User talk:CarolSpears

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Updated DYK query On December 19, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agrostis gigantea, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Updated DYK query On 1 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Senecio congestus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Contents

[edit] Archive

[edit] a citation call

I have been having a problem with some of my ways. The thing that is bothering me the most right now is that I have made citations to papers in which I only read the abstract of.

My instinct tells me to remove the access date from it and that will be more honest.

If you know what to do in this situation, can you tell me? If you don't know what to do, I would be happy if you made a call on it.

The citation formalities -- they were all hardcoded before the web was even imagined. Possibly, adding a url location to the existing databases everywhere that used them was or even is quite a challenge. -- carol (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be ok if you leave the access data in. To be clear, do you mean the date you accessed the online abstract of the paper? If a url exists, access data should be included for the eventual day when that website moves or changes its structure, so that readers and editors know when you used that url so it can possibly be extracted from the internet archive. My sense is that it is best to give as much info as possible. Any one citation style (MLA, Chicago, etc.) is not endorsed by the Wikipedia MoS, so you're free to use whatever citation style you feel most comfortable with. The important thing is to make it consistent within the article, which you've done a great job at doing. Did that answer your question? --Rkitko (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I am quite certain that I have gotten my volumes and issues mixed up -- perhaps consistently at least. It does answer my question, it makes sense and I am not happy with it. Thank you very much! (I had enough 'access' where I used to live to be able to write an article with only papers that I actually read.) -- carol (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, do what makes you happy if it's reasonable. If providing access data is a bit more trouble than you want to deal with, then don't include it. I don't think it hurts anything if excluded. A determined editor or reader could always find the information from other citation data given. I sympathize with your difficulties in accessing journals. I no longer have free access to JSTOR, Proquest, etc. through an academic library. Until I go back to school, that probably won't change so I have to make frequent trips to nearby libraries (including some to your old stomping grounds in Michigan, I believe). --Rkitko (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The library that I would have tried first is a little hidden from the rest of the world. Part of my job for a while was to copy the abstracts each month from the journals as the scientists I worked with requested them. It infuriates me that there are things here (wikipedia) that are being called 'from the government' when anyone who worked for the government could look at it and know it is not one of theirs. What area are you at? I had the feeling you were on the west coast, I don't know where that feeling came from. The snow photographs from there this year have been beautiful and more like when I was a child. I really despise being here, the situation that brought me here, some of the things that has happened and the situation that I found once I got here.
I don't need to be happy with everything, in fact, that is usually not good. I do feel more comfortable with citing abstracts; it would be nice to know that there was something real in the paper also -- they are like advertisements somewhat, abstracts. When I was copying them, I started to lose a little respect for some of them (the journals) also. Nature's treatment of homeopathy in the late eighties was the exact example.
Rkitko, are we playing pokemon? -- carol (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly! I used to live in Olympia, Washington. About 8 months ago I moved back to Ohio. I'm much happier to be here than when I was on the west coast, so I can perhaps understand a bit of how you feel. Regardless, let me know if there's anything else I can help with here. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ping

User_talk:Hesperian#Humor_tax Gnangarra 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. —Moondyne click! 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For things I didn't say? Or to provide opportunity to force pop-psychology cheez whiz? -- carol (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No, for things you did say. You can pretend to be obscure, but the bottom line is that you've been engaging in ongoing trolling against Hesperian here and at Commons and your attacks are disruptive. If you wish your block to be reviewed by another administrator, feel free to use the {{unblock}} template. —Moondyne click! 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive to what? -- carol (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It is far more interesting to watch the tough ones get protected by the little fluffy kittens. I certainly wish I had thought to pack my micrometer along with a couple of books I miss -- I had no idea that the world and its participants would become of such fragility that a micrometer would be needed to measure strength. I have no problem giving the princess a break from such ruthless attacks.... -- carol (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.
block extended to 1 week for continuing the attack Gnangarra 03:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
.00001μ. sad. -- carol (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How much actual productivity will a week of non-disruption acquire for the encyclopedia? More simply, what does the encyclopedia get from this? And please be clear on this; I suggest either a numbered or bulleted list of actual measurable things the encyclopedia gets perhaps articles (with estimated word counts), illustrations, something else I haven't considered yet? If I understand the 'mindset' behind the person and the puppets, there should be actual measurable stuff for the encyclopedia from this undisrupted time, or the blocks are just puppets pissing in the wind, up a rope, or in this sad little instance up a oddly shaped plant. -- carol (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Carol, another admin has blocked you from editing Wikipedia for one week. I have protected this page because you seem to be using it to continue with the same behaviour that led to your being blocked in the first place and if you continue like this you are going to end up being blocked for much longer. I can see you're frustrated and annoyed but my suggestion is that you take a few days off, come back after your block has expired and when you do, focus on content. No personal comments about other users, no personal attacks on others - just focus on the content of the articles that you are working on. If you continue in this vein with snarkiness, personal attacks, veiled or not, and so on, you going to be blocked again. If you want to discuss this, you can email me or another admin by using the "email this user" function but you won't be able to use this page until your block expires. Thanks. Sarah 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Moondyne gave you instructions at the start of this section for using the unblock template to ask to be unblocked, but you won't be able to use that template now due to the protection. If you want to request an unblock or for another administrator to review this situation, you may send an email to the unblock mailing list unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org stating:

  • your username,
  • the reason you were blocked,
  • the name of the blocking admin,
  • the reason you think your block is unfair.

Another uninvolved admin will respond to you and review this case. Sarah 05:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GIMP

Calm down and come to Talk:GIMP and explain with other things than pure zeal why the section should be removed. You risk being blocked if you continue to remove or revert. -- Sverdrup (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How come I risk being blocked for reverting but you don't? Also, I saw no discussion of including the section. -- carol (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The section was removed with a nonsense comment, so I asked you why and you haven't said why. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hadjaha is not nonsense -- except that it kind of is. -- carol (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but for me it is. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have written on the talk page several times before and after you suggested it here. I can see no discussion of the inclusion of the comparison and I am not going to search for that. btw, do you know how to convert xwd files into png? -- carol (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well-sourced expansion of the article doesn't need to be motivated on the talk page.. The comparison with PS starts already in the lead section, where it says "It is often used as a free software replacement for Adobe Photoshop, the most widely used bitmap editor in the printing and graphics industries; however, it is not designed to be a Photoshop clone." It appears you disagree with comparing PS and GIMP, but such opinions don't have anything to do with what should be in the article or not, we have lots of sources doing the comparison. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If my memory is working -- the release of gimp-1.2 was the hadjaha release, Mon, 25 Dec 2000.[1] and it is working! -- carol (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There was no discussion about the inclusion of it. If you would like to discuss the inclusion of the section, that would be a better place to start then claiming it stays because of no discussion.
This is such a broken internet -- bogus emails are all over the place. I just found one that gives the appearence that Marc Lehmann knew about the inclusion of the option of the pdb into the gimp-perl plug-in -- he didn't; I suspect that he would have written the things that the pdb does himself. They started this history modification shortly after the web site me and my team designed went online; the mail was about how the original developers did not want to steal photoshop -- that letter seriously changed. The linux people I knew were seriously too proud to steal software (at least for use). -- carol (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism removal

Thanks for clearing the poo off my user page. Always appreciated! Matt Deres (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dendrosenecio resource

Here is the name of a beautiful book on biogeography that has a few pages on the Dendrosenecio that could help you get a more general background to the article. It is an inexpensive book, but, also, as you are living in America it should be available through interlibrary loan. Biogeography: An Ecological and Evolutionary Approach by C. Barry Cox, Peter D. Moore, ISBN: 978-0865427785. They are fascinating plants, well known to anyone with an interest in biogeography and island biogeography in particular. However, I am rather more interested in viral pathogens and the flora of West Africa. --Blechnic (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Senecio angulatus

Updated DYK query On 8 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Senecio angulatus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BencherliteTalk 10:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Senecio vernalis

Interesting background. A spăla means "to wash" and a spălăci means "to lose one's initial colour, to become more faded or discoloured (from washing or sunlight)". So spălăcioasa we might say means "tending to fade". It's feminine, like most Romanian flower names (except roses, lilies, lilacs and snowdrops, which are masculine). Another name for it is cruciuliţă - "little cross" (like in necklaces).
It's all explained here if you'd like to cite a source. Also, if you're looking for more common names in Romanian, check the box right beneath where you search so it looks through the whole text, and then hopefully you can figure it out from the results, but if you need help or want to know the meaning, you can ask me. Biruitorul (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is awesome! Thank you very much! It seems fitting that roses be masculine -- one of my favorite gardening personalities called the cultivated varieties 'Yellow spot on a stick' a modern common name that I have personally adopted for them and that truthfully tells of their problems. I love the naturally occurring species of them though; they are inscrutable and persistent without taking over the landscape they live on; at least, that is how they were where I lived for several decades. The challenge of writing articles that are cited and not invented by the author has been rewarding -- simply, there is no way that I could make this stuff up and I really appreciate that url! -- looking now... carol (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forsskaolea tenacissima

Updated DYK query On 3 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Forsskaolea tenacissima, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages

Hi, I've been doing cleanup on disambiguation pages, and I've noticed that you've been involved in creating disambiguation pages. Cacalia, for example. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, so I wanted to point you to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Specifically, I noticed that you've been adding references to your disambiguation pages, which are actually not supposed to be there, as disambiguation pages shouldn't have any external links. If you have external links which may be helpful to future editors, they can be placed inside comments, or on the talk page. While this is not any sort of terrible violation of Wikipedia's policies, it's still best not to do, especially as other editors will eventually find your pages and remove the references. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The references started when the disambiguation pages were being removed due to articles being moved from the scientific name to the common name. I put the references there to protect from that happening. It would be nice if the editors could work on moving articles from common names to articles with the species names before worrying about (granted, such a big problem) having references on disambiguation pages. Is having references a bigger problem than having all of those articles with the common name, btw? I am curious which of the wikipedia guidelines is more important. Perhaps the editors could spend this time ranking their own guidelines for what should logically come first when cleaning up articles. Such a numbered list would be helpful to new and still learning editors like me. -- carol (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Carol, I don't see any evidence that Cacalia is based on the same type as Adenostyles, nor that Cacalia is a nomen rejicendum. If this is the case, it means that Cacalia still contains species (whether or not they are in Wikipedia), and it should never have been turned into a "disambiguation" page.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, do I thank you for answering the messages left by others? Second of all, the reference was provided to show that I did not invent the information. Third, do you have a prioritized list of wikipedia policy that I might peruse? It seems to me that any vessel, corporation, group -- whatever the word for the pack would be, should by now have a list ranked by importance. Where some policy is more important than others and still other policy is one of those impotent signs... -- carol (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Carol, I have your talk page on my watchlist because you have damaged articles in the past because or your lack of understanding of the rules of botanical nomenclature. I'll leave to others your misuse of disambiguation pages, but you have yet to convince me that you didn't make an enormous error by doing away with an entire genus in Wikipedia just because the species you happen know about were moved to another genus. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy; it has to do with your lack of understanding of botanical nomenclature, as evidenced by your inability to know whether the references you cited actually answer my question.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, hmm. Maybe you should check with the person who started the article to see how they feel about me doing away with the entire genus -- although, whoever that person is should consider him or herself lucky to have the subject watched over so well by the parent group! About damage -- there is in my mind perhaps, some damage that I caused (accidentally of course) but just to make sure we are "on the same page article, let me know which ones have you so watchful now so that I know what to avoid or to not repass. -- carol (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
See below.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you're involved in some edit conflict between other editor(s) regarding what you're doing with disambiguation pages. I'm really not aware of the details of it. As to the importance of our various guidelines, there's not likely any overall agreement on that, other than the fact that our policy pages(such as WP:V, WP:NPOV) are more important than our guideline pages (the manual of style pages, for example). As a new and still learning editor, you are not expected to fully understand all of our policies and guidelines (in fact, probably almost none of us fully understand all of our policies and guidelines), but instead the idea is that you do your best and figure things out as you go along, and if you make a mistake, someone will tell you, hopefully nicely, and point you to the applicable policy. You might want to talk to people on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) about the edit conflict you're having regarding disambiguation pages, if that might help. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
One day, I might be one of those impotent people who knows what policy to cite when. In the meanwhile, if I could see a list which ranks policy by either importance or impotence, it would help me to understand 1)what is the right thing to do and 2)when something works to make another policy work, should it be changed? -- carol (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe there is an overall list anywhere which ranks our policies and guidelines in order of importance. There is Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which might help. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cacalia

I'll start by saying that I don't have the necessary references at hand to clear this up, so I'll be talking about general principles and hope that you will be able to see your references in a more appropriate light.

Botanical nomenclature has as one of its most important foundations the principle of priority, which can be simplified as "earlier names have dibs". Cacalia was named by Linnaeus, in Species Plantarum. That work stands as the beginning of botanical nomenclature, and, with exceptions, names in Species Plantarum have priority over later names (I'll return to the exceptions). So, absent any other evidence, Cacalia has priority.

What does this mean? Every taxon (species, genus, family, whatever) has a "type", a taxon of lower rank, and ultimately an actual specimen, that the name is based on. So somewhere out there is a type species, and a type specimen, of Cacalia. Let's say it's Cacalia alpina L. (that species was first described in Species Plantarum, and although it isn't necessarily the type species, it's from the same publication). Again with exceptions, Cacalia alpina (or whatever the actual type species) will always be in the genus Cacalia. It can't be transferred to another genus, because it is Cacalia—it is the "name-bearing element". Other species of Cacalia, even Linnaean ones, can be transferred, but the type species never can.

Now for the exceptions: Some Linnaean names no longer have type specimens, and are so vaguely described that it is impossible to determine what taxon they should apply to. There are some other reasons to reject Linnaean names, but they are also arcane, an in any case the relevant literature should allude to them.

So just because some of the species of Cacalia have been transferred to other genera, that doesn't mean that Cacalia no longer exists. You are the one with the references, and perhaps you can ascertain whether Cacalia L. has been rejected for one of those few arcane reasons, but, lacking that, there is still a genus Cacalia (although Wikipedia may not currently have any articles about its species), and the current Cacalia page is illogical. This has nothing to do with the politics of Wikipedia, the politics of plant taxonomists, or the opinion of the person who created the article. Either Cacalia L. was rejected according to one of the few exceptions allowed in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, or else it still exists, for at least its one type species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand whether the name is used or not, but I think it has been rejected as a genus name according to the IAPT. See Propsal to Reject the Name Cacalia L. (Compositae: Senecioneae), by Gerhard Wagenitz, Taxon, Vol. 44(3), (Aug., 1995), pp. 445-446 and Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta: 46 by R. K. Brummitt, Taxon, Vol. 47(2), (May, 1998), pp. 441-444. When an entire genus name is done away with, it can only in one way, via the botanical code, and it is then written up in these articles in Taxon published by the IAPT. Curtis, can you read these and clarify how Wikipedia should handle these names? --Blechnic (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I tossed all my paper copies of Taxon when I lost my lab in the Bio Sci dept. But these things are voted on at the International Botanical Congress, of which there have been St. Louis and Vienna since then. Each code has a section "Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda" ("Conserved and rejected generic names"), and neither contains Cacalia. And Cacalia napaeifolia DC. is used in an example in the Vienna Code. So it seems from what I can find that the proposal didn't pass. I'll see if I can track down the articles at the library.
If the genus were rejected, the current article is not far off-base, as long as the disambiguation page tag were removed, since it is not a disambiguation page. Individual Cacalia species names could be redirects to the currently accepted names.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I was able to find more information online. Cacalia is indeed a nomen rejiciendum [2]. Its type, C. alpina L., is correctly Adenostyles alpina (L.) Bluff & Fingerh. The rejection evidently has something to do with its lectotypification. I'll modify the article to reflect this, and remove the dab template.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A recap to see if I understand what has happened: I misapplied the disambiguation template.(?) -- carol (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. You did not clarify whether Cacalia no longer existed as a genus, or whether it was just these species that had been moved. It's not clear to me that you knew the answer to that.
  2. You misapplied a disambiguation template. Disambiguation pages are normally to disambiguate between articles that might have been called the same thing. And, most importantly, Cacalia needs the references, and dab pages cannot have external references.

As it stands now, the article accomplishes exactly what it's supposed to accomplish.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What my novice eye saw from the information that was available online (starting with the GRIN url you pasted) it seems as if the genus still exists but contains no species. ITIS made it look that way also and Missouri Botanical Garden was kind of confusing because they list the type species still without the synonym, and there was more but my computer crashed (a rare and notable event in itself) -- mostly I thank you for cleaning that up and clarifying what seems to best described as information which is in transition at this moment in time. Heh, and it seems that the disambiguation happened elsewhere. -- carol (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Erysimum vs wallflower

The article should be at Erysimum. I don't remember why the move seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was ages before any standard was set for plant articles. Stan (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I know to do this is to delete the page Erysimum and then move Wallflower there and then send the redirection of Wallflower to Wallflower (disambiguation). If you put the delete template on Erysimum there is a good possibility that it will be deleted quickly (something about a request by the person who made the article....) Or, there might be another way.... -- carol (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I just went ahead and fixed it up myself. I left Wallflower to redirect only to Erysimum, the other items in Wallflower (disambiguation) seemed much more obscure. Stan (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what got me started was when I was working through some images at commons and was following wiki articles and information for the species Cheiranthus and a quick search on the word "wallflower" the first obviously floral url in the results was for Wallflower Cheiranthus allionii. The genus Cheiranthus might be a disappearing genus like Cacalia. For as messy as all the names are (both scientific and common) for all of these species, and considering that human desire to have a name or a mark that lives on, things are not so terribly messy as they could be considering the three to four hundred years spent making it, huh? -- carol (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, yeah. I think we'll eventually accumulate all known synonyms, that will be one big ugly pile of redirects! Stan (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
At the commons, I have been Categorizing the redirection pages. Some of them really do have literature published under two or more of their names so, it makes some sense and it actually looks kind of good -- commons:Category:Dendrosenecio and commons:Category:Senecio being the example I think I can type without checking it.... Only a few of the Dendrosenico started life as that. It is kind of a fun mess to clean and so far (if I stay away from the fruits). -- carol (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional regurgitation

There's a reply to your questions here. Mehmet Karatay (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subularia monticola

Updated DYK query On 17 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Subularia monticola, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:heh

The page works fine for me, as far as I can tell your using old software there, I don't know if it is old or not, but here is a screenie I took

works fine for me.
works fine for me.

I'm using IE 8 on Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roketjack (talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You did see that I used some format stuff there? The multi-column template. Do you like that space that exists between the section heading and the list?
I have no problem admitting that my browser might not work correctly -- I built it myself from people who are writing it now. It is definitely not some safe product, tested by people who know better than mere users, etc. Except that the change you made doesn't look good in your screenshot either and it seems that you did not notice or are unfamiliar with the layout templates.
Is IE 8 broken also and that accounts for the big space between the section heading and where the list starts? I have my ideas about this, I ask that question because I am curious about yours. -- carol (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re:Templates with requests for references and citations

I appreciate your concerns for the request for citation and references concern for template, but why is it the responsibilty of the issuer to remove the template when a person who has a reference could easily remove it? My thinking is that the person who has source removes the template without issue and everyone moves on. Just a thought. Chris (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For so many reasons. Evaluation by the number of edits being one. It is somewhat easy to use software to make a lot of edits when actual research takes some time. Being able to use software to mark a page is not as difficult as being a human being who checks to see 1) if the request was fulfilled and 2)if the citation is valid. Another way to look at this is that I have some respect for the person who put the tag on the page; if your input is to be valuable, what is the way to make it that way? -- carol (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] valued image logo

Carol, I notice that you reverted my removal of the valued image logo from the Featured pictures candidates page. I have nothing against the image; LadyOfHats does great work. However, this one is simply not eligible to be a Featured Picture on English Wikipedia, since it doesn't illustrate an article (and isn't meant to). I don't understand your "weak and sad" comment; it's just housekeeping, removing an ineligible nomination. I'm not going to edit war over this, but I think it should be removed again. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Some 'house-cleaning' happens more quickly than others, and you cleaned an example of how some images do not work and also how some systems are failing to function properly. That isn't the same as actually cleaning the house now, is it. More like dusting a shelf for a snap shot. Wouldn't it be more 'encylopedic' to look to find and replace images in articles? Kind of like cleaning the mansion instead of the one page? -- carol (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What MacArthur image do you mean?--ragesoss (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
How about a different version of the same question. What image do see on the Main Page which is the featured picture today? -- carol (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I see the same one you do for the Picture of the Day, Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1.jpg. It doesn't seem to be a repeat, though. It was a Commons Picture of the Day in March, but this is the first time its been English Wikipedia Picture of the Day.
You also asked, on my talk page, "How come you did not answer the question I asked here". If you mean the question about consensus, I apologize, I took it as a rhetorical question. The policy is Wikipedia:Consensus. Hope that helps.--ragesoss (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
When you 'imagine' that you are cleaning a house, whose house do you imagine that you are cleaning? -- carol (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)