User talk:Arctic.gnome/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

List of UEFA club championship winning managers FTC

Hello Arctic gnome. Could you please withdraw the nomination (I'd do it myself but I wasn't sure if you recorded it in the fail log, and, if so, exactly how). Despite the consensus being in support of its promotion to FT, I'm not happy about it since the comments of Struway2 were added. Rest assured I'll be back but probably with at least one more FL (if I can!)... Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Loyalists

If you read Barry Cahill's piece the term Black Loyalist is inaccurate. David George makes no mention of being a "Black Loyalist" in his account. How then do you call him what he himself never referred to himself as. The only thing I know George referred to himself as was a negro. This is mentioned in his account of his life to brother John Rippon.

It is you who is disruptive

You purposefully ignore the facts and declare what you want to believe. Wikipedia will forever be seen as an unreliable encyclopedia if it has people who refuse to say the facts. I created the article on David George, I created the article on Cato Perkins,Harry Washington and Boston King. Boston King and David George never mentioned loyalty in their accounts or memoirs. Barry Cahill who is a senior archivist at the Nova Scotia archives has also said that none of these enslaved African Americans were Black Loyalists. Are you saying that because historians classify these blacks as loyalists they were loyalists? Or are you going to look at the individual cases and of historical African Americans who sought refuge in the British camp. Some Blacks were loyalists but so were some Native Americans. Create an article on Native American Loyalists because if you do not know there were many who actually supported the British. Do not tell open lies on the internet; the blacks who immigrated to Sierra Leone never called themselves blacks loyalist they called themselves the nova scotians or settlers. If you do not believe these facts then you can continue to put false information on Wikipedia. I will continue to edit and put out the facts. If I am blocked for this then so be it. I am currently planning to discontinue editing wikipedia anyway. It seems correcting false information on this encyclopedia it deemed "disruptive". This is why wikipedia will never be taken seriously or looked at as a respectable encyclopedia. But I suppose I am "disruptive" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs)

Dear Arctic gnome

There is no denial that Black Loyalist is used in all academic texts. But does this mean the term in itself is correct? This is what Barry Cahill examines. This is the wrong place to argue over the term. Let me say without a doubt the term black loyalist will not be the term used within the next 5 to 10 years. African American refugees or African American fugitives will be. http://atlanticportal.hil.unb.ca/dev/acva/blackloyalists/en/context/articles/cahill.pdf

I am not predicting I am saying fact because I alongside professors I collaborate with are starting the campaign

Also please stop calling the Sierra Leone company blacks "black loyalists" the group who immigrated to sierra leone clearly called themselves the Nova Scotian settlers. Thank you --Wikiaddict6989 (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeking consensus around "Black Loyalist"

Thanks for taking up this issue. My Wikipedia strengths lie more in adding info and tweaking articles for readability than in helping other editors to use the system appropriately and invoking sanctions. I'm glad you are taking the steps you have outlined, to encourage Wikiaddict to seek consensus and to report disruption if need be. Let me know if I can help. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the "Black Loyalist" issue.--Editor2020 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian PM infoboxes

As a consistancy buff? I'm discouraged. If I do the following: A) add/remove 'monarch' from all 22 articles; B) add/remove 'governor general' to the 22 articles or C) do both A & B'? I'll be reverted either way. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In agreement; hopefully 'others' will take interest in this topic. Thus, we'd be able to break the stalemate. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Viable Featured Topics

Hi, if you have time, could you take a look at User:Gary King#Not_nominated and tell me which Featured Topics are viable and which have gaps? That'd be very helpful so I know if I'm wasting my time on some of them or not. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions you mentioned, but regarding Microsoft and Apple, the topic would be 'Founding of Microsoft/Apple' and not the whole company itself (which would then encompass all of their products, etc.) I personally understand the founding of a company to be the company's article itself, the History of the company, and the original founders. There isn't any company featured topics yet so there is no precedent set for that yet. Gary King (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know typically how long a WP:FTC must hang around before it passes? I'm asking because I'm just itching to see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Star Wars episodes, my first WP:FTC, get passed, and as you can imagine, this particular one is very exciting! :) Gary King (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Silver Maple Leaf Award

Thanks for the award. It's nice to know my contributions are appreciated. Indefatigable (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to some prime miniister page?

I did not make any of these edits...I am on a DSL connection at home and my guess is that the ips assigned by Bell are assigned randomly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.55.83 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On this day April 17

I disagree with your claim that all of those items are more notable than the Canadian constitutional patriation. At the same time as it formally made Canada independent from Britain, it gave the Canadian courts supremacy over the parliament, which had never been done before in any of the similar parliamentary democracies. An item like the 335 Year War is quirky and interesting, but the patriation has huge historical implications in the field of parliamentary law. This is probably the third most important event in Canadian history, and out of the 366x5 items in On This Day, Canada is surely entitled to at least three events. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, they are all notable and interesting. It's only for an hour or so, anyway. Feel free to post it back for next year, and replace another 20th century item (too many). (If it's earlier in the day, I'd suggest cycling of those events.) But, please note that when we put things on MainPage, we have to keep in mind:

~~Do not break the left-right balance on MainPage.~~
Do not use fairuse pictures.

You did both with this edit. --PFHLai (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, It didn't see the  on the 1942 item. MainPage was balanced. --PFHLai (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We can check before loading new DYK updates at Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Next DYK) and Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Tomorrow and Next DYK). There is none for just OTD or ITN yet. --PFHLai (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured topic article total

D'oh! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mullbrow-2 appears to have vandalised the Gartocharn article after the last warning. PatGallacher (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And I suspect Passisphysics is a sockpuppet. PatGallacher (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA managers

Hey Arctic, any reason why the current UEFA managers topic isn't being promoted? I guess you may be busy? It's unanimous support after 11 days... All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FT image

Now that Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation has been promoted, does it need a picture? It seems to be the odd one out right now as all the others have one. Are fair-use images okay to use, as it might be hard to come up with a free image for a TV Show. I'm no artist, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Degrassi is unfrequented so that's a dead end. There is one free image, Image:Degrassiautos.jpg. Would this be okay? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It has to be a free image, so that image of autographs might be our only choice for now. I think the best we could do is find out what school was used for exterior shots and take a photo of it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Featured work" and "Awards" on your user page

For these boxes, you could use {{hidden}}; it duplicates the functionality and keeps it nice and clean in a template :) Gary King (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome

Your welcome and thank you for taking an interest. Just so you know, I know of the templates you're supposed to use, I just can't find them all the time. If you know how to quick access them please tell me how on my talk page. Skeletor 0 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

I'm working on my first full-fledged featured topic and I've run into a big bummer. Can you guide me through the process of audit for New York State Route 9L, because this cannot reach GA in my opinion. If it is GA possible, is there a way to give it special privilages along with New York State Route 418 and New York State Route 912Q to avoid demotion? Thanks.^Mitch32^contribs 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The exemption for short articles is generally used for articles about things that are too new to have a long article now, but should have one in the future, such as an article about a movie that hasn't been released yet. I suspect that many editors will say that if there isn't enough information on this road to write a GA article, then its content should be merged into something else, such as a catch-all list of minor highways in the county. If you want to try asking for the exemption anyway, there is no formal process, for review before the FT nomination itself, but a peer review from its wikiproject would help.

Hmm, 9L's the biggest target to this. What's your opinion on the article out of sheer curiousity?^Mitch32^contribs 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rock Steady

Thank you so much. I was waiting for it. Thanks so much. I wish Drew could see this. Thanks again. Indianescence (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Antonio Barrette.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Antonio Barrette.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FT

Hey Artic.gnome, I got a question on FT. On WP:FT, How come some have the featured topic symbol beside the # of articles (like Christ Illusion) and some don't (like Carnivàle)? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada was selected as a WP:LOTD for one day in June and will be the LOTD during the month. Let me know before May 23rd if you have any date preferences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WM can followup

Hey there,

I'm just following up from the last WM Can meeting, we were wondering what the state of the union was with the Bylaws. Are the latest greatest posted on Meta, and are they ready for submission to WMF? Someone thought they might be, but you are the authority right now. Feel free to post back to me, or leave a note on m:talk:Wikimedia Canada. Thanks for your hard work! Historybuff 00:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: User talk archives