User talk:Gpyoung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk can be found at User talk:Gpyoung/Archive1.

[edit] Template:Illinois Redux

Here is my attempt. User:Agriculture/Template:Illinois. Agriculture 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There is one farm in Chicago and it's in Mt. Greenwood, and it's part of the Chicago Agricultural School on the southwest side of the city.

[edit] Chicago FAC

Hi, I have finally ended the picture vote (#3 won of course) and have nominated Chicago as a Featured Article. Just wanted to let you know. --Gpyoung ^talk 18:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw that, looks like it's getting support (except for the some of the image issues). Also, just to let you know, I'm going to be out of town until August 4th, but I'll be checking in periodically. I hope everything goes well. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought you changed the main image on the Chicago page, or was I mistaken? -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Doh, somebody reverted the picture. Gpyoung (I think) changed the picture on July 28 after the vote ended. From the history page of Template:ChicagoInfoBox: 23:30, 29 July 2005 67.167.117.10 (Wait until voting ends before changing the picture!). I looked at the vote page again and it seems there were two ending dates posted. The first one is under Chicago Main Page Picture Vote and says August 13. The second is under Picture Vote and says July 28. For the sake of the featured article status, I am going to change the picture back to #3 as voted best by the community in a ~2 week vote. I'll also clear up that the vote has ended as of July 28 as agreed upon on User Talk:Shoffman11 -- Shoffman11 01:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC) P.S. I think #3 is the clear winner anyways even if the vote continued until the 13th of August.

I archived the FAC on the talk page as it had been removed from WP:FAC (it's archived here). When this occurs, it signals that Raul has either promoted or archived the nomination and voting is in effect over. Harro5 07:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Hi, I'm involved in a situation and I was wondering if you could give me some advice. I am involved in a small content dispute over Congressional Black Caucus with User:Adam Carr. I have commented on the article's talk page that I thought it wasnt NPOV (i wasnt alone either), because the last two paragraphs are just, in my opinion, "blind priase" for the CBC and shameless promotion. User:Adam Carr will not even respond to my comments and whenever I try to removed the quotes in question, he reverts it. Recently I have tried adding the {{NPOV}} and leaving his paragraphs but he removed that too without discussion.

I am asking you because you seem to have a good grasp of how things work around here and it would be nice to have a trustworthy, non-involved person look at the situation.

Thanks in advance, --Gpyoung ^talk 15:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at it. It looks like he's responded to your message now. Also, I'd recommend leaving messages to a specific user on their user talk page, as they are notified of it the next time they visit a page on wikipedia. As far as the quote though, I took a look at it and had another user look at it too. The quote isn't very neutral, but I don't think it needs to be. If you were to say "The black caucus is a fantastic group" that is one thing, but if you say "Senator John Doe has said 'The black caucus is a postive... blah blah blah'" it is kind of a different story, because you're not representing it as fact. However, I don't think he should be removing the NPOV tag without discussing it. Also, try to add edit summaries so other users know what you're doing. Hope this helps. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Although, Adam isn't being very civil right now though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You may want to request comments. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah-good idea. Ill list it there. Thanks, --Gpyoung ^talk 17:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BCC

Are you disputing the authenticity of the quotation? If not, you have no grounds for removing it. If you want to add a quotation from someone else saying the BCC are scoundrels or whatever, you are entirely free to do so. But you are NOT free to delete factual and relevant material from articles just because you (apparently) disagree with the contents of the quotation. I am reinstating the deleted material. I will not delete the NPOV tag for now, but you need to provide a good reason why the quotation should be deleted. Adam 03:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good argument, but I am not prepared to argue about this all day. I suggest you find some negative comment to put into the article when you have time (if such exists), and then we can see what the article looks like. (I have borrowed your Solidarity with London tag for my user page, with thanks). Adam 04:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar! =) -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, you've really arrived!

Congrats on your momentary immortalization in Gpyoung, and happy vandal-fighting! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 01:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox_French_Région

Following your commment on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Alsace_infobox, I improve the above template. How do you like it? Template_talk:Alsace_infobox compares the two. -- User:Docu

Is there a particular reason why you still prefer Template:Alsace_infobox to Template:Infobox_French_Région, now that the information is the same? -- User:Docu

[edit] NPOV, and Quotations

You have recently been removing quoted views or statements under claim of POV. ([Congress of the United States] and [Congressional_Black_Caucus]) Items directly labled as the opinions or quotes of notable people are NPOV. To quote directly, "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly." Reporting a quote from someone is representing a majority or minority view. You may add quotations or detail information on views held by others if you wish. --Barberio 20:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

(Quoted from my talk page)

With all due respect, I would ask you to stop attacking my edits as if they were done to advance my own POV. Both of the edits of which you speak were made as an attempt to make the article NPOV and were discussed before being made. In fact, the edit on the Congress of the United States article was made more then a month ago and my comment on that talk page has gone unanswered until just recently. Wikipedia is built on the art of compromise, it is wholly inappropriate for you to go around characterizing edits that you disagree with as vandalism. Certain quotes and the way that they are used in an artlce CAN make an artlce NPOV, that is an agreed upon fact within the community., and it is the job of the editors to make sure that each side is fairly represented. IMO This was not the case in either of these articles, that is why I felt compelled to delete the quotes until the article can be balanced out. On Congress of the United States, someone made an argument for why the content should be kept, so I regress and supporrt putting it back up, although I do intend to rewrite it to an extent; this is the spirit of Wikipedia. The second article to which you refer, Congressional Black Caucus is also a long dead dispute. After stating our views, the author of the article, User:Adam Carr and I reached a compromise in which the quotes could be kept. I also disagree with your interpretation of the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. Reporting a quote from someone who is clearly associated with one POV, although acceptable in some terms and when balanced out with other quotes, is not always NPOV, espeically when it is what I like to call "blind praise". This is the kind of issue that has to be handled through DISCUSSION of the issue and not by making attacks calling such changes vandalism. I would advise you to please make any further comments on content related issues on the article's talk page so that the community may add input.

--Gpyoung ^talk 01:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleting valid quotes of opinion is not balencing an article. You may if you wish add quotations from alternitive viewpoints or disagrements.

An agrement between two users does not stand for an agreement between all wiki editors, and should not replace discussion on the talk page of the article, and a general consensus prior to making any changes of this kind. I see no discussion on the talk pages that supported your removals. On the contrary, I saw disagreement with them.

If a quote comes from someone clearly assosiated with a POV, then reporting it is inherently a NPOV. The reader has his own capabilities to recognise that Wiki is quoting the opinion of someone, not stating it as fact. If you disagree, then I sugest you start a campaign to alter the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines.

--Barberio 10:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote you in the Talk:Congress of the United States

"This is not needed. Yes, it should be noted in the article but giving tis topic its own section is inappropriate. It was also not at all NPOV and refelects the very worst of the affirmative action lobby ie. "Congress has historically been composed of white males"."

This says you belive the information should remain, but be moved and edited. Instead you deleted the information in enterity. Something that has been later disagreed with on both counts by others. Aditionaly, something that you did a month ago is not an 'old event'. There is no statute of limitations on bad edits.

I find it disturbing for you to atempt to alter the history of your actions. And also more so for you to atempt to claim major participation in the overhaul of the article. You made exactly one edit in the last 500 edits on the article prior to featured status, thats since 2003! And the edit you made has been disputed, and reverted. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 20:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congress of the United States

I apologize for the wording of my edit summary. It was impolite and unnecessary. Mateo SA | talk 03:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

Yes, the project is alive. That message means that the current project replaced an earlier one (that message is rather confusing; I think I'll try and clarify it). I don't think anyone would mind you putting the infobox on the various court cases. In fact, I think a couple of users have started doing this as well (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Infobox). But it wouldn't hurt to post a notice about your plans on the project talk page. — Mateo SA | talk 04:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I just looked at your edit and realized you may be confused about how to use the template. To use it, you need to fill in the data for each point in the template. See the template talk page or the markup for a page like Marbury v. Madison. — Mateo SA | talk 05:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Gpyoung:
Thanks for support and your confidence in me in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards, User:Nichalp/sg 20:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thanks for voting for me and praising me in my RfA. Also, feel free to check out my photo website, I try to add a picture a day. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Union Station (Chicago)

Ogilvie serves only Metra commuter trains; Union Station is the only terminal to serve Amtrak intercity trains. --SPUI (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] COTW

Since the White Sox won the American League penant, and we've haven't changed the COTW for quite some time, I'm going to make that the collaboration of the week. I hope you don't mind. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:BracBluff.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BracBluff.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then 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 want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ChicagoSeal.jpg

Greetings. Thank you for uploading Image:ChicagoSeal.jpg. This image has been tagged as fair use. Please add a detailed rationale for each use of the image, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, to the image description page for this image. --Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 14:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagline

There's a straw poll about three tagline variants at MediaWiki_talk:Tagline#Straw_poll., if you haven't voted yet. — Omegatron 00:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Grcruz04.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Grcruz04.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Images-1.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Images-1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

[edit] American Pie

Hi, I posted a queery on this page and noticed that you had also taken issue with the line while Lennon read a book on Marx. I like you, firmly belive that the original line said Lenin. I have the original sheet music somewhere and it without doubt, says LENIN but I can't find it! I am also very suspicious of the link purporting to be the original 1971 copyright. Lion King 21:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:800px-Rbocs.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:800px-Rbocs.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Hunter 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago, Illinois - cleanup project

I saw that you had previously worked on the Chicago article and had attempted to place the article through FAC. At the moment, I am in the middle of a massive cleanup project and was wondering if you are able to assist in any way. If so, please contact me on my talk page. Pentawing^Talk 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA nomination for Enzyme

Hi there. I have put Enzyme up for Featured Article status. Since I notice you have reviewed this page in the past, I would welcome any comments or suggestions you might have. TimVickers 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Web_names.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Web_names.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:54, 2 December 2006 (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:

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
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.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 00:46, 31 January 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) 19:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Secondcity.jpg. 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) 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Chicago2

A tag has been placed on Template:Chicago2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:ChicagoInfoBox

A tag has been placed on Template:ChicagoInfoBox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.