User talk:Jreferee/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Digital Dashboard (DD) vs. Dashboard of Sustainability (DoS) 2 Thanks! 3 DRV 4 Shirahadasha RfA thanks 5 DRV 6 My RfA 7 Thanks 8 WP:INTRO 9 The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007 10 DRV 11 Userfication of store lists 12 RFA thanks 13 My (Selket's) RfA 14 Smile 15 Orphaned non-free image (Image:PWU Seal.JPG) 16 Images deleted 17 More people will ultimately read this comment then will have seen 'Zyzzyx Road' 18 My edit to the RFC 19 C'mon now 20 Your previous RfA 21 WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive 22 RfC 23 Runcorn 24 merge of dyk list 25 Taskforce 26 My RFA 27 your answer to my answers.com question at the help desk 28 DYK 29 Signature 30 David Chase 31 Re: The Scary Guy 32 Email 33 Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies! 34 king of pakistan 35 Thanks 36 Thanks 37 Re: Template:Infobox MLB player 38 Chris Young 39 re Mike Magee 40 Prime numbers 41 Hi Jrefree 42 Trivia tag 43 Energy 44 ME AND MY CAPITALS 45 Orphaned non-free image (Image:PWU Seal.JPG)

[edit] Digital Dashboard (DD) vs. Dashboard of Sustainability (DoS)

DoS is not a prime example of a DD. The graphics are more akin to traditional static charting and mapping vs. creating a real time GUI to assist in short-term decision-making and control of an ongoing processes. In DoS content is geopolitical/economic and data measurement frequency is typically a year or longer. Most investment in DD relates to real-time data (such as glass cockpit display systems in aircraft, digital dashboards in automobiles, multi screen stock trader workstations, in-process control systems in industrial applications, real time control of service levels, just in time inventory management, etc. ), or up to weekly or monthly data (such as staffing levels needed, production forecasting, sales by product/region/category, inventory management, safety records, accounts receivable collections, delinquencies, production yields, etc). Also, the DoS article seems to border on original research and self-promotion. Its odd there is even a link to DoS since it is not an especially good example of a DD, consistent with the rest of the article. None of the content in the DoS article covers design or construction principals and there is no link directing readers to See Also the DD source content indicating the cross connection.

These two articles are truly independent and should be kept that way. DD covers a fairly broad area including the underlying principals and theories used in the design and construction of digital dashboards. The article DoS is really in the area of geopolitical mapping. It covers a very narrow area with a highly specialized audience. Rick 07:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)rjlabs

[edit] Thanks!

Archive_9, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have. Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis 22:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

[1] Michael G. Davis 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Hi,

Since additional commenters have raised points on each side of the issue, the nominator's withdrawl is not grounds for early closure, as far as I know. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've always suspected that, but have seen early closure where additional commenters have raised points on each side of the issue. -- Jreferee 20:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Unfortunately I already posted the thankyou message on all 68 supporters' pages...only then did I realise I hadn't actually put a signature on the template! Now I feel like a wikifool... Anyway, thanks again for your support. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you, I understand now... I will do it!

--Wikimania1011-Wikimania1011 UserTalk 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:INTRO

No edit to the introduction page counts as vandalism, its there for experimentation. -M^ask? 22:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 18:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Hi,

You're doing a fantastic job providing little tidbits of information to help keep DRV discussions flowing smoothly. I really appreciate it; I'm sure every commenter does. :) Nobody before you had the idea of providing background and precedural points consistently, and I think you're doing very well in your innovation.

On James Boyce's article being reposted, in its entirety, at DRV: You are absolutely correct that such repostings could become a problem if they became routine. They aren't yet. In the few previous cases where someone has done this, we've let the content stand. My first instinct is to let this remain also: it doesn't present copyvio or defamation problems, and it is unlikely to contribute meaningfully to internet search results (ie, if James Boyce's admirers point to a DRV log as his "homepage", most everybody will be unable to find the text, or understand the context!) I'm undecided on your suggestion, but I just thought I'd share with you some thoughts.

I won't be closing James Boyce, anyway, because it needs more commenters first. I'll comment myself. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your point that it is unlikely to contribute meaningfully to internet search results in combination with the other points are good enought reasons to leave the content. -- Jreferee 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userfication of store lists

Thanks, but they're not my lists (I nominated one of them to begin with, after all). User:Tuxide and the other retailing project people are the ones who should be referred to that page. Daniel Case 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thank you, Jreferee, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO Talk

[edit] My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Jreferee, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:PWU Seal.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:PWU Seal.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images deleted

I have deleted Image:PPSJIIIboxback.JPG and Image:PPSJIIIboxfront.JPG. They were reuploaded to Commons but deleted there with the reason "Derivative work, see Commons:Derivative works" - they are not free images.--Commander Keane 06:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your efforts, English Wikipedia allows both free content images and non-free content images. If an inappropriate image copyright tag is used, it is proper to tag the image page for deletion and then leave a note on the contributor's talk page to give the contributor a chance to fix the problem. Immediately deleting an image on Wikipedia because Commons does not permit non-free content is not supported by Wikipedia process and is aggressive towards the contributor. Please consider restoring the images so that proper Wikipedia process may be followed. -- Jreferee 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK no worries I have restored the images, hopefully you will tag them.--Commander Keane 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Commander. I spent some time going through the flow chart at Commons:Derivative works and was surprised to learn that the photos were not free images. I'll work on tagging them. Thanks again for restoring them. This should help me provide a proper tag. -- Jreferee 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging the images. I did cut a corner by deleting the images first instead of asking you about them, thankfully the situation was resolved ok and I'll be more carefull next time. Incidentally, your tone during our converstaion was very pleasant (compared to what I'm used to), I think you are an excellent communicator :-).--Commander Keane 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More people will ultimately read this comment then will have seen 'Zyzzyx Road'

I first heard of this movie while browsing around on Box Office Mojo. (Not completely related, but they have a fantastic game called Box Office Derby, where you have to predict the grosses of the top ten films in the upcoming weekend's box office. It's a fun game that I would recommend, and here is my prediction history, if you're interested. [2]) Now that I am completely off-track, let me continue.

In mid-2006, I went to their page which showed the highest-grossing films of the year at that point. Just out of curiousity, I wanted to see what the lowest-grossing film was. I figured it would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even tens of thousands if it was an obscure independent film that only played in a few theaters.

Well, I was right about the third-to-last film on the list. I was right about the next-to-last film on the list. And the list film, Jreferee, was called "Zyzzyx Road."

So a few months later, I was on Wikipedia, searching random things that came into my head and seeing if they had an article on it. They did for every single one except the film, so I created it.

Now what's interesting is that this played an instrumental part in the online buzz about the film. A few days later, Digg posted an article on their home page about the film, which gave credit to the Wikipedia article. As Digg is one of the most visited websites on the Internet, this is what really started the buzz, and soon Entertainment Weekly and Variety and Chud caught on, and probably others that I'm unaware of. Nothing else mentioned the Wikipedia article specifically, but it is a very safe guess that my article was what got them interested, albeit through degrees of separation. As an example, here is an NPR story that debuted only about a month after the Wikipedia article was created. [3]

So thanks for your message. Daily Variety and Chud weren't the only ones to not credit my article, but I can know in my heart that I played some role in getting this Internet firestorm started. Now there's even talks about getting it distributed nationally in 2008.

Free-encyclopedia 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My edit to the RFC

I've edited Badlydrawnjeff's presentation and your outside statement [4] to remove the name or conceal it behind pipes. This is because of privacy concerns. Please respect this, but do get back to me, or else make reasonable edits, if you think I've altered the RFC unreasonably. Out of deference to the sensitivity of the case, and of the audacity of these edits, I will make no comments on the RFC. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[deleted the reposting of the article]

Stop reposting problematic deleted content across the wiki. Claiming "but it's in my userspace" is not an excuse - David Gerard 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that I reposted deleted content is not true. The content I posted was written by myself, from my own research, and did not contain content that was deleted. Your claim that I posted problematic content is not true. All the information I posted was sourced and used to rebut the claim that the information from worldwide news articles is somehow private. Your assertion that I somehow used an excuse "but it's in my userspace" is not true. In addition, my post in this user space was a valid reply to rebut Tony Sidaway's assertion. In addition to deleting what you believe to be problematic, you also deleted portions of my post that did not fall into your problematic criteria. Through your 17:16, 22 May 2007 post, you then mislabeled the portions of my post that did not fall into your problematic criteria as "reposted problematic deleted content". Please reconsider your deletion of my post. -- Jreferee 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] C'mon now

Please stop reposting the guts of the debated article to the RfC. The subject of the proceedings is the conduct of the people involved, and your actions are disruptive and are being seen as an 'end run' of sorts. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my RfC post that now is deleted in its entirety, it was my outside view of the dispute that the conduct of the people involved was in part based on attempts to protect the privacy of 20 year old whose name has been conveyed to millions of people throughout the world (China, France, Germany, Australia, United Kingdom, and Ireland) As included in my deleted post, this person set up his own blog in November 2006 on Sina with pictures saying, "I welcome you to PhotoShop my pictures" to generate more publicity for himself, and, as reported in February 2007, now is taken advantage of his fame to play emperor Liu Shan in a new cinematographic adaptation of "the romance of the Three Kingdoms." This hardly is a private child needing protection. The information I posted to the RfC was to show that the conduct of the people involved to protect this fame seeking 20 year old was misguided. My purpose for posting that information was to support the RfC desired outcome of "allowance of a consensus to be reached regarding the article" since the failure to allow a consensus to be reached was based in part on misguided efforts to protect the privacy of 20 year old. The posted information was from news articles based on my own research, not from the debated article (which I have never seen) and included references to those new articles to support my claims of misguide behavior. If some of the information I posted to the RfC seemed to be as an 'end run' of sorts, then that information could have been redacted or rewritten. Deleting my entire post, including those portions that were my outside view of the dispute and not seen as an 'end run' of sorts, is a poor way to respond and borders on reckless or aggressive behavior. Please ask the person who deleted my RfC post to reconsider their actions. -- Jreferee 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The behavior you describe as reckless or aggressive is firmly supported by policy. If you again repeatedly repost the content of articles deleted under Biographies of living persons, further steps may be taken. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, your 01:53, 22 May 2007 post on my talk page lead me to believe that deletion of this person's name from Wikipedia was you own personal privacy concerns. You even implied that your edits were beyond what should be done under the circumstances ("audacity of these edits"), which further lead me to believe that use of this person's name on Wikipedia was based on personal privacy concerns rather than consensus. Given the wide spread distribution of his name throughout the world over a four-year period and that your post suggested that deletion of his name on Wikipedia was based on personal privacy concerns rather than consensus, my understanding at that time was that it was OK to post his name, even though you personally may have disagreed. At the time of my post, I did not know about the consensus and did not have bad intent in posting this person's name at RfC. The more I think about it, it was the use of the word "audacity" that chiefly lead me to my misunderstanding of the circumstances.
You now indicate that the article was deleted because consensus deemed it falls under Biographies of living persons. Had you posted this in your 01:53, 22 May 2007 post or made this clear in your 01:53, 22 May 2007 post, I would not have reposted this persons name. Certainly, now that I know the non-use of his name is based on consensus, I do apologize for reposting this person's name at RfC.
In regards to my reckless or aggressive behavior comment, I do not object to the deletion of this person's name, particularly now that I know it is based on consensus. However, I do object to the sweeping deletion of my entire RfC post because it either intentionally (aggressively) or unintentionally (recklessly) took with it my RfC outside view of the dispute that the conduct of the people involved was in part based on misguided attempts to protect the privacy of this person. Not only is the purported BLP material gone from my RfC post, but my non-BLP arguments have been deleted with it. Policy does not support deleting those portions of my outsider view of the dispute that were not BLP. Rather, policy supports being respectful to other editors, their contributions, and their points of view such as by improving the edit rather than deleting it in its entirety. -- Jreferee 20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're conflating two different things: firstly my audacious removal of the name from the RFC, and secondly, your inclusion of the contents of an article deleted on Biographies of living persons grounds. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony. You posted above "Out of deference to the sensitivity of the case, and of the audacity of these edits, I will make no comments on the RFC." and yet you are one of the most prolific posters at the RFC (and elsewhere) on this topic. You may want to take a step back from handling both an admin roll and a significant RFC participatory roll in this matter for the very reasons discussed in the RfC. I do think you are a good guy, and I'm sure this will all work out in the end. -- Jreferee 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your previous RfA

Jreferee,

It's recently been revealed that Runcorn was operating quite a few sockpuppet accounts (see AN thread ). Many of these (six, in fact) voted to oppose your RfA. With the sockpuppet votes discounted, your RfA would have been within the discretionary range. I've posted on the bureaucrats' noticeboard to bring this to their attention, and am letting you know in case you have anything to say. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This situation is extremely upsetting. At a minimum, I think that you are entitled to run a new RfA without regard to the result of the previous one. That would be true anyway, since a couple of months have gone by, but the new information makes it all the more clear the matter should be considered again. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This just really pissed me off, Jreferee. If Runcorn hadn't participated in your RfA (with his multiple socks), you would have passed. I see you've been inactive as of late, but I really do hope you come back and consider going up for adminship again, eventually. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think you should definitely run again Jreferee. We need more admins like you. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to see you run. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you to whoever uncovered the sockpuppets. I also appreciate the immediate support from editors whose opinions I really respect. I'll participate in the discussion at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. -- Jreferee

I hope you run again for adminship, and don't let abusive users like Runcorn grind you down. Good luck if you do. LuciferMorgan 13:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also share the same thoughts, that case of sockpuppetry was really unfair on you; if you run again, I´ll support. ♠Tom@sBat 23:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

[edit] RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runcorn

With respect to your e-mail, I don't really see how undeleting all those talk pages would help. You probably edited some topic where your opinion didn't match his. I would suggest you simply run RFA again. >Radiant< 08:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge of dyk list

I would be glad to merge my list with yours, and make mine a redirect to be frank. Even though yours is only at the early stages, it is in the Wikipedia space, and I think that makes it somewhat more official. Mine has also grown a bit of a stagnant mess, with only few people keeping it up to date. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just found a slight problem. If you look at my list, you will see that many editor's total amount of DYK creations + nominations are present. There are only a few who have exact numbers for both fields. So that may prove a problem for those concerned. Thanks again, Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taskforce

Hi Jaferee,

From seeing your edits to the Roger Toothaker talkpage, you seem good at writting and then assessing and rating biographies.

Another Wikipedian and I just created a Salem Witch Trials task force.

We are in need of a lot of new biographies, also many of the existing ones need to be assessed and rated. So please check out the Taskforce and maybe consider joining.

Also, If you are interested in and/or have any knowledge about any of the following topics: History, Massachusetts, colonial America, witchcraft, or instances of religiously motivated violence, that would be even better, if you wanted to join.

Thanks!

Sincerely,

Psdubow 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hello, Jreferee/Archive 9, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

[edit] your answer to my answers.com question at the help desk

I apreciate your answer to my question on the help desk, it was very intelligent, and it gave me exactly what I needed to know, thank you for your kind help :). Reguards. 81.154.111.25 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

who's been copying Someone's userpage?...81.154.111.25 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 10 June 2007, a fact from the article Abdulsalami Abubakar, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 08:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Hello ther Jreferee. I have finished your sig. Here is the code <font face="Kristen ITC">'''[[User:Jreferee|<font color="Blue">Jreferee]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Jreferee|Talk]])''}</font></font>, which shows up as Jreferee ^(Talk). If you would like me to motify any other aspect of it, leave me a message on my talk page. To add the sig, put it in the sig box and click the raw sig selection. Save it and then it is complete. I would also appreciate comments here. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on the discussion. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Chase

I disagree with your opinion regarding addressing the media through an article's talk page. I also think that this is a very interesting topic that the community at large should consider. As a result, I've opened a discussion on the topic here. In my introduction I've made an attempt at expressing your views. However, I've likely botched it. Feel free to directly edit my representation of your views and/or add your own thoughts on the matter. Thanks, Rklawton 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed my post in the context of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - How to use article talk pages. Since the post was not directed towards improving the associated article, it was subject to removal. I removed it. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Scary Guy

Hi - thanks for letting me know about it. I've restored it and listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scary Guy. It's my first speedy delete that upset someone (and in ALL CAPS, too), so I guess I'm not a virgin anymore. It should be an... interesting AfD discussion. ;-) Thanks again! - KrakatoaKatie 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jreferee for your help. Scary24.31.250.3 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You JReferee from me too. I am studying hard to get my Wikipedia contributions right. Appreciate your guidance. Whatevernext 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

You've got one! Ryan Postlethwaite 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WikiProject LGBT studies!

Hi, Jreferee, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] king of pakistan

Thanks for the article

[edit] Thanks

For your post, in reply to my comment on physchim62 talk page. His edit is no way a merge, because the content after merge is grossly different from the marged article.Hallenrm 09:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for putting the picture of the cake on my page. It made my day. Smartyshoe 15:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template:Infobox MLB player

It looks like Tony figured things out before I could take a look, but I think I helped him get the result he was looking for. Thanks for the referral. Cheers, Caknuck 00:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Young

I am a point and shoot photographer (I.E., I don't do all that fancy photoshop stuff). I use my Xmas '05 Canon A620. An iso image would probably bolster the Chris Young page as well as the fastball page. Help is welcomed. Note the pic is up at WP:FPC. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Mike Magee

Heh, yeah, that's amusing, thanks for the link. Herostratus 02:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime numbers

Answer to your questions at User talk:PrimeHunter. I search prime number records and my favorite prime numbers are generally those I discover! I mostly search patterns of prime numbers but if you want an individual number then I suppose I like the largest known doubly palindromic prime. There are two prime number jokes I have seen several times. I once added the "2 is the oddest prime" joke to Wikipedia [5] - reliably sourced of course; we are making an encyclopedia. And I have seen many variations of the "all odd numbers are prime" joke. The first hit for me has a long list: http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/OddPrime.html. PrimeHunter 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Jrefree

I feel I need your help. It appears SBharris, KSRoberts , Physchim62 and now Itub have joined hands to discourage from any edits on wikipedia. I have been particularly interested in the energy article and quite a substantial part of the article is due to me. I was the major contributor of the subsection Chemistry in the Energy article, before I decided to break it up into independent articles, in response to the notice that the article was becoming too big for the comfort of the average reader. Energy (chemistry) was a result. Several editors contributed to its content before it was made an independent article. Lately, SBHarris and co (I suspect they are in fact one person only) have become vengeful and want to delete most of my contributions to wikipedia. Which is rather unfortunate, because I like to belong to the community and contribute whereever I can. The reason of my this post, is because User_Itub has now taken it as his task to do wehat physchim62 could not, he has redirected the Energy (chemistry) article once again to Energy, which i feel is totally wrong (he has given no reasons whatsoever. If this persists, I would have no option but to dissuade myself from visiting wikipedia ever.Hallenrm 04:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia tag

Hi. You tagged the controversy section of the Clay Aiken article as trivia. This section was added back in August 2006 at the insistence of Davodd when he failed the article during a good article review. See the To do list and the Discussion moved from todo on this archived talk page. [6] We seem to be at the mercy of individual editors opinions here. Is there a Wikipedia guideline stating how this should be handled that we can follow when someone else comes in and complains and if so, could you tell me where to find it? Thanks. - Maria202 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to omit real and notable controversies. Just work them into the body of the article chronologically under one of the main sections instead of having them as bulleted items (per BLP Trivia section. From reading the article, it should have main sections such as: I. Typical personal information (born, grew up in, school, family, etc.), II. American Idol, III. Singing career, IV. Activist career. V. Philosophy. Right now, the structure/flow of the article is not as clear as it could be.-- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. - Maria202 02:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments were the incentive we needed to rework/rewrite the Clay Aiken biography. Thank you. If you get a chance to look at what we've done your comments would be appreciated. We tried our best to bring the article more in line with the current biography standards. Again - thank you. - Maria202 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy

I not sure I'm the best choice to mediate. I'd have reversed the energy split myself had I noticed earlier. Eliminating the too large warning was a good goal, but not practical for a topic as large and messy as this. Unfortunately there's been too much stepping on toes in the meantime, which is the real problem. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ME AND MY CAPITALS

FIRST JREFEREE . . . YOU ARE THE BEST!!! YOU ARE COMPASSIONATE, UNDERSTANDING AND LOVING. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HELP. I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WIKIPEDIA AS I DO NOT READ. THEN ONE DAY IN ALL MY LETTERS, I RECEIVED THIS GRAND E MAIL TELLING ME THAT . . . "SCARY GUY" YOU HAVE BEEN ENTERED ON WIKIPEDIA. I SAID TO MYSELF . . . WHAT THE HECK IS A WIKIPEDIA??? AND I WENT TO WIKIPEDIA AND IT WAS SO COOL. AND I STILL DID NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND WIKIPEDIA . . . AS I THOUGHT EVERYONE COULD BE ON WIKIPEDIA LIKE WHAT IT WAS I SAW CREATED ABOUT ME. COOL . . . A PLACE TO MEET PEOPLE. NOT! MUCH MORE THAN THAT. IT IS LIKE THE PLACE TO FIND TRUTH. THEN I WAS . . . HONORED. OF COURSE IT DID NOT WORK OUT SO WELL IN THE BEGINNING AS I WAS TOLD BY SOMEONE TO GET IN THERE AND ADD "STUFF" ABOUT WHO I AM. SO I DID. AND IT ALL CAME TO AN END. UNTIL YOU STEPPED IN. AND THAT IS WHAT IT ALL ABOUT. HELPING PEOPLE.

NOW ABOUT ME AND MY CAPITALS . . . OH . . . YES . . . I'M KNOWN FOR USING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS WHEN WRITING A LETTER. I'VE BEEN TOLD BY SOME, THAT I MIGHT "DRIVE PEOPLE NUTS". IF OTHERS CHOOSE TO BECOME CRAZY, OR LOSE IT, OR EVEN BECOME "UPSET" ABOUT HOW I TYPE ? ? ? REMEMBER, ALL THAT ENERGY IS ABOUT THEM. I DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE THAT ENERGY IN ANYONE. AND THEY ALL HAVE THE POWER TO UNDERSTAND ME. IT IS THEIR CHOICE.

LOVE TO YOU JREFEREE. YOU ROCK!!!Scary 02:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

JREFEREE . . . THANKS. THAT IS SO COOL. I USED ALL OF THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE GIVEN ME. AND I KNEW YOU HAD NO PROBLEMS. I SPELLED IT OUT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT MAY HAVE PROBLEMS.

LOVE YA,Scary 20:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:PWU Seal.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:PWU Seal.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)