User talk:GearedBull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please click here to leave me a message.

Contents

[edit] Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008

I wanted to give you a heads up on your editing of the Discussion page. If you read WP:TALK, it gives lots of rules and guidelines on what to do on discussion pages. You edited another editor's POV section title, which isn't good form. Below are the general guidelines:

Editing others' comments is generally not allowed. Exceptions are:

  • If you have their permission
  • Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
  • Removing personal attacks and incivility. Please read WP:ATTACK#Removal_of_text and WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments before removing anything.
  • Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append {{unsigned}} or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is {{subst:unsigned|USER NAME OR IP}}, which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) ..
  • Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic. In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.

As you can see "Ford and Nazis" though fairly inflammatory, is not prohibited material, is not a personal attack or incivility (against another editor, we can make nonlibelous remarks about Romney all day long, and since he's a politician, it's pretty hard to libel him anyways). If you read much more intensely discussed articles, individuals are banned for censoring discussion pages, and "Ford and Nazis" hardly rates censoring. In general, unless it is really bad, never censor a Discussion section, no matter how obnoxious. Orangemarlin 17:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mystery Man

For the record, I wanted to let you know that I do not support the following comments made by User:The Mystery Man regarding homosexuality:

Both of these pages are disgusting displays of lies toward great people, especially Lincoln who, in my opinion, is the greatest American ever to live. I support the deletion of the pages which hold nothing but pure lies and dribble.

I did not remove the material from James Buchanan, nor post the proposed for deletion notice on the Sexuality of James Buchanan page for the reasons listed by The Mystery Man. I have no problem with homosexuals or homosexuality. I have a problem with rumors being included in Wikipedia articles. Nothing more, nothing less. K. Scott Bailey 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I think I owe you an apology. You made comments on the James Buchanan talk page which I think you did in jest, and I misinterpreted them. In any case, even if you were serious, I probably shouldn't have made personal statements. Sorry. NickBurns 10:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting the apology. I just need to be less sleepy when I read a long list of comments! I had not seen the Canadian Bill Burns stuff - I will check it out. Your mention of that reminded me of Bill Burns, who was a famous news anchor in Pittsburgh where I grew up. Now I may have to make a Wikipedia entry for him! As for Door County, I've not been that far north yet. Much of WI is very pretty, but so far I'm still in a mindset where I think Madison is just a very distant suburb of Chicago!!! NickBurns 15:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Blue Room (White House)

Your recent edit to Blue Room (White House) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Burns vs Bill Burns

Hey, remember when I said I was gonna create an article about the TV anchor Bill Burns that I knew? I did.....and now I'm wondering if you are interested in creating an article for Bill Burns, the artist? If not, I can try to do it....just thought maybe you were knowledgeable about the subject?

I already set up a disambiguation page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Burns

Let me know, either way. Thanks! NickBurns 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Verdana - I wasn't aware of the place name, so the removal of the edit was apropriate. As the Nike mark is in a different TM "class" than the font name, there's really no legal issue with their use of it. Cheers, iloveverdana@hotmail.com

[edit] White House image

Would you mind explaining the rationale behind your saying that a 650x487 image is "sharper and higher res" than a 6142x3245 image? Noclip 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Noclip. thanks for writing me about the White House north portico image. I may have mispoke. The problem is more focus and clarity. the present picutre is in much better focus and shows more architectural detail. While I liked the appropriate spring time look to your pic it was very milky and did not show much detail. CApitol3 15:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I'm not sure what you mean by more architectural detail, are there any specific areas that serve as examples? My image is a stitch of 8 images, each 8 megapixels. I'm not exactly a great photographer, but I imagine it'd be pretty hard for 8 images at 200mm to show less detail than one. Noclip 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Noclip. On my monitor, the image I placed there last night shows much more detail. I can see the dentils in the pediment, and more detail around the wiondows. CApitol3 20:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but the dentils in this image seem just as visible. Noclip 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/a/User_talk%7EGearedBull_113f.html"