User talk:DS1953

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Due to other commitments, my edits to Wikipedia may be more sporadic for a while. You may leave your message on this page, but if it is important to you that I see your message in a timely manner, feel free to email me.

Archive #1 (May, 2005 - Dec., 2005), Archive #2 (Dec., 2005 - April, 2006), Archive #3 (April, 2006 - May, 2006)


Contents

[edit] Walter Burley Griffin

Notwithstanding your note about wikibreak, since you have been editing recently ... I have just reverted your changes of about 2 weeks ago to Walter Burley Griffin. My apologies but your edits were made after significant unexplained alterations to the article by an anon [1]. If you want to make further corrections to the article please go ahead but please don't restore the anon's blanking.--Golden Wattle talk 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of TOCright

The most pressing accessibility issue with the table of contents being on the right is its placement: if it's above the lead text of an article then screen reader users won't notice the lead text, because in 99.9% of wikipedia articles, the lead text is above the table of contents. Screen reader users navigate by headings, so if they're in the table of contents and move to the next heading, they'll miss the lead text altogether. See Wikipedia talk:Accessibility #articles with a floating TOC where I brought this up once; per that conversation, because the article has many headings and no images, I've put the TOCright template where the table of contents would normally go. I hope this doesn't mess things up too much, but I believe the position of key features of wikipedia like the TOC should *never* be changed except in unusual circumstances. Graham87 08:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's not obvious to me what is wrong. From reading help:section #Floating the TOC and template talk:TOCright, I gather that the TOC should be floated in lists with a long table of contents, but the TOC shouldn't appear above the lead section unless the lead section is very long. In List of high schools in Illinois, the lead section is only a sentence but the table of contents is very large, so I can understand why it should be floated and according to what is written at the pages I linked above, it shouldn't be a problem if the TOC is below the lead section. Maybe those guidelines need modification, and if so, that's alright. But I don't think we should make it harder for screen reader users (who already have a difficult enough time on the net as it is), by breaking the site layout. Most of us use Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox, but the screen readers use the Document Object Model of the browsers to present web pages in a structured format that is easier to use. Graham87 08:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 400 North Lake Shore Drive

Please state your reason for deleting the external link that you removed from the article: 400 North Lake Shore Drive. In the future, add this to the edit line if there is something innapropriate. --Kalmia 06:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The same new user who added that external link (linking to what appears to be a commercial site) added similar links to about a dozen articles. Even though I suspect this user may be adding links to their own site in violation of WP:EL, I looked at each of the links and only reverted those that I felt added nothing significant to the article. If you disagree, please feel free to re-add it. I agree I probably should have deleted the link manually (rather than using the rollback button) so that I could put in a more descriptive edit summary, but with 5 or 6 to do and only a few minutes to spare, I did it the quick way. -- DS1953 talk 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 21:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

 Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I will have erased any doubts you may have by the next time around. Kafziel Talk 14:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Thanks for contributing to my RfA! Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHICOTW

I see your user name listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:

Flag of Chicago
Chicago Collaboration of the Week
 Flag of Chicago
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
Flag of Chicago
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago
 Flag of Chicago

TonyTheTiger 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division

Hey, saw you were a participant in the Illinois WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD - Harvard College alumni

In case you don't see it, I posted this comment in response to yours:

"You seemed to have missed my point. I agree that the graduate schools should maintain their own subcats of alumni. It is the undergraduate college that is in question. Most people don't make the distinction between Harvard College, the undergraduate school, and Harvard University, the overall institution. They think of them synonymously. It then becomes more obvious to list undergraduate alumni under Category:Harvard University alumni. The fact that this category is huge is not the issue. There are a lot of people who have graduated from Harvard (College). You can't sub-categorize them."

I hope this helps explain more clearly the reason for this nomination for deletion.--Vbd (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHICOTW

Flag of Chicago
Chicago Collaboration of the Week
 Flag of Chicago
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Chicago Blues Festival has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
Flag of Chicago
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago
 Flag of Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gale House

Thanks for the fix on the Gale House. What there are, is way too many Gale Houses. And yes it should have said Walter. As for Thomas, his house will be getting its own article soon too. IvoShandor 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Emil Bach House, which I just completed only has one photo (I didn't shoot that one btw I can't seem to get a crisp blue skied day to save my life), a Commons gallery would be nice along with a few more pics in the, but its in Rogers Park, kinda close though, if you're in that area at all. IvoShandor 00:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great and saves me a trip, I am out in DeKalb County, not really close to Chicago by suburban standards. Of course, since there is no deadline round these parts feel free to take your time. : ) And thanks. IvoShandor 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I liked the photo on that article, I found it Commons. The only thing about it is that stupid tree branch in the foreground. IvoShandor 00:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Now that made me laugh. And no, I don't think they'd mind at all. They're pretty new owners, they probably don't care about the tree, they didn't plant it or anything. Make sure to cause as big a scene as possible though, ladders, saws, fire hoses, the Royal Navy, whatever it takes. IvoShandor 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and could you take a look at the question I posed at Talk:Emil Bach House if you have time? IvoShandor 01:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A political issue between countries

The external link "Haitian treatment in DR" must be erase from the page about the Dominican Republic. That is the opinion of enemies of the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is an underdeveloped country as many others. There are a lot of problems but we work toward resolving them. Haitians live better in our country than in theirs. That's is why they cross the border. Is like anywhere where frontiers exists. So, please, eliminate that issue. Victor F. Rodriguez 03:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Park GA

Flag of Chicago
Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
 Flag of Chicago
List of Chicago Landmarks update is the current Chicago COTW
You were a contributing editor to Douglas Park (Chicago) during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Contributing editors:ChicagoPimp, DS1953, Speciate, TonyTheTiger.
Flag of Chicago
Good Article
 Flag of Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, DS1953! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Daniel 08:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More help needed

If you have been following along at WP:FLC#List_of_Chicago_Landmarks you know we need help creating stubs for the List to make it a more useful list and help it achieve WP:FLC status. Since I reminded people of this 7 stubs have been created. We need about 40 more to be safe although we may have a successful candidacy with the article as it stands.

Some of you may also be following the success of WP:CHICOTW at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/COTW/Good Articles. For the last 4 weeks no one has been very active. Thus, I am fearful that Historic Michigan Boulevard District, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Crown Fountain, & Art Institute of Chicago Building will all fail at WP:GAC when their turns come up. Also, Magnificent Mile did not experience the collaborative spirit. Our reputation as a successful collaboration is at stake. In addition to making stubs for the FLC we need your contribution to our collaborations. I am sorry to pull you away from whatever other wikipleasures you may be experiencing, but we need your help. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and comments at my RfA
Hi DS1953, It still amazes me that otherwise "anonymous" editors take the time to place !votes and comments on RfAs. Whilst I would have normally thanked you at the time of you leaving your message, the importance of my not appearing to be canvassing prevented me from so doing. Now that everything has progressed successfully I can finally thank you. I intend to uphold a style of good adminship and will welcome your further comments at any time in the future, even if they are in the form of admonishment. I will be happy to help as an admin wherever and whenever I can --VS talk 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My dear DS

Thank you so much, my dear DS!

Dear DS, I've spent a while thinking about something to say to you that could accurately describe the joy your wonderful, beautiful gift gave to me... only to find out, sometimes it's best not to speak too much, and cherish a beautiful moment while it lasts. A moment like the one you've gifted me; one that will stick with me, and which shall draw a fond smile on my face every time I see your friendly virtual face.

It is only fair that I correspond to such kindness with a special token of the friendship that we now share. Let me tell you, sweetie, that you have moved me no end. Here's to a new, wonderful friend :) Thank you so much, dear DS! :) Love, you, Phaedriel - 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No worries on Emil

I won't impose any deadlines on ya. Vacations are nice, hope you had fun. IvoShandor 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Clark County, Illinois

Your two issues: 1) It should be "founded", but the person I got the template from had settled for some reason. I should have caught it, but I will have to have a bot fix it or something, cause I am not going to go over 1400 articles to fix one word.

2)Those two were changed to follow suit with List of unincorporated communities in Illinois. So honestly, it prolly should be community, not settlement, even though by the definition, it does techinically fall under settlement, but community has a better ring to it and fit. I have not gotten to the rest of the communities on the list yet, having been side tracked with a few other things (Chicago, Ogle County, etc). So if you want to change to villlage, or town, feel free. I don't know the area, but I would go with community from now on over town or village (because that does denote government in my opinion). I honestly don't recall why I went with settlement.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out Clark County, I screwed up with Douglas, and have since fixed it. If you are wondering where I got my info on Clark, you can find it here [2].--Kranar drogin 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that you would want to get terminology right. I want to do that too! I will from now on put "organized", even though I only have three counties left to stub out their townships. I have Precints still to do, but don't really know what to put down since they aren't technically organized. Well, actually, I won't put anything since no dates are given for precincts now that I look. Could put the organization date for the county down I suppose. You also have a great fourth!--Kranar drogin 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi DS1953, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 10:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. I didn't quite make it, but it looks like I'm pretty close... Keep an eye out for another attempt a few months down the road. Hiberniantears 14:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfB

I apologize for the loss of trust. I shall withdraw my RfB if the deletion review soon reveals that I took a terribly wrong decision. Regards, Húsönd 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of loss of trust and I would hope that you would not let my opinion or the result of one deletion review affect your candidacy. I have to catch a train now but I will respond in more detail later. -- DS1953 talk 01:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your extensive reply. I am somewhat relieved to see that some users agreed with my closure. Still, I think that you should keep your oppose. Even if my closure of this AfD might be allowed (as it was within my discretion and I presented arguments to disregard the position of several users), one who intends to become a bureaucrat should definitely avoid this kind of behavior. On the other hand, when I closed this AfD I was aware that it could be brought to WP:DRV and my decision easily overturned if proven wrong. So I knew that little harm could be done. Should it be an RfA I be closing, I would bear in mind that my decision could not be annuled that easily. But then again, hardly any excuse for what I've done. I am naturally not satisfied with my mistake, but I find a bitter satisfaction in your oppose, as it's one of the few I have in my RfB that I can regard as being fair and perfectly justified. I've decided not to withdraw my RfB. It will almost certainly not succeed, but at least I promise to attend to your concern so that in the future you may have no doubts about me respecting community consensus. Best regards, Húsönd 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shannon Pickett

Here is what I wrote on the Evanston page. I was the one who edited the first posting of the news of this murder. Unless Wikipedia is going to have a space for every murder in every city, the Evanston page is not the correct place for this entry.--I'm Nonpartisan 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is very sad and distressing that a young man from ETHS was murdered perhaps by another young man attending ETHS, but crime reporting is not appropriate on an encyclopedia page. If you are going to report one crime, then why not every crime. It is also important to know that the writers and editors on Wikipedia are not reporters. All facts and subjects should be supported by references. The story on the murder of Mr. Pickett is still unfolding. If you want to write about current events, then find the section on true crime on Wikipedia and do it there where you can reference trusted sources like the Chicago Tribune and the Evanston Review. You may not be your own reporter.--I'm Nonpartisan 02:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Development in Evanston

That's fair, but I've also lived in Evanston for more than 25 years and I think that the original writer overdoes it a bit. Let's go over to the talk page for Evanston and visit a bit more about this and I think this all can be said in a much more reasoned voice. You will see the post I made not long ago about putting the development of Evanston in perspective. The whole McMansion thing applies more to Glenview than to Evanston. Most tear-downs I've seen in my part of town will not be missed. On the other hand, featuring discussions happening right now as to development in downtown, Central Street, Main Street and on the West Side are very topical and very interesting and perhaps even worthy of their own page. References are a must, as the original writer was certainly not speaking from a neutral point of view.--I'm Nonpartisan 03:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

DS, thanks for your thoughtful comment on my talk page. You are quite right that we tend to weigh in on DR in keeping with our prejudices, which is not really appropriate. Since I believe that Schools do not default to notable (per my views in the essay I have provided to explain more fully my position), I therefore feel that closing the debate as delete, when nothing was provided to establish notability, is correct. This is the sort of thing that was intended (I believe) when we moved VfD to AfD. Of course, it usually is just a headcount. But in this case, the leeway implicit in the name change was of relevance to my comment. Eusebeus 14:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You are quite right. I have reconsidered, and hence struck, that part of my comment which suggested the closure was "in process". The argument: "keep, all school are notable" is, you are quite right, as justifiable as my counter-view and I appreciate your taking me to task on it. I still endorse the closure, but you are correct that it is a subjective call and can reasonably be called into question. Your views and opinions are not necessarily my own, but I have always had great respect for you, so thanks for making the point. I try to contribute as best I can, but at times ones own views cloud the larger point. Good to know you're out there keeping us honest ;) Eusebeus 00:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Your vote here is troubling to me. Did you raise the same points with BSF that you raised with me? If one instance of an expression of an opinion that you disagree with is sufficient in your view to disqualify someone from admin status, then you are not the user I take you for. If, having taken the user's entire record into consideration, you feel that s/he is not ready for admin, then please excuse my effrontery; otherwise, have the courtesy to take it up with the user as you did with me before invalidating the entirety of the contribution. Eusebeus 00:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus, have not had a discussion with BSF on his talk page. I did have a talk with Husond (I also voted oppose on his RfB) and he understands my position. I rarely oppose any RFA and would not oppose anyone for a single misstep, particularly if the person recognized his or her error. We are all human and we all make mistakes. But anyone who indicates that they believe that an admin should disregard good faith opinions (that are not inconsistent with some policy) simply because they personally think that the other side had the better arguments is saying that they don't believe in consensus. It's not a matter of doing something once; it's a matter of a fundamental difference of philosophy.
By the way, this is not about schools. I generally !vote to delete or merge primary and middle schools, though I do think that high schools are at least as notable as train stations, state highways and second string professional athletes, none of whom have to show individual notability because people have given up trying to cherry-pick them. If you changed the AfD from a secondary school to an episode of Family Guy and changed my position to a delete, I would still be dismayed that an admin would conclude that 7 keeps and 6 deletes results in a "delete" when the Wikipedia:Deletion policy very clearly states that "If there is no consensus, the page is kept" and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators states When in doubt, don't delete (bolded in the guidelines).
It is obvious that BSF went back to the guidelines, read the same thing I read about the obligation of the admin to determine "rough consensus" and the fact that "administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith" (bolding mine). Yet, he has reiterated that "I do believe it was within the latitude afforded admins". I think BSF is a very good editor but since he seriously believes that as an admin he has the right to close the discussion the same way Husond did, then I feel I not only have the right but also the obligation to oppose giving him the tools. My standard mantra is "I see no reason not to give X the tools". When someone states in writing for all to see that an admin has the latitude to disregard opinions made in good faith, then I do see a reason to withhold the tools. While being an admin is supposed to be "no big deal" the fact is that there is no easy method of undoing a "bad" deletion. I can hardly imagine something more clearly out of process that this closing and yet, as you can see, the Deletion Review is a complete joke. People are endorsing the decision by making up "policy", when the both the deletion policy and guideline are quite specific. I can't give someone the tools with the expectation that the dysfunctional Deletion Review procedure will correct their errors.
In any event, I don't think it matters much what I say because it is obvious that while people pay lip service to consensus, they are willing to ignore it when it suits their purpose. It's a sad day and perhaps it is time for me to move onto something that is less aggravating than Wikipedia. For now, I'll just go to bed. -- DS1953 talk 05:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey buddy, don't do that! First off, as someone who generally votes to delete, you cannot possibly be as frustrated as me! I understand what you mean above about consensus, but I am not entirely sure I agree. In the deletion process, consensus is totally and haphazardly applied far too often, despite the existence of clear policies (themselves the product of consensus). I think consensus should be changed to define the what and how of material. AfD is completely broken since there is absolutely no consistency in the application of policy.
For example, we have a clear guideline that Wikipedia is not news. Yet almost every time an article related to a current event comes up, the policy is consistently ignored and admins are forced to close contrary to the establishment of a policy consensus. I personally think we should give admins MUCH more discretion in closing such articles, if only to have policy applied consistently and evenly across the mainspace. In this particular instance, absent consensus on schools, Husond's close can be disputed but I don't think it is as clear-cut as you suggest. In the larger sense, I feel consensus should be transferred to policy formation, not individual article discussions. We should hand the admins the power to delete or keep based principally on a fair reading of policy. Thus, one well-made argument for deletion that indicates clear violation of policy should be more significant than any number of Ilikeit keep votes. A good, if depressing, example is here. That article should have been deleted/redirected given its clear violation of WP:NOT.
Two final points. First, I agree with you that High Schools are at least as notable as bus stops, roads, shopping malls, and the person who came in 9th in Javelin at the 1973 European Indoor Track and Field Championships. But (as you probably know) I think those should all be deleted/redirected as well. Second, I apologise for being a bit ornery and moralising about BSF's adminship. I personally think he will make a very good admin, and I am sorry that this specific DR has coloured your opinion of him, but I both respect and understand your position. And on that note, why are you not an admin yourself? If you have any interest, please let me know. I would be happy to nominate you myself. By the way, as a Northwestern PhD, I am very familiar with Evanston. Go Cats! Eusebeus 12:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "In the deletion process, consensus is totally and haphazardly applied far too often, despite the existence of clear policies." My concern is that it is not right. I don't think that on AfD an administrator is entitled to override consensus with his own view, except in those limited instances specified by the policy (such copyvio, WP:BIO, etc...). It seems clear to me that BSF disagrees as he has essentially said so not once but 3 times (on DR, on his RfA and his comments to me below). I have no doubt that he would exercise that power in good faith, but I don't think that under the current policy he has the power at all and should not be given the tools until he understands and acknowledges that he does not have the power to override consensus based on his on evaluation of the article.
If the consensus of the community is that the deletion policy should be changed, for example by making AfD a sort of CSD with a period for users to make comments that are purely advisory, then so be it. If we do that, we should also change the Deletion Review to be a content review (since there would be no "process") and admit that adminship is a big deal because admins are the only ones smart enough to decide what is "encyclopedic". In the meantime, I cannot support any nominee who I believe will use the power to delete articles when, in his good faith judgment, the community has acted "unwisely" (as opposed to contrary to a specific policy, but not merely saying that it is "unenyclopedic"). As I told BSF in my response below (which I answered before writing this response to you), I do believe that he is a valuable member of the community and in most respects would make an excellent admin, but his belief that an admin can substitute his judgment for the consensus of the community means I personally can't support giving him the tools to do that, however well intentioned he may be. Except to that limited extent, in no way has this "coloured [my] opinion of him" and I would have no problem supporting him once I believe he feels constrained by consensus (and is not just saying the right words to placate my apparently idiosyncratic views).
Finally, thank you for offering to nominate me but I have no interest in being an administrator. -- DS1953 talk 02:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Father Michael Goetz Secondary School

This is a complex question, so I have a few things I want to say.

First, I have no problem with you expressing your opinion in my RfA before discussing it with me, although I don't think any harm would have come from the other approach.

As far as the DR is concerned, if you look at it right now, there are 7 who endorse the closure and 5 who wish it overturned, so I'm at least not off on another planet.

My understanding of the procees at DR is "Was the closure appropriate?", not "Would you have closed it the same way?", so you should not assume I would have closed the AfD the same way. I would never disregard editors' good faith opinions just because I disagreed with them. However, in the AfD at issue, the editors who asserted that WP:N was satisfied were just incorrect. WP:N does not permit us to make assess notability based on our own subjective view of what is notable. We have to show that the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." That is the language I paraphrased in my DR !vote. My understanding from reviewing the AfD is that the article in question had no sources (hence my reference to WP:V) to substantiate a claim of notability, so it was not possible to satisfy WP:N. (I should note that I did not participate in this particular AfD and did not review the article before it was deleted.) Based on this understanding, any assertion that WP:N was met could not have been accurate, however well-intentioned. Essentially, they were implicitly arguing that high schools do not have to satisfy WP:N, but AfD is the wrong forum for that discussion. And that was my reasoning.

I have to also disclose that I have a general bias against run-of-the-mill school articles, because I believe their prevalence dilutes the quality of the project. I feel the same way about miscellaneous highway articles and some other categories, but I haven't gotten involved in those areas. This is why I stated up front in my RfA that I would not be closing school AfD's unless they were unanimous or nearly so, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety (and because I will be participating in many of them). On the other hand, I do not believe I am required to check my personal views at the door before simply participating in an AfD or DR.

Based on the above, I would ask you not to draw conclusions about my possible future admin style based on a single opinion in a DR on a topic where I admittedly have some biases. Thanks for reading! -- But|seriously|folks  20:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I read your reply. Let me add just one fine point, and that is that it is usually impossible to prove a negative assertion (e.g., that a subject is not notable). One can only make the observation that notability has not been demonstrated. To support a positive assertion, one need only point to evidence of the assertion (e.g., a reliable, independent source that significantly discusses the subject). This is relevant because I disagree with the position that the opinion "the subject is notable" should be afforded the same weight as the opinion "the subject is not notable". If correct, the former opinion is easy to substantiate, while the latter is impossible to prove conclusively.
If you are saying that unsupported assertions that a subject is notable, without any citation to a reliable source, are sufficient to prevent an article from being deleted, then we might as well throw WP:N out the window. I find that view as disconcerting as you find my position on the weight that should be afforded such !votes.
Nevertheless, I am reading and considering all that you have written, and I do appreciate your input. And if my nom succeeds, feel free to watch my contribs as long as you think is necessary and, if you think I am not doing a good job, please do not hesitate to call me on it. I'm at least as fallable as the next guy. -- But|seriously|folks  01:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant what I said, but I did not mean what you said I said. Take your example, but remove all of the sources, and you'll be closer. By definition, WP:N requires citation to verifiable sources. If this was ambiguous, I would concede the point, but WP:N even has a section on the issue right here. How much weight should be placed on arguments that are contrary to a fundamental guideline? I believe most editors who thoroughly understand and follow WP:N would have closed that AfD as delete. After all, if a talk page discussion results in the consensus that white is black, white will still be white. -- But|seriously|folks  02:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I think our differences are more related to WP:N, but that can obviously indirectly impact on one's perception of consensus, as shown here. It will likely be a long time before I will be closing AfD's that are that contentious, and I do believe that I can follow consensus despite my personal views. If successful, I fully intend to take time to learn about my new tools before doing anything fancy. Thanks again for your input and I'm sure I'll see you around. -- But|seriously|folks  04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your !vote on school notability was ignored

I know that you have expressed your thoughts on the issue, but I wanted to share with you what I have shared with other participants in the AfD in question, who justified their !votes to retain the article using terminology that the closing administrator chose to ignore, while counting equally unsupported votes to delete the article: Your !vote in favor of keeping the article Father Michael Goetz Secondary School at this AfD was ignored by a closing administrator who decided that your vote did not properly explain why the school was notable. While many people think that all schools are notable, we need to make specific claims that the specific school (or anything else you're !voting to keep) is notable. I strongly encourage you to review the requirements of Wikipedia:notability and to consider modifying the justification of your decision to keep an article in any future AfD, school or otherwise. If based on your review of Wikipedia policy and a particular article you feel that the school is indeed notable, a variation of the text "Keep because notability is demonstrated by citation to multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly", (as suggested here), will clearly state why you feel that the article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. If you do not properly support your vote, you take the risk that your participation will be ignored if the closing administrator so chooses, as has already happened to your vote at this AfD. If you feel that your !vote should not have been ignored, you may want to visit the deletion review to express your thoughts on the subject. Alansohn 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

;)

Feel free to correct anything else, I end up typing things like that pretty often :P Appreciate it :) xC | ☎ 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take another at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5

Hi DS1953,

I appreciated your input at the Father Goetz School deletion review and at the related discussions elsewhere. What you've written has really helped me to understand the issues better. I've redone the article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point you just made on my talk page. Who was it (you?) who pointed out that the idea/word in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough Consensus is "verifiable", not "verified", which makes the deletion discussion crucial in the decision -- and even if a majority votes to keep, the admin is supposed to delete. And that would only be the case if nothing were verifiable (otherwise we wouldn't need [citation needed] tags, right?). Does this sound right? Noroton 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I just added a little more on this issue over at User talk:Noroton. Interesting area. -- But|seriously|folks  01:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fine feathered me

Cluck! Cluck! :) Cluckily, Xoloz 22:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

Thank you, DS1953, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Obrigado, DS1953, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 00:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos
Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

[edit] Unsourced Articles

I'm glad to see we're not the first ones to struggle with these issues! I assume you also saw Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process for unsourced articles, discussion of which some editors are currently attempting to revive.

I don't have any source that you have not reviewed. I was relying on the policies and guidelines I cited. All of which means that I accept your conclusion that my proposed use of WP:V does not currently have community consensus. Thank you for doing the research to clarify the approach we should all be following.

Rest assured that if I do end up with the mop, I have no desire to charge into the fray of battle. I plan to learn to use the new tools in areas that are either familiar to me or uncontroversial. I feel I have a good handle on copyright issues, so I will be deleting copyvio articles and helping with the image backlogs. I'm actually a bit apprehensive about closing XfD's, but I am willing to help out there as well, starting with "easy" ones. I promise I will not attempt controversial closures until I am comfortable.

Thanks again for straightening out that policy issue. Very interesting stuff! -- But|seriously|folks  05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for the kind words. Back to my work as well . . . -- But|seriously|folks  05:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Thanks for the kudos, as always its nice to hear from folks who liked the article. And the blue skies were great that day. I have had a lot of blue skies lately, a bit hot but I can deal with that. : ) IvoShandor 06:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idiotic brother!

Sorry, that twerp of a brother has got on whilst I've been in the bath. Pah. Deepest apologies — I'll be more cautious next time. Thank you for alerting me, my brother will receive his punishment :). Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

The re-write of your's did save that article (The RIU Hotels). Kwsn(Ni!) 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biscayne Landing vandalism characterization

Generally, I agree with you, and I tried to be more judicious in my earlier edits, only restoring information I found to be correctly cited despite his claims that the cites didn't support the text. It was only after he blanked the page 4 times and went up to 6RR after being warned about the 3RR rule that I started dropping the WP:TWINKLE hammer on him.--SarekOfVulcan 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Input

Thanks for your recent input into the Speedy Deletion discussion of article I created. The article made it through the Speedy Deletion process, but has been tagged an AfD. The original nominator for speedy deletion was again very prompt in providing his support for deletion. As a result I am now seeking further input on the article. Detractors are using a notability argument so I updated the article to cite coverage from mainstream Radio and Newspaper. After this one of the complainants reversed their judgment, but I still have work to do. If you could spare a few minutes to review the updated article and provide your perspective on the evidence of notability I would be very grateful.Yogidude 12:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page!

Well caught! -- But|seriously|folks  16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe | Talk 02:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you
Thank you for your support of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement.
—TomStar81 (Talk) 05:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear friend! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, dear DS! Love, Phaedriel - 06:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your message saying that you won't be much around in the near future... I hope it's not because of anything serious, my dear DS. If I can help you in any possible way, my mailbox is always waiting for you. xoxox, Sharon


[edit] A Tasty Award

The Original Barnstar
I noticed that your edits were impressive and deserve recognition; so I've decided to award you this Original barnstar! Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, you deserve it! Dfrg.msc 06:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why thank you!

I tried to balance my "girliness", with readability and unobtrusiveness (I have seen some truly hideous signatures, lol). I'm glad you like it! Ariel♥Gold 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Paul II Minor Seminary

Hello. I found the argument made in favor of keeping the article fairly weak and the concerns raised by the editors favoring deletion were not addressed (unrelated sidenote: adresse has one "d" in French and I make that mistake routinely, both in English and French). As I said, I won't object if the article is recreated with due sources to support it but as it stands (or stood actually) I believe consensus is to delete it. You can also ask for a deletion review: if you want to do that, let me know so that I can undelete the article temporarily. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 06:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elonka's RfA

Thanks very much for the kind words, and yes, I'll be trying again soon. :) I actually find the outcome of my RfA somewhat amusing, considering that a few hours after it closed, I was moving on with real-life, at the North American Sci-Fi Convention this weekend, giving talks and signing autographs.[3] My lecture on the Knights Templar went really well! Internet access is a bit spotty here, and it makes Wikipedia seem very far away, but don't worry, I'll be back home again soon, and back to my normal schedule. Thanks again for the support, --Elonka 02:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humour...

Yes, I think I do... I'm just a little lost as to what that comment refers to...— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 13:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. That. *chuckle* — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vistas High School

The article has been renamed correctly as Vistas High School Program. There is a discussion on a possible merge to its parent article at Klein ISD Merge. Your input is welcome. – Dreadstar † 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you commented at [4], but the place for the discussion is centralized at [5] at the article proposed to be merged into. DGG (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Done. -- DS1953 talk 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your supportive comments! I really appreciate it. – Dreadstar † 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you started a trend!. Awesome! – Dreadstar † 00:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 11 August 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steve Hamilton (author), 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.

--DarkFalls talk 07:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Sources

Hello DS1953 and thank you for contacting me. I totally understand your point and agree that some of the best available sources come from pay-per-view websites. Most unfortunately they do, I must add. However, here's something that I'd like you to consider: Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. We've always maintained a strong stance against having anything here that users would have to pay for. Although it is certain that many newspapers and magazines make great sources, the fact that they charge for their valuable online resources should cause them to be void. I'm not paying to read content. Like me, many other users will also not pay. It's unreasonable that on a free encyclopedia users will be directed to links where they would have to pay to verify if its content serves as a source for the article. Those two links provided on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crefeld School appall me. What if I pay to see the rest of the content there and discover that I'll get no assertion of notability? What if I pay and get just trivia? Are you willing to pay or are you going to trust somebody who has paid and claims that it's a good source? You see, too many concerns. Wikipedia fares well without those sources. You might have noticed that when a subject is notable, there's always plenty of free material all over the web. I understand that pay-per-view websites may have excellent material, but unfortunately for them we're not running a business here. Think about it. Best regards, Húsönd 15:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Standstill. :-) We both understand each other's positions, but will likely continue to disagree. Basically, you think that a source is a source regardless of being paid or not, and I think that a paid source qualifies as information as much as a CIA classified document would qualify. By not being free, they're only accessible to some and I therefore believe they should be deemed unavailable info. I acknowledge the validity of your position, but cannot agree with it. Best regards, Húsönd 18:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a standstill alright. You see, I have access to one of the biggest libraries in my country and use it for research because there are millions of important sources there that I can't find on the web. I could even mention those books as sources for a Wikipedia article, not that anyone would bother to go around the Earth just to find a place having those books. The point is, I'm sure that those books wouldn't stand alone as a source for that article. I can concede that some pay-per-view sources may be added to the external links, as long as plenty of other free links exist there. The school that started this entire debate has no assertion of notability so I think that it's plausible to require that the sources meant to establish that very notability be viewed without having viewers charged a few bucks. On a related personal comment, I think that sources are yes tainted if they require a fee. Regards, Húsönd 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your fixing of school articles

I noticed you and TerrisFan have fixed some articles I and others have put on PROD. Thanks for your work; feel free to remove all the other PROD's I have added if you can improve the articles. I wonder if it would be quicker rather than bringing school articles to AFD and PROD, just to ask you to fix them! Camaron1 | Chris 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

PROD is an appropriate acronym since it does sometimes prod users like me to fix articles. I also sometimes prowl CSD and fix articles on AfD. It's a way to help improve the encyclopedia and learn something at the same time. If you see something that looks like it may be fixable, by all means feel free to point it out. -- DS1953 talk 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Meetup

I am not sure if you live in Chicagoland, but I see you have edited Chicago quite a bit. If you are not from Chicago I apologize for the following message. A Chicago Meetup has been scheduled. I hope the time and place are convenient. Your reply would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TerriersFan/Schools

I should welcome your comments on User:TerriersFan/Schools. Please add them to the talk page of that page. TerriersFan 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LDS Chicago Illinois Temple photos

The Photographer's Barnstar
Many thanks for your photos of the Chicago Illinois Temple! :-D —Remember the dot (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walk t'plank!

Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!

Ahoy, me hearty! How 'bout a good ol' jug o' grog? RegARRds, Húsönd 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Illinois 2007 Census

The WikiProject Illinois 2007 membership census has concluded. If you did not add your name during the last week, you were declared "inactive" in the project, your name is still listed at The Participants Page. You can change your status by replacing {{member inactive}} with {{active}} in the table. Any members should also feel free to fill in any missing details on the list below.

IvoShandor 11:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Illinois Post Census Report

The WikiProject Illinois Newsletter (Beta)
"Post Census Report"
Vol. I, No. 1, Issue 1, October 2007
If you would like to delete this message, the original is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois/Newsletter/Post Census Report
Census results

On October 4, 2007 WikiProject Illinois embarked on a membership census. The census was the project's first since its establishment on September 24, 2005. Due to the nature of the wiki, and the two years that had passed, it seemed likely that many of the project's older members were no longer active. The project page had grown stagnant and the census provided an opportunity to see who was still around, slaving away in their own corner of the encylopedia, unknown to the rest of the Illinois editing world. Well, now, the tabulation is complete, and after a notice at the Community Portal, we have gained a couple new members amongst the cluster of project veterans who returned to sign up.

Of the 55 members listed on the project membership list on October 4, 26 editors returned to the list to "resign up," thus, confirming their current activity within project areas. If you received this message, you were one of those editors. The List of Participants has now been updated to reflect the results of this membership survey, with members who failed to respond highlighted as "inactive." Now, as a group of editors, we have a core list of individuals, that will hopefully grow in size as the project strives to become a better organized central collaboration space for editors working on Illinois related topics.

What's next?

The big question, where does the project go from here? Well there are a few proposals being floated at this project page. Little discussion has occurred thus far, and participation would be key to all of them. Some ideas include:

  • An A-class review system, under the WP:ILLINOIS banner, to serve the Illinois and Chicago WikiProjects.
  • A project newsletter, of which this is a beta version.
  • Project restructuring, to include regional and specific discipline task forces.
  • A monthly project collaboration to grow out of our currently idle collaboration division.
From the Editors
  • Welcome new members: Laleena, Omnedon and Rickvaughn
  • Interested in helping building and developing a project newsletter? See, start and join in on the proposal discussion.
  • The table is back up at the List of Participants and it has several blanks you can fill in if you have not done so already. They are: where you are originally from, where you live, the project areas you work in, your join date, and now, your status (which has been filled in for you).
News & Notes
  • Don't forget to add the project page to your watchlist so you can monitor the project talk page for relevant discussion.
  • As a note: WP:ILLINOIS is the project page shortcut and WT:ILLINOIS is the project talk page shortcut.
  • Kranar drogin essentially single-handedly cleared out the massive backlog in Category:Unassessed WikiProject Illinois articles, feel free to sprinkle his page with barnstars and thank yous, he deserves it. Everyone can help keep it cleared out by checking it for unassessed articles. For more information see the Assessment division of the project, though it isn't as project specific as it should be, it has enough info to give assessors an idea of what to do. Be aware that classes A, GA and FA can only be imposed by outside review processes.
  • The AlexNewArtBot dumps new Illinois related articles on this page periodically. You can help monitor new material by watchlisting the page, and combing new Illinois articles for clean up, referencing and other needed editing work.
Contributors to this Issue

IvoShandor 06:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Calder-flamingo.jpg

The Calder sculpture is almost certainly still subject to copyright restrictions. Could you upload a lower resolution version so that we can claim fair use (Boilerplate tag with relevant links below). Thanks Jeremy (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Calder-flamingo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jeremy (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Calder-flamingo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Calder-flamingo.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. Shell babelfish 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Hello DS1953, I've granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. -- DS1953 talk 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bronco.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Bronco.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Friesland Foods logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Friesland Foods logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HebLogo.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:HebLogo.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen of the several states

Hi, please comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 09:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Importance Chicago Articles

If you want to help me choose Category:Top-importance Chicago articles, come comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates by June 5th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)