User talk:GearedBull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haha how funny it's a prank message on my user talk page.

Please click here to leave me a message.

Contents

[edit] Typeface categorization

Thanks for catching my error with Korinna. I'm not sure why I did that. There are so many articles to deal with I don't remember exactly why I put that one there. If I did it by mistake, I apologize. Looking at it now, it clearly isn't modern. However, it doesn't strike me as a slab either. As for Bell, it shares some features of transitionals, so I felt it was ok (plus there was a source, maybe not a good source, but a source that states the face is less severe than the French models and is now classified as Transitional[1]). The beauty of categories is we don't have to make a typeface fit into a single category. Anyway, any help and input on categorizing typeface articles is great. Thanks very much for contacting me. So, do you think organizing typefaces by foundry is a bad idea? I was thinking that having a category for designer if notable, (say a Matthew Carter or Eric Gill or Hermann Zapf), a category or two for style, a category for date, if applicable, and a foundry or two would be a very solid categorization scheme. I understand that foundry can get real messy, but if we keep a strict hold on things, just focusing on for who the typeface was originally created (or revived), I believe categorizing by foundry can be helpful. However, do you think I should stop and we should delete all those by foundry cats? I think it is of particular interest to list say all the Emigre typefaces together, but as I said, it can get messier with older faces.-Andrew c 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More typeface stuff

I guess we should have coordinated our classification efforts a little better on the the typeface font. I realized this after I created Category:Incised typefaces and then, only after the fact, realized you had previously created Category:Glyphic serif typefaces. I thought that this grouping could contain serif and sans-serif faces (for example, Trajan vs. Lithos), and because we didn't have an over abundance of incised typefaces, that we could just group them together. So which category should we keep? I'd be happy to speedy delete mine if you feel that is best. If that happened, would we also create Category:IGlyphic sans-serif typefaces? I personally feel we should just group the two together, but also put them in the general serif or sans-serif category as well. Next, I noticed you added two classification of sans-serif faces. Good work with that. The names scheme are different from mine, so do you think we should CfD rename the serif categories so that they all contain the word "serif" in the category? For example Category:Old style typefaces would become Category:Old style serif typefaces. I really am torn on this, because it seems redundant to my ears that an old style face would be serif. However, it may be easier for someone unfamiliar with type classifications if we mention whether the sub cat is serif or san serif (of course, we wouldn't have to rename slab-serif). Anyway, just my thoughts. Do you have any further ideas or concerns with the categorization project we have begun to undertake?

Finally, would could you mind please speedy tagging Category:Humanist sans-serif? Thanks for your good work!-Andrew c 15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the classification, as noted above, I have asked to rename the cats I created. I made a mistake and did not remember the exact name of the glyphic/incised category that you created, mentioned above. As for the 3rd category of sans-serif, the one listed in a few of my sources is Grotesque, so we can have Category:Grotesque sans-serif typefaces to house Helvetica, Univers, Arial, Akzidenz Grotesk, etc. I'll get on that now and start going through the sans-serifs to add classification and foundries. -Andrew c 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folio thanks + Barnstar

Thanks for adding an image to Folio. I was going to do it later this weekend, but you beat me to it;) Also thanks for expanding the info. My intention was to go through the Meggs/Carter book and make sure we had an article on all 25 'great' typefaces, and Folio was the first one I came upon. Any word on the multiple specimen image issue? Thanks again for all your great work.-Andrew c 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your excellent work in creating typeface articles and type specimen images. Andrew c 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the reply. As my user page states, I have a BFA from VCU :) I studied under some great people. Too bad I'm not a 'professional' graphic designer (yet?).-Andrew c 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maple Syrup Curtain

Thanks. After Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge, I am afraid that there will never again be a Vermont running mate for any presidential candidate. That's why Cato closed each speech with "Vermont delenda est" Mandsford 17:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPQV

Ah, and don't forget the German rallying cry, "Grünberg, Grünberg, über alles".Mandsford 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Helvetica specimen

Hello, I'm Dioxaz. Sorry for that late answer but I think I fixed the author mistake (my apologies for it) on the Helvetica specimen (SVG) page.

Note that I actually recreated entirely and accurately the original sample you submitted as it was a tiny JPEG, hence my decision to make a better version of it at the time (the term "conversion" is a bit ambiguous, so I explained anyway). I also credited you on my first revision (PNG format) but forgot to make it on the second one (SVG).

[edit] Official VT Governor Portraits

Hi GearedBull, I like the addition of the official portraits. I had even been thinking of doing exactly the same thing. However, I would suggest that you one other thing when you replace the original images in the infobox. I suggest that you retain the previous image but move it into the body of the page. In that way the link to the image is preserved but it also enhances the article. Mickmaguire 19:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Type specimen template?

I really like your type specimens. There are a couple of faces that don't have them yet, and I'd be happy to do them myself, but I'd want them to be Exactly Like Yours. So do you have a template for them sitting somewhere where it's downloadable? And do you have any guidelines/rationale for picking certain colors and certain example words for each face?

Thanks for humoring my anality. SFT | Talk 12:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Confound it, I'm an InDesign user. :) Ah well, I can do them in from scratch in Illustrator. (I've had bad experiences exporting to EPS from my version of InDesign.)
But yeah, I'll take those guidelines if they exist. :) SFT | Talk 12:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. — Yep, it's a Music Man reference (or at least a 76 Trombones reference, as I've never actually seen The Music Man). I'm next-to-last chair in the big parade. XD SFT | Talk 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oval Office image

Hi again GearedBull. I know how you are very interested in the White House, and I've found a great pic that I'm sure you could use on the Oval Office page; I think it would even look great as the lead picture because it shows everything! It was taken in April of 1981, so, yes, Reagan was president, but it still has the "Jimmy Carter-ness" to it (i.e. the large orangeish armshairs and striped couches) and there aren't any people in the photo, showing only design (which I know you like). I've uploaded it to Commons and you can find it here: Image:Oval Office 1981.jpg. Hope you like it! Best, Happyme22 00:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree with you; I liked how Reagan's Oval Office looked more than really anyone else in modern times (although I have to say, I like GWB's). The pic I uploaded shows what the office looks like, but the furnature is pretty ugly so use whatever you want. I'd love to see what the other pics look like on the page. Best, Happyme22 00:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranging figures @ Architype Renner

You undid my edit, saying “they are different name for the same thing.” I was very careful to check the definitions before I made my edit: ranging is synonymous with lining, according to (1) Bringhurst, § 3.2.1, and (2) the first paragraph at Text figures. Also, although the image at Architype Renner shows only the text figures, both sets of figures are indeed included. The only small assumption I made in my edit was that both sets were actually designed by Renner, which was the whole purpose of the font package. Please undo your edit unless you have evidence to the contrary. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark R Johnson (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I’m a noob to User talk. Is it usual to leave replies at each other’s talk page, where the thread can’t be read all in one place? I replied to your reply on my talk page. Cheers. MJ (t • c) 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello? I replied to you 2 days ago, and when I didn’t hear anything yesterday returned here to alert you. I see you’re busily working on other pages today. Am I supposed to start yet another section on this page just to get your attention? If I get no response today I will revert your edit. Please let me know the normal protocol, thanks. MJ (t • c) 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I got tired of waiting. I reworded the sentence to be inclusive again, this time avoiding the term. MJ (t • c) 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:JSCLLC14pd.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JSCLLC14pd.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 00:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White House changes

Hi GearedBull. I changed the White House page for good reason. My version enhanced the page and made it easier for readers, for the images were correctly placed, they were downsized so readers focus on the text (it is an encyclopedia), captions were kept shorter, and infoboxes do help. There are problems with the way it is currently presented:

  • The images do not adhere to the MOS. I was told during an FAC to get rid of all specific sizes unless needed or unless it is the main photo. I downsized the images meaning to compromise with you, but to tell you the truth, they look bad with long captions and large images (see WP:MOS#Images).
  • The captions do not adhere to the MOS, for they are long sentences which can and should be made into paragraphs in the article or incorprated into the text (see WP:MOS#Captions), something I am willing to do over the next few days.
  • There is no infobox. Although technically not required, it does help the article and provides a brief overview of the WH, along with the main image in the box.

By far, however, my biggest problem with the page is the placing of the Lenister House right under the main photo of the White House. I know your intentions are good; you want readers to be able to compare lenister house to the North side of the WH, and Château de Rastignac to the South side. My problem is that the Lenister House is not the White House! Placing it that high could cause confusion between the WH and this house (not all readers of Wikipedia are Americans). It's doing the article a disservice. If it were me the photos of the Lenister House and Chateau would have have been gone a long time ago, but in an effort to compromise with you I kept them but moved them down lower under the "design influences" section.

The last problem I have (and I have expressed this on the talk page) concerns the last two sections: "White House telephone switchboard" and "Replicas". This article is meant to display the White House not replicas of the White House. That paragraph should be turned into it's own article, and linked from the main article (Perhaps: "Being a famed structure in America, many replicas have been constructed in its image.") And what in God's name is a WH telephone switchboard doing with its own section?!? Something about it can be mentioned, but the two stubby paragraphs are trivia and should be removed (especially the second one).

It seems as if every time I change the page in a major way, you revert most of it back. I'm not accusing you of owning the page, rather I think my changes benefit the article and wanted to share those with you here so that we can reach an understanding and compromise. Please get back to me. Best, Happyme22 00:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the talk page. Thanks a lot for getting back to me. I've also copied the replicas info into a new article (Replicas of the White House), and removed the switchboard info. I'm actually looking forward to working with you and whomever else will comment on the discussion page, and I know we will be able to reach something! Thanks, Happyme22 04:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DidYKnow nomination

OK? Victuallers 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

This user thinks this would make an appropriate flag for the so-called Second Vermont Republic.
Updated DYK query On 9 November 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White House Chief Floral Designer, 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.

Cheers, Daniel 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review of Ralph Flanders

Dear GearedBull, I invite you and anyone that you feel would be a constructive reviewer in a peer review of Ralph Flanders at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Flanders. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review for instructions. Sincerely, HopsonRoad 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nast porcelain

Many thanks GearedBull for the images uploaded in common. Thus the french WP looks as good as the english one ! Very nice to alert me, I appreciate. Take care.--LPLT (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entrance Hall (nom)

Hi. I've nominated Entrance Hall, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created.2Fexpanded on November 21, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Komusou talk @ 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: a DYK admin has deplored the lack of contextual WP:NOTES in the article. I added a <REF>Author Date, p. N.</REF> for the Truman point used in one of the two hooks, but if you could source the second hook and the article's main points, it'd raise chances of selection before the DYK deadline. — Komusou talk @ 16:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On November 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Entrance Hall, 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.

Thanks again GearedBull. Do feel free to self nominate.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your picture of a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey

What's with the (somewhat badly done) airbrushing on this pic? I mean, to be completely honest I was surprised to see this on an article.—Random832 14:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I heard about this book but thanks for that link. It seems like an interesting topic. Who knows? Maybe it can help with some of the White House article's you've been working hard on? haha thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You know GearedBull, I've been looking over some of your recent edits and additions and I have been learning a lot from them. I had no idea there was a White House Chief Calligrapher but have always wondered how the invitations were made. And I see the Chief Florist has been around a while as well. The White House is a very interesting topic. Anyway I'd just like to express my thanks for your hard work and dedication.
Also, my daughter gave me the Entertaining at the White House with Nancy Reagan book for Christmas. I've been reading a little bit of it, and you'll like to know that it does not only discuss the White House during the Reagan years, as I originally thought. Rather, it starts back with John Adams and goes through different periods of specific aspects of the White House, mostly highlighting state dinners and formal events hosted by the Reagans. It's very interesting and if I find anything notable about state dinners or parts of the White House I'll be sure to let you know. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nice work on Font

Good work, GearedBull. You're right, a short squib with some links is much better than a simple redirect to either Typeface or Computer font. -- TJRC (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vermont Seal

Sorry about that - I didn't realize that the seal had no official color version. Thanks for the fix. -DevinCook (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for my late response, but I am not very active Wikipedian any more. Regarding the image of the seal - I don't have a clue who is the original author - I merely transferred the image from the site noted down in the description page. Feel free to remove it, if you find it misleading in any way. Regards, --Matijap (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for formatting

the image at maquette. I tend to format pages so that they look good on my screen, sometimes forgetting (or ignoring?) what might happen on someone else's. Life is good. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 本店維修師

本店維修師 Princess Dark Darla 能為你提供特快既手機維修服務,專業修理各類型號GSM手機,入水手機及手機軟件升級服務等;即日免費檢查.報價,維修,無需長時間等候! CApitol3 (talk)

[edit] Grand Staircase (White House)

Updated DYK query On 13 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grand Staircase (White House), 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.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey great staricase article! Just wondering, is the Truman administration pic before of after the 1948 renovation? If it is you might want to state that in the caption. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hey, it's nice to know somebody has noticed the changes on that Vermont portal! I'm working on getting it up to Featured Portal stats, if you want to help out, go ahead! And don't forget, there is now a collaborators page if you want to help out. Good luck, and once again, thanks! Soxred93 | talk count bot 20:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Vermont coppers

Hi. I've nominated Vermont coppers, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on January 31, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, PFHLai (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, CApitol3. Thank you for adding in the footnotes. Happy editing! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vermont coppers, 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.

- P.K.Niyogi (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vermont republic

Hello - I'm the editor (69.230.120.39) who added some citation requests to the Vermont Republic article, though I'm under a new address now. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but I do not share your view that asking for some citation on two important points is "neither helpful or assuming good faith". If it can't be supported, then that's a major problem, isn't it? You've added some references in response to my edits. You don't believe that that sets the article on a firmer basis?

My chief concern about this article is how anachronistic it seems. When I asked why Wikipedia is calling this the Vermont Republic even though it wasn't called that at the time, I didn't mean "Was this ever called the Vermont Republic prior to the internet?" I meant, "Why call it the Vermont Republic when the state itself never called it that at the time in question?" I'm not especially impressed that some writers generations removed from the period have published books claiming it as a republic. Some writers have attempted to revise Bacon's Rebellion into the "First War of American Independence". Doesn't make it so. Fred Van de Water, for example, was just a novelist who wrote history on the side, and I'd consider him hardly qualified to make such a judgment, if he did. Maybe the article should have a section on the historiography of the 1777-91 era, explaining how such judgments developed.

That the article makes enough admissions to allow me to ask such questions is a strength, to which I probably owe you credit. But I can't tell you I find its thrust wholly believable. I'd feel much more confidence in the POV if it cited prestige historians of American republicanism during that period like Bernard Bailyn or Gordon S. Wood, rather than amateur and local historians. 69.237.198.102 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello unregistered user at IP address 69.237.198.102. Thank you for your comments. Your points are well taken. I am not sure that the period of Vermont's independance has been written about by many beyond what you will describe as local historians. The subject is chiefly of concern to the continuingly small number of people who live or have lived at some point in the state or region. A fairly substantial number of twentieth century and contemporary writers, including Bill Doyle, John Duffy, Jan Albers, and a handful of contributors to the Vermont Historical Society's publications, most of them professors at the University of Vermont or the Vermont State Colleges, can be added to Orton and Van DeWater, as examples of writers using the term "Vermont Republic." None of these are misty-eyed mythologists or jokesters. No, they are not ivy leaguers, not all are primarily historians, but their common usage of the term Vermont Republic, to describe the state of Vermont between 1777 and 1791 seems to have emerged as a convention, and I do not see an attempt by any of them to suggest Vermont was ever more than an independant republic by default. In 1777, the United States as a federal union was a good dozen of years away. And, the Continental Congress included representatives of the two states Vermont had torn itself out of. Add to that, the preoccupation with American independance, and it seems easy to understand why Vermont was not hastily ushered in as a new member state. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was concerned with issues of debt, interstate tarrifs, national security, and the question of federalism, seemingly preoccupied, and constitutionally unclear what Vermont would be.
I mentioned before, that I had on the main Vermont page's discussion page raised the possibility of renaming the article Vermont (independant state), but feared I might be adding to the confusion, particularly with the Second Vermont Republic folks, and creating on Wikipedia something akin to new research. You question "why Wikipedia is calling this the Vermont Republic..." and I feel compelled to point out your participation might be what turn the article in another direction. I observe your issues are first nomenclature, and then citation, v. new research, mythology, or conjecture. I am curious whether, and how, Bailyn and Wood describe Vermont's status in those years.
I became interested in this article when I felt that it was being preened by editors with an agenda supporting the Second Vermont Republic as a sort of mythological nation with no intention of joining the Union. Vermont is my homestate, my family has farmed there since the late 18th century. While Vermonter's might pride themselves on being contrarians, and my older relatives might identify themselves as Vermonters first, they are not in any way seperatists. Most can't imagine a United States without Vermont, and many fancy their state as an important part of their country's history and a common sense check on its behavior. CApitol3 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
CApitol3 I suppose I can weigh in a bit here now that I've been reading Van de Water's Reluctant Republic. I was able to locate a first edition which gives a clear representation of what was first published. First, about Van de Water; he was a early 20th century journalist who retired early to Vermont, knew Kipling's estranged brother-in-law(? - not sure of the relation), wrote books on Kipling, Custer, Vermont. He did a great deal of research for the Reluctant Republic, using original source documents, but the book reeks of the journalistic style of the period. By that I mean, where no clear fact occurs Van de Water relies on conjecture to fill in the blanks. I'm not done with it yet but am well past the point of the creation of the independent State of Vermont. The is no reference to a republic other than Van de Water's own view of the matter. It is clear that inferences concerning the Haldiman Negotiations may have something to do with later thoughts that Vermont must surely have been a republic. These negotiations will need inclusion into the Vermont article since they clarify the balancing act that was going on regarding New York, the Western Union (that area west of today's border between VT & NY and the Glens Falls area) and the Eastern Union (the NH communities briefly admitted to Vermont, the independent state, before Congress indicated to Ira Allen that it would authorize an invasion of Vermont to settle the matter. I've found that the NY legislature had voted to recognize VT as early as 1781 but that was blocked by NY's then extremely powerful executive, Gov. Clinton, for the next ten years.
Missing from most of the pro-republic assertions is the fact that in June of 1775, Ethan Allen and Seth Warner, in Philadelpia, sought permission from the Continental Congress to create a ranger regiment for the Continental Army in the NH Grants called the Green Mountain Continental Rangers. The GMCR were recruited primarily from the existing elements of the Green Mountain Boys, and it was this organization that was created by Congress which also directed that Allen and Warner obtain funding from NY's Congress. The NY Congress authorized funding on July 4, 1775 for the regiment in the NH Grants. When Warner and Allen returned to Bennington they learned of Warner's election as colonel of the regiment. Allen received no position and was later attached to NY Gen. Philip Schuyler's staff. This material may be found in the Vermont Encyclopedia, some of which is online at Google Books. The pertinent section is found in the hard copy.
There seems to be some effort underway to create an impression of some greater separation between Vermont and the then Confederacy of States that pre-dated the US that there is little or no evidence for.
I'd raise a question over in the Vermont article last week and it now seems to be even more relevant as I learn more. Essentially it has to do with the name of the Vermont republic article itself. Is there some manner by which the more accurate title may by used while still protecting accessiblity to users looking up a modern colloquialism for the independent State of Vermont? Since the 2VTRep people appear to have specific political objectives that would benefit from some obfuscation of the true status of Vermont at that time, the confusion regarding the 2VTRepublic seems to be secondary to the encyclopedic requirements involved here. PeterInVT (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi PeterInVT. Your weigh-in was welcome. Are you the same person who had previously left me messages under IP addresses? I am not against there being an organization calling for separation having some voice, but the fact is that Second Vermont Republic is at most 5-10 people, with an axe to grind and near to zero public support. We have an interesting question as to what to call this period. As I see use of the term Vermont Republic (or republic) it is an attempt to identify that period under a name a bit separate from the State of Vermont which clearly evokes a U.S. state, which Vermont wasn't in 1777-'91. That period of independence, first chosen out of a desire not to answer to masters in NY and NH, and continuing independently because the Continental Convention did not immediately invite them in, remains an important part of the state's history and still independent and contrary culture.
Nearly all factions of the men forming Vermont sought, or supported others seeking, union with the other states. It's been better than 5 years since I have read the Reluctant Republic completely in consecutive order. I understand it to be a product of its time, and though not of first caliber largely accurate and not much wreckless conjecture. I didn't find it an enjoyable book so much as interesting. Jim CApitol3 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. No, I haven't participated in Wikipedia before, although it's been one of those things I've meant to do. I'd found an entry about an artist I know of and he seemed to be getting dragged into the 2VTRepublic thing against his will. I've tried to add some things that I could help with but I'd like to avoid that controversy, if possible. I quickly became aware that there are some contributors that appear to be advancing interests of the 2VTR group and are aggressive in doing so. My background is in research, but not the historic sort.

The matter did spark my curiosity. I even had one of those Vermont Republic plates issued by the VT DMV for the bicentennial, myself. While I could immediately find many references to a Vermont Republic, I didn't find what I would call compelling evidence for it as an official entity.

There is, however, much evidence concerning Vermont's early, continuing attempts to join the Confederacy of States, the chief obstacle for which appears to have been NY's Governor George Clinton. When I look at the machinations of the Arlington Junto, the Allen brothers and the subsequent secret negotiations with British commander-in-chief in Canada, Gen Frederick Haldiman, architect of the Arnold betrayal, it seems that this may be the genesis of Clinton's animus toward the Vermonters, but it would need a lot more work to find if it is a true factor.

The Reluctant Republic is bit of a slog. I probably shouldn't have started there but that seemed to be where the whole republic thing took off from so I thought I'd orient from that point.

It seems premature to make a change but it's looking more to me that the title for the article, Vermont Republic, should be changed to something that approximates the reality of that time, that of a state seeking admission to the Confederacy that had a military unit created by Congress, paid for by NY and comprised of Vermonters, in service to the Continental Army. If the military force had been hired, I could see maintaining the republic idea, but that wasn't what occurred. It was the Congress authorized Green Mountain Continental Rangers that fought at Hubbarton, Bennington and Saratoga, and, frankly, that was news to me. I'd always thought that it was the Vermont militia known as the Green Mountain Boys. It's why I'm inclined to think that something like the "independent State of Vermont" is a more accurate title, as well as being less involved in the present controversy and political effort.

I'm awaiting another text that should have more on this, probably early next week. If you have any suggestions regarding texts on the matter, I'd appreciate hearing them. Pete PeterInVT (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pete, this sounds good, I will think about what other texts you might consider reading. Have you read the catalog to the "Freedom and Unity" exhibition at the Vermont Historical Society's museum in the Pavilion in Montpelier? Another interesting text, though strange at times is Ira Allen's History of the State of Vermont which never uses the word republic! On that subject I would give weight to contemporary writers about Vermont, like John Duffy and William Doyle. Duffy uses the term Vermont Rpublic in his book Vermont an Illustrated History, and has a section titled "A Revolution, A Republic, and Statehood." I believe William Doyle's Vermont Political Tradition does too but I have loaned it out so can't verify just now. So here i guess my point is that it may be a de facto title based on contemporary usage, and could be explained as it presently is. Probably the closest we will find of the time using the word "Republic" is the obverse of the 1785 Vermont copper coins using the passage " VERMONTS. RES. PUBLICA.." Talk more later. Jim CApitol3 (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jim. I'm expecting the Allen history this weekend and have spoken to the VHS on a number of items. I'll look into the others. I'd also looked at res republica and that too doesn't seem to be quite the slam dunk that the name would suggest. Again, we seem to be dealing with a contemporary reading that does not allow for the true facts. It's loosely like using the 20ish year old license plate in my barn as evidence because it says "Republic."
My point about considering the title change is to not get into the contemporary argument but, rather, be neutral in a fact driven way. That would also seem to be a simpler method that doesn't contribute to an ongoing confusion, laced with political undertones, as it presently does.
I'd like to locate more on the Green Mountain Continental Rangers aspect before adding it to the article. I'm arranging a meeting with the curator at the VT National Guard exhibit at Fort Johnson but that won't likely be until late April but that has more to do with the flag history. I did get the '85 Crampton's Concise Encyclopedia of Flags & Coats of Arms cited in the flag of the Vermont Republic article and there is no such flag in it. In fact, there are no state flags at all.

Thanks for the suggestions. Pete PeterInVT (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, got my William Doyle (and a couple other) books back this morning. Doyle also uses the term Republic, and has a section called "The Republic Grows in Strength." (page 51) describing an interlude of peace and relative prosperity (mid 1780s). No question in my mind that they did not call it that in their time, and that from almost day one petitioned for admission to the United States under articles of confederation. Of course, the Roman Republic was not the official name of Rome in the republican period, but is how it is referred to, or Germany's period called the Weimar Republic, or Frances Second Republic, all describe a period not an official name of a nation. Weimar took its name from the small city where the constitution was written and ratified. Perhaps if Vermont's government had stayed put in Windsor it might have been called the Windsor Republic.
I agree that Res Publica is not a silver bullet of proof, where I have cited it I have mentioned that it could be rendered as commonwealth too. CApitol3 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Meeting House Article

Dear GerardBull --

I have an interest in creating an article on Colonial Meeting Houses, a subject I have been researching now for several years. In searching Wikipedia I found your article on Meeting Houses -- well done! I have more information that I've gathered, and was wondering if you had a preference whether I add to your article, or create my own under "Colonial Meeting House" and we can link to each other's articles. I'm a brand new contributor, so it may take me a while to figure out how to do either of these two alternatives. Paul wainwright photography (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC) (if I could figure out how to change this user name, I would)

[edit] Gothic

Hi, I've never added images to American Gothic or Carpenter Gothic. Clariosophic used a few of my images there, you need to see that user. Altairisfartalk 16:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just got around to taking a really good look at the Carpenter Gothic article. I agree that the first photo is a pretty awful shot, though it does look like it had Richard Upjohn design influences. I notice several later structures (churches) that are just the typical late19th century Gothic Revival style and have few, if any, true Carpenter Gothic characteristics. For example: Image:UU San Mateo.jpg, Image:Lagrangechurch.jpg, Image:Port Orange Grace Episc Church01.jpg, Image:Bethany-1-kendrick-id-us.png, Image:Dunedin Andr Mem Chapel01.jpg, and United Hebrews of Ocala (Florida). Carpenter Gothic in my understanding was in it's heyday from 1840-1870. So... the galleries probably do need thinning out, but, judging from the talk page response, it doesn't look like Clariosophic would be very receptive to that at present. All illustrations for an encyclopedia article on Carpenter Gothic really should have several of the identifying features: steeply pitched roofs and gables, gingerbread ornamentation, fancy scroll work, barge boards, carved porch railings, and strong vertical design elements, such as board and batten siding. The photos of mine that were included on the page all appear to have been built to Upjohn's designs, and would be considered early examples of Carpenter Gothic. On another note, I wouldn't say that the American Gothic House is prototypical as it is a rather late example, dating to the 1880s. Though, architecturally, it fits the style to a tee. Good luck in making any improvements. Cheers! Altairisfartalk 23:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TWW

Thanks for correcting the article name here. I had a total blind spot for "man"/"son", twice! –Outriggr § 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And for adding links, etc. If you have sufficient interest in this area maybe you'd like to clear out the some of the writing that is unnecessarily detailed or hagiographic. –Outriggr § 23:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting house article

Thanks. I have prepared a draft of what I had in mind and placed it here (a sub page of my user page):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paul_wainwright_photography/cmh

When I place it in the Wiki for public viewing (not sure how to do that yet), I will probably call it: Colonial meeting houses of New England . More photos will be added. Your thoughts are welcome.

And yes, I did visit the Colonial meeting house in Bellows Falls, VT, and there are photos of it on my web site.

Paul wainwright photography (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North Lawn (White House), South Lawn (White House)

Updated DYK query On 16 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles North Lawn (White House), and South Lawn (White House), 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) 05:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bluflogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bluflogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre-Joseph Redouté

Working on Wikipedia The Four-way test from Rotary International

   * Is it the truth? (April 1 foolery excepted)
   * Is it fair to all concerned?
   * Will it build goodwill and better relationships?
   * Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

Rotational (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't mean to repeat my message - connection to WP is erratic this evening! Rotational (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Further information: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

The following general guidelines should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise.

  • Start an article with a right-aligned image.
  • Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (Example: Timpani).
  • Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
  • Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. (Example: Race (classification of human beings)).

**Exception: Portraits with the head looking to the reader's right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) Rotational (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may interrupt, I saw your most recent comment on Rotational's talk page, GearedBull, and wanted to clarify. The information above is copied and pasted from WP:MOS#Images. I generally disagree with Rotational's assessments of article layout and style and have had conflicts with him in the past. Here, Rotational leaves off one of the key clauses of the MOS guideline he cites for this:
Portraits with the head looking to the reader's right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) when this does not interfere with navigation or other elements.
A work-around for this is to include a biography infobox on Pierre-Joseph Redouté, such as {{Infobox Artist}} or {{Infobox scientist}}, then the conflict over right-facing or left-facing image vanishes because the image will be incorporated into the right-aligned infobox. Hope that info helps. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Rkitko has also stopped short of quoting the whole guideline [2] "In such cases, it may be appropriate to move the Table of Contents to the right by using {{TOCright}}" . I'm afraid he has an almost pathological obsession with infoboxes and has stalked articles I've worked on for as far back as I remember. Otherwise he's fairly harmless except for wild allegations of sockpuppetry [3] and accusations of impoliteness (despite his behaviour, he wants to be treated nicely)...........Rotational (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:VMSseal3.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:VMSseal3.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo ica.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Logo ica.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] castleton founding

Gearbull, Castleton was NOT established as a college/university until 1867. It was a grammar school prior to that.It's charter in 1786 was NOT that of a COLLEGE. Analogy: Vermont was a republic until 1791 NOT a state. It had a geo-political entity, but not that of a state. In parallel, Castleton had an educational identity, but not that of a college/higher education sntitution, but not that of a COLLEGE. That charter/mission did not occur until 1867. See below:

Castleton was founded as a grammar school, teaching Greek and Latin and helping to fulfill the Vermont Constitution's requirement of universal free education for Vermont's citizens. In 1867 the State Normal School was founded in Castleton. Normal school a term based on the French école normale supérieure, a school to educate teachers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.116.38 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear CApital3: Regarding the chronology of the founding of New England colleges and universities and where UVM and other colleges fall in that line-up, you appear to be suggesting that this information is peacock strutting. While you and I may disgaree on definitions of institutional classifications and related founding dates, I can see that point. I suggest simply removing the chrono comparison, it is not defining of the institution. I will make this edit. If there is other "strutting" you see, please be direct and respectful in saying what that is.

As you note, I have made extensive edits to the University of Vermont entry. It was poorly written and organized and contained incorrect information in many areas. There were also gaps in very basic factual information (inclusion of the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Business Administration, in example). There were several entries that appeared to indulge personal interests rather than concern for information quality. There are indeed still elements of marketing positioning in the entry that I intend to help address.

You will find extensive notes accompanying all but edits I made on April 1 - an honest oversight, for which I apologize. I was also unaware of the discussion function, therefore did not employ it. Also, the poor quality of the page led me to believe no one with any concern for information integrity was actively concerned with the University of Vermont entry at this time. Nonetheless, I see the importance of seeking discussion.

With regard to my identity, I sense hostililty and/or insinuation in this request. Please respectfully state your reasons for asking. I have a 30-year affiliation with the University of Vermont and am a professional editor as well as graduate of library studies, much of which were focused on information integrity. I am committed to Wikipedia's five pillars.

FYI: I plan to add a photograph to the University of Vermont entry. I believe a birds-eye shot giving a sense of the whole campus rather than a portrait of a single building is appropriate near the overview. I hope to obtain permission to use a photo I have seen.

I will refer to the page discussion for any response. I am not clear on all aspects of the sign off you suggest and would like to review that function before employing it. Thank you for your patience in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.241.160 (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curator of the White House/White House Office of the Curator Merger Proposal

I have proposed that two articles you have created, Curator of the White House and White House Office of the Curator should be merged because they are about the same topic. --TommyBoy (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] meta gf

delete for lack of citations?! There are none in the article currently. I provided a Url which shows a copy of the drawings done by barney. As for the fact, if you care to substantiate, why not drop an email to Gerry at sedley place, and ask him, for the sake of historical accuracy. Next time you revert, why not offer discussion? There's a whole page for that too. Or are you too self-righteous for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.6.250.44 (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in White House stereographs

Hello, GearedBull. You seem to have a good source for (or perhaps you are the source for) early stereographs about the White House. I'd like to discuss at your convenience. Thanks.

Jim jimgATSIGNcockeyedcreations.com Cockeyed (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response at FF Meta

I have responded at the discussion page, as you requested. Please read it - I await your response. 81.6.250.44 (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:AlduSpec.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:AlduSpec.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly hi! 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:AldusSp.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:AldusSp.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly hi! 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:AldusSpec.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:AldusSpec.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly hi! 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White House stereograph views.

Hello, Jim.

Thanks for your response...wherever it is. I am new to the contributor areas of Wikipedia, and find it very confusing. I don't know how to find "the discussion page" to which you refer. There are two links in your post here, but neither of them take me to anything about White House stereographs.

Today, while visiting Wikipedia, I found a link to a message from you. In its entirety, it reads: "Hi Jim, I am responding to your question about White House stereograph views." This is, technically, a response, but isn't very helpful. I suspect that somewhere else you have posted a fuller response. I just don't know how to find it.

--Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockeyed (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White House Stereographs

Hello, Jim-- Thanks for your response on my "talk" page giving details about your collection. I have a collection myself. I also make modern stereographs, and publish sets of stereoviews (both vintage and modern). Check out www.cockeyedcreations.com.

I am working on a set of vintage White House views. I have, or have found access to, several good ones, and am waiting to hear from my client about what they have in their archives. In the meantime I am looking around to see what is out there. We are looking in particular for shots that include people, events--something of a story, as opposed to just a shot of an empty room. Also, perhaps, early views that show differences between how it looked then and now.

If you have unusual views of this nature, would you be willing to scan them for inclusion in such a work?

Cheers, --Jim Cockeyed (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Aiblogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Aiblogo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


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

Thank you for uploading Image:BLUFidentity.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bnan logo.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Bnan logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BorzoiLOGO.png}

Thank you for uploading Image:BorzoiLOGO.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


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

Thanks for uploading Image:BringhurstEoTS.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam links

Just a quick message really ... was wondering how citing an external website was considered spam when it was added as a reference for a list of terms commonly associated with chandeliers?

LightingSpecialist (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Whha logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Whha logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)