User talk:GreenJoe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I will respond on your talk page, and if I leave a message for you on your talk page, I expect a reply on my talk page. GreenJoe 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, GreenJoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! FellowWikipedian 17:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Ponders

You're about a day ahead of me in calling for the AfD. :) I asked about her notability on the talk page to give some of the other editors a chance to respond, but they can address that in the AfD just as readily. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottawa Project Templates (Gatineau area)

Hello! I see that you have deleted several of the Ottawa Template on many Gatineau articles. Just to remind that the Wikiproject Ottawa template specifies that it includes just not the city of Ottawa, but also its surrounding region. The National Capital Region (Canada) article specificies that it does includes the city of Gatineau and suburbs such as Cantley and Chelsea, Quebec. Thus, the templates for at least the Gatineau articles would have to stay. --JForget 18:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Postal Codes GA review

Have posted to article talk page Orderinchaos78 05:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ottawa meetup

[edit] Ottawa Wikipedia meetup

Image:Wikimeetup.PNG -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danica Patrick

You recently removed the book cover image I had just restored. The problem with just removing it; is that users viewing the article would not know the image had been there, or that its fair-use was disputed. What about keeping the image (with a note on the top of the page, like a merge tag would work) until the issue is settled?

For Example:

—MJBurrage • TALK • 20:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vserda.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vserda.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. 23:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I notice that you tagged my user_talk page. I have been reverting vandalism by another IP address in various political pages, because an individual continuously is reverting without even stating his/her own viewpoint or any evidence on the associated talk page. I would appreciate it if you would attempt to at least mediate a solution, or use your advanced wikipedia skills to place appropriate tags on the articles recognizing that there is controvery involved.

In some instances, I reverted outright libelous comments on pages such as Dave Batters, and they were restored by the vandal.

70.73.4.197 00:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] finnerty gardens

I don't quite understand your rationale for wishing to delete this page, There is no original research involved, Finnerty Gardens is a garden of multimillion dollar value in Victoria, BC. If you could let me know on my talk page how to save it (apart from just removing the deletion notice) that would be appreciated. Thanks. Imapwnu 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RegisterFly

Thanks! I think I'm done now, low on time, beyond tweaks (and I think I'm out of news sources about the controversy itself) until more pop up later in the day. I'll take down the inuse, all yours for more passes at it. - Denny 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi... I may be very short on time to help out the next 3-5 days or so. If any more developments worth noting come up with this article can you just add the news links to the talk page (mine or the article's) if you may not have time to integrate it? Thanks. The total looneyness of that situation and the incredible amount of info being made public could make for a good article. I want it to stay npov but... I'm having trouble finding positive stuff to add in. - Denny 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Register.com

I took down the prod... they're really notable (thats just recent/current news). If you want to AfD them, though, that might be a better idea... - Denny 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saskatchewan Party

If you read the citations on the material that was removed, you will see that it is merely an editorial from an individual who does not have, nor claims to have first-hand knowledge of the events in question. This type of source, which just amounts to rumour and innuendo, is not appropriate to include in Wikipedia, and if it it appears again, it will be reverted.

70.73.4.197 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The column within the leaderpost is an editorial. It has about the same reliability as a blog, in other words, its opinion, and for the most part, mere repitition of political smear. 70.73.4.197 17:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joe. Thanks for the welcome. I was hoping to find more concrete articles on what's happening with Go Daddy's ability to handle the DST change. --EveBelos 18:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domain kiting

There's no consensus for the mess you have made. GreenJoe 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions are very clear that we pick the most common name, which is domain tasting... I was only cleaning up the mess others made. DreamGuy 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NDP Senator

Hi Joe. I noticed your edit to the NDP article and I just thought I'd let you know that the issue has come up a few times in the past and was always reverted back to zero. Apparently Sen. Dyck identifies as a New Democrat but the party does not recognize her because of a policy against appointed senators. Personally I don't really care but if you want the edt to stick you're probably going to have to justify it in the talk page. --JGGardiner 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RegisterFly clean up

Thanks for getting that! I readded ICANN's site, though... it's pretty central to the story/article, and non-commerical/impartial so it should be fine to link... - Denny 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Candidates

Can you explain what you are doing? I had just finished reading Parsifal which would pass in my opinion and found out that you failed it after having looked at it for approximately five minutes. I look at the edit-history and you have been mass-failing several articles within just an hour or so. Also you seem to have removed (moved?) several articles earlier. Is there something I don't see or can you explain this?--DorisHノート 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, no that's not what the criteria say. On the top of the GAC-page it specifically states that you should mark articles that are longer than 32 kb, and add them to the list. That sentence would not be there if you can automatically fail long articles. So according to the guideline text we have length alone is not a criterion. And I think it should not be at the GA-stage. Length is a criterion much better suited for FA. You would have to give some kind of other justification for failing the article than just length, as you did on some of these talk pages, see WP:WIAGA. Is it ok if I revert at least Parsifal? The other articles we can still decide later.--DorisHノート 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultra Vires (UofT newspaper)

I'm really not sure why you're giving me a prod warning on this article. Looking back on my contribs, I did nothing but move it into a more appropriate name and tag it with wikify. I have absolutely no connection/opinion on whether it is kept. (|-- UlTiMuS 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Green Party of Canada

The article Green Party of Canada you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Green Party of Canada for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Douglike 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innappropriate use of warnings

I see you have left a warning on my User Talk page. This warning was completely innappropriate response to an edit to a page that was made in good faith, was made in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and met technical standards of wikipedia. In the future, please do not abuse the ability to place warnings. 71.17.55.111 04:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RegisterFly and the ICANN blog

Hey Joe, I posted a thread Talk:RegisterFly#RegisterFly_and_the_ICANN_blog on the talk page, if you'd like to weigh in. I think the ICANN blog is an OK source for this matter, FWIW. :) - Denny 13:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)