishing, Printing, List of typographic features, Graphic Design...also have these kinds of links. I could go on and on, listing thousands of articles in Wikipedia that defy your interpretation of link spam.

"You only restored the commercial links. As noted above, this is a type of vandalism. Note that someone else saw the opportunity and also restored another commercial link. Well the links are coming back off, in compliance with Wikipedia policy."

Can you please show me the official policy page where link spam is defined this way?

Arbo 09:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well? You haven't answered my question above. Your definition of linkspam does not tally with the content of a vast number of Wikipedia articles. Your actions on linkspam are inconsistent.
Take care, Arbo 18:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I DID try to discuss it with you, also offered you a solution, but you responded angrily with a personal attack. At that point the discussion was over. In fact it could be seen as evidence that you were indeed spamming - that your pocketbook was affected. You were fortunate that you weren't blocked - if you had not had a record of good edits you would have been. If you want to be a good WikiCitizen, I'm ready for discussion anytime. Pollinator 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Also see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam
Sir, I have refactored my comments to be more civil, to show you I am perfectly capable of polite discussion and acknowledge the need and value of it on talk pages.
"...also offered you a solution,..."
Can you understand that some Wikipedians (eg: myself) do not have the time or inclination to get involved in Wikipedia politics and policy? That's why I did not take up your solution. It is not practical for me. Meanwhile I have raised the issue of the inconsistency of your actions on linkspam, but you have not yet responded to that.
"...you responded angrily with a personal attack..."
I got frustrated because of your inflexible attitude and actions, which are baffling due to their inconsistency. This part here in itself is not a personal attack on you. It's a reflection. Also, my liberal use of quoting is not a form of personal intimidation. I only quote to be specific and reduce the chance of being misinterpreted. So I ask you—for the third time—are you going to remove the external links to Typophile, Typo.cz et al, present in the articles mentioned above? If not, I hope you can understand why I percieve your actions on linkspam to be inconsistent: you have removed external links to certain sites from the Typography article, but not from other articles.
Please respond to this question.
"...At that point the discussion was over...."
It would have helped if you had informed me of that instead of saying nothing.
"...In fact it could be seen as evidence that you were indeed spamming - that your pocketbook was affected...."
That would be quite a twist. It could be seen that way, but that interpretation would be wrong. My pocketbook has nothing to do with this.
"...Also see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam..."
Thankyou. That was the information I asked for. Sorry I asked in an uncivil manner. If you could be less curmudgeonly maybe other Wikipedians would not get so frustrated with you.
Arbo 05:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Change at Elba, New York

  • I have two maps (including the one of the Elba web page} showing Oak Orchard Creek flowing through the southeast corner of the village. Stepp-Wulf 02:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

bumblebee pollination

Hi Pollinator

I'd like to have a discussion with you re bumblebee pollination via email if you are agreeable.

regards

Richard Proctor

bombus@clear.net.nz

Nutrition

Hi there,

I've noticed that you deleted links to the calorie king web site from the Nutrition page. I added these links as Calorieking.com.au has a unique food database which seems to have most australian foods in it (and their american site purports to have over 45,000 foods). As a customer of calorieking.com.au I find their database invaluable, as most of the food databases on the internet are the same recycled 'USDA' database. Use of the food database part of the site appears to be free of charge and free of advertising. Anyway, just a heads up to ask you to reconsider the removal of these links as i think they are truly useful.

Thanks

Letterpress - FAQs and such

How is a link to the FAQ for the LetPress mailling list a "commercial site"? The LetPress list, with over 800 letterpress printers around the world, has a FAQ which I volunteer the effort to maintain. I happen to host it on a web site I own, instead of paying someone else to host it. I don't see how you can consider that commercial. Besides, you left in the actual commercial links, such as the link to a company that offers classes. --dmacf Talk 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As a relatively new Wikipedian, I'm trying to learn the community standards for content and editing. I added a link to the LetPress FAQ to the letterpress page because I thought it would be a helpful link to people looking at the "Letterpress" entry in the Wikipedia. It is not a commercial link - yes, I maintain the FAQ, but I was adding it more as an expression of my 'expertise' in letterpress than anything self-serving. I'm confused about how that could be a commercial link, and the link you left in the entry for classes is to a commercial print shop that offers classes for payment - which looks like something commercial to me. If you can clarify how you applied your judgement in this case, I'm sure it would be helpful. Thank you. --dmacf Talk 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are ads on the site. Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising. I'm not unsympathetic to your position. It looks like a good page. But where do you draw the line? If one site is selling something as a small part of a page with major educational value, I'm inclined to let it slip. But then, as you can see, other sites that are pretty much only there for commercial purposes begin to pop up. When they are removed, they immediately protest that you allowed x site, now you are not allowing y site. Wikipedia needs some guidelines. Why don't you bring this up on the administrators page and see about consensus? I'll certainly abide by the consensus. -But guidelines more concrete than the subjective interpretation of individuals.
As to the other site with classes, I'll take another look. If I remember correctly, it was a university. Non-profits don't count. IMHO a few others get a pass. A business that is the subject of a Wikipedia article gets one link; period. Newspapers and magazines are kind of a gray area and a value judgement must be made.
There is a second question as well, and this would be true even if there were no ads on the site. You have admitted that it is a personal site. There were volunteers around that were putting out content on the Internet way back when it was all fluff and glitz and almost no content. If it weren't for these volunteers, the Internet might have "died aborning." When I look at a page that is obviously a personal page (and you soon get a feel for when someone adds a personal page), I look to see if it is a volunteer effort that is seriously bringing content to the world, or if there is some other purpose. IMHO your page qualifies to stay under this criterion. So don't give up. We've just got to get some clarification. If we don't remove spam, we wind up with guys making a lot of money selling bongs (and a lot of other stuff) though Wikipedia links. Pollinator 13:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Scopae 5281b.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scopae 5281b.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Plant sexuality

Sorry, didn't mean to call your edit vandalism - it was the other stuff. Guettarda 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Pollinator! Thanks for fixing the vandalism on my user page. --Allen 03:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Link in 4:20 Article not Commercial

Hi Pollinator! On May 3rd I added a link to the article for "420 (cannabis culture)" that you removed indicating that it was some sort of commercial link. The link in question was simply a placemark link for Google Earth users. For such users clicking on the link will launch Google Earth and fly them directly to the spot on the globe that was refferenced in the article. Clicking on the spot will then display a short description of the placemark and various links to articles (all non-commercial) relating to the topic. Google Earth is a free download and its placemarks are a powerful tool for users. The install base of Google Earth is growing rapidly and it's community is quite active with significant overlap with that of Wikipedia. I and other users of Google Earth would ultimately like to see inclusion of such links a standard part of any article with geographical references. The idea of reading about an area and with a single click flying there to see it for yourself is informative and just plain cool. Please restore the link or explain why you disagree. Also, I'd be curious to know how you came to believe that this was a commercial link to begin with so that I might avoid such confusion in the future. Thanks - Nouvelleorleans.

I didn't say yours was commercial. I removed two links; the other link was blatantly commercial. I removed your link because Wikipedia discourages links to pages that require membership or third party software. I don't feel compulsive about this. I suggest you take it to the administrator talk board and see what consensus is there. I'll abide by that consensus. Pollinator 04:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Thanks

No problem. You might want to request permission to use VandalProof yourself. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominionism template-your edit summary

In your edit summary you said that the left accuses and the right denies. I believe that you are mistaken. This is not a left vs. right argument. Some on the political right support dominion thinking , some denounce it. Some on the religious right support dominion thinking, some denounce it. This template reflects those that support it. The argument against a particular individual or organization needs to be made on their article talk page. If their article supports their connection to dominion thinking then they belong in the template.

Have you read any books written by the folks that insist that their dominion thinking must be implemented over the entire world? There is nothing subtle about their claim that civil government must follow biblical principles. FloNight talk 16:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

Not sure you realised what I actually did, Pollinator. In Well drilling the commercial link previously had a whole section devoted to it, which I removed. But since the article is on well drilling and the link was to welldrilling.com I readded it in an ext links section. Is there an official WP policy banning that? I mean it is relevant to the subject in an informational sense and commercial links already seem to exist on other pages if it's judged they could be informationally useful.— Донама 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Subst

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --Cyde Weys 01:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Image Tagging Image:Manure spreader 8685.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Manure spreader 8685.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images 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. 82.83.96.38 12:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Manure spreader 8685.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Manure spreader 8685.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.96.38 12:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

your recent photos

Hi. I thought you might like to know; I've used two of the photos that you put up for me to ID to create a page for the Squash vine borer and the black soldier fly. Take a look. Peace, Dyanega 03:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Soil

I hope you will be interested in this. The project would certainly benefit from your interest in proper citation of sources. -- Paleorthid 06:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


"Paper" Article and VandalProof

In regards to your query about the spam link that was accidently put back on the page, a review of the article history would indicate two VandalProof revisions simultaneously at 01:59, 29 May 2006 resulting in an erroneous revert. The revision back to that version was not intentional.--Jamott 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What are the exact rules regarding advertising on a site?

Pollinator,

What are the exact rules regarding advertising on a site? I noticed that Atkins Diet Bulletin Board got removed from the Atkins Site again. Just curious as to the basis of that.

The site is free and provides information. It has tons of information. In fact it is probably one of the leading Atkins sites on the net. I can get you a thousand people easily to write in to back the "goodness" of the board. It is non commercial and I have never made a profit off of the site. And certainly in no way spam!

About a six months ago I added adsense to the site to help pay for part of its cost. But all of the proceeds goes back to the board itself and is not intended to profit.

I dont mind if you decide to take it off as part of your policy but just would like a clarification as to exactly what it was that got it removed? And if there is any quick thing I could do to the site for you to change your mind.

It has been on the site for over a year.

Please advise,

Tom

--207.45.240.31 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing some assistance with Alienus' tirade

Pollinator, thank you for your assistance in containing Alienus' abusive methodology for controlling discussion on an article. If you're game, I could also use some help with Special rights and Homosexual agenda. Regards! DavidBailey 12:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to homosexuality

Found myself here - could you assist w Opposition to homosexuality Ros Power 23:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/User_talk%7EPollinator_Archive_2_22d2.html"