User talk:Matt Yeager

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matt Yeager

User talk:Matt Yeager
Talk archive: 7/21/05—2/6/06
Talk archive: 2/7/06—3/27/06
Talk archive: 3/28/06—5/1/06
Talk archive: 5/2/06—8/31/06
Talk archive: 9/2/07—4/16/07
Contributions

Do you have problems with my editing, me personally, etc.?

Have a request, RFA thanks, a note to drop, a comment to make on my amazing userpage, or random nonsense to drone on about? Are you a friend of mine from real life who just randomly googled Matt Yeager? Well, come on, leave a note, any note. Silence is not the way... we need to talk about it.

Contents

[edit] George W. Bush Intro

What's up? In deleting some of my edits you said "add info or get out of the way." I wasn't sure if the "get out of the way" was directed specifically at me and my Bush edits or if you were just speaking figuratively. If it was directed at me I hope you realize I'm only trying to improve this article by expanding on the introduction while still keeping it concise.

The reason I listed those other topics is because the current intro only talks about the War on Terror. While that's most likely the biggest part of Bush's presidency, it's not the only thing that happened. I wanted to inform readers of other things that have gone on during Bush's time as president. If I were to elaborate on all of that, it would make the intro ridiculously long. So I thought to list them and figured if anyone is interested they can check the rest of the article where those topics are all addressed in more detail.

Hopefully we can discuss this, because I feel that the intro should accurately reflect that the War wasn't the only thing happening during Bush's presidency. SpiderMMB 02:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey. First of all, thanks for the message you left me. I left you one on here earlier about your other reversion, but apparently it didn't go through. Anyway, I appreciate your apology and figured that you were acting in good faith. I understand where you're coming from with the list and won't add it back until I can find more information.
However, I have a problem with the intro as it currently stands. It is obviously POV in favor of Bush. It says Iraq "may" have been in violation and that there was faulty intelligence. That is almost verbatim the positon of the administration. It mentions nothing about any of the controversies. I'm really trying to be fair here, elaborating on Bush's presidency while presenting both sides. I feel that the old edit did that. If you'll look at the reverts, you'll see I also took out lines that Doctor11 inserted that were blatantly anti-war. The current intro has a notable lack of information and I really do think we should expand it. If you disagree, please, let's you, me, and Doctor11 get together at talk and discuss it so that we have something that is agreeable to all of us and this doesn't turn into an edit war. I'm perfectly willing to compromise, and since I believe you are acting in good faith, I'm pretty sure an agreement can be reached.
To be sure, just let me know what it is you don't like about my current edits. I'm going to revert it back, but if you want to delete suff just tell me. Let's talk about this at George W. Bush talk so that we can create an intro that is unbiased but still informative. SpiderMMB 22:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Just another message to let you know, I am trying to do the same thing at Bill Clinton, and tried a bit at Ronald Reagan (though not as much because I don't know much about his presidency}. Check it out to get an idea of what I'm trying to do here. I'm not trying to be difficult, and I hope this is helping you to understand where I'm coming from. I also don't want to disregard your opinion, and to that extent I hope that we can discuss any problems you have with my edits (either at George W. Bush or elsewhere). Best regards, SpiderMMB 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. Just wanted to let you know I left a few messages about the intro on the Bush talk page. SpiderMMB 05:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'm glad we're in agreement. It's moments like these make me think Wikipedia can work in spite of all the frustration that goes on. Whenever you get around to reworking the intro, just post it into the article. I look forward to reading it. SpiderMMB 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the intro. Good job. SpiderMMB 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulbasaur edits

Matt, you removed the tags on the Bulbasaur article, commenting that this is what FARC is for. It might have been more constructive to add the article to that page yourself rather than simply remove the tags. The page does resemble a fansite, and the section that was marked with 'fiction' does fail to differentiate between fact and fiction. I would rather the article was improved however that happens than have my constructive tags removed and have to then learn and follow whatever bureaucracy is deemed "correct". --82.33.51.52 10:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rutgers University

First off you are a teen in Washington so what authority do you have editing something about a place of higher education 3000 miles away? Second, though you call Don Imus' comments recentism and "not a smidgen to do with RU" Rutgers has garnered more press in the past 2 weeks than anything else in their history. Don Imus' page has hundreds of lines about the comments made. Yes they were disparaging but in the history of who Don Imus is (he's been on radio for more than 30 years and is a predecessor of Howard Stern) this is the fall of his career and it is directly tied to RU and people will remember many years from now that link, please replace the edits that you have removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PlanitTide (talk • contribs).

[edit] Matts

Looks like you're not the only 18 yr old Matt Yeager on Wikipedia. Came across Matthew Yeager and it was just enough to confuse the hell out of me...doesn't take much I guess. More importantly, if you'd take a look at Talk:George W. Bush and see if you can figure out why the TOC has disappeared, I could use another set of eyes. I can't seem to figure it out. - auburnpilot talk 08:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

o geeze, let the confusion begin :P how's it going man ? WA ? i'm in MI for school, but home = NJ. so i'm sure we would have never known besides awesome wiki. whats up ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew Yeager 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
yea ditto, seeing you in the history is definitely weird. yes, i'm new to editing wiki, but i've been using it for a while. writing articles here and there, mostly combating vandalism. what do you prefer to write ? Matthew Yeager 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your removal of cleanup templates

I wish you would not refer to road topics as "cruft," since it is a valid topic and upsets many of the road people. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to FAQs on Talk:United States page

Please read and consider contributing to the relevant discussion section. Thank you. JonathanFreed 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:USRD/ELG

Please do not mess around with the U.S. Roads project without consensus, or labeling topics as these as "cruft". As Rschen said, it is a valid topic, and you will upset many people who work on it, including Rschen and myself. If you do these kinds of things again, you will be blocked for WP:POINT. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to take the opportunity to clarify what Vishwin said. The exit list guide meets every part of the definition of "guideline" at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. It lists an actionable style guide, and it's authorized by consensus. There are three talk pages full of consensus-building discussion. If your issue is solely that it's a subpage of a WikiProject, I'd be happy to move it to a subpage of the Manual of Style, à la WP:USSH.
Also, I'm tempted to agree with you that the cleanup templates should be edited avoid self-references. However, removing them rather than editing them was wholly inappropriate, especially since this occured only a week and a half after the templates were kept on TFD. (Yes, it was technically no consensus, but IMHO it was called wrong -- and there was certainly no consensus to delete or remove them from the pages in question.) -- NORTH talk 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Glad there was an easy solution. :-) -- NORTH talk 23:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, Matt Yeager. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Matt Yeager/Archive3. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond Rio

Hello. I'm just dropping you a note to let you know that I've given the Diamond Rio page a serious overhaul. I added more information on the formation of the band itself, corrected other info (they were founded in 1984, not 1989), and made some other much-needed cleanup (there were far too many red links). Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 04:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 21:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nuvola Firefox icon.png

Hello, Matt Yeager. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Nuvola Firefox icon.png) was found at the following location: User:Matt Yeager/Firefox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prodding OPS, so to speak

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Other people's signatures. Sorry about the formality; really, I'd hoped to "Prod" it. Again, you'd of course be very welcome to develop the essay in your own way, unrestrained by any contrary or qualifying opinion, within your own userspace.

No need for any reply, but if you reply, please do so here. (I hate pingpong discussions.) -- Hoary 00:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing todo from Template:PCP

do you have a reason for this? i wasn't aware of a consensus that todo shouldn't be transcluded into other templates, and as the project has over 500 articles, it seemed like a simplistic way of incorporating todo lists unilaterally. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually. When you try to make the template "small", the todo box shows up and is impossible to remove. So I just removed the todo box from the actual template, and problem solved! "Unilaterally" I don't think is the word you're looking for, unless you have a very different idea of Wikipedia's basic policies than I do. ;) Anyway, I don't think most pages need a "todo" added on automatically. If a certain poke actually does need it, it can be added on easily enough, right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
well rather than rming the template it may have been better to try and find a coded workaround (like just making todo not be transcluded if the small paramter is set). those boxes helped facilitate the project's focuses and now there are invisible pages (to do pages with no link to them) on whtever articles used todo. i'll put the above code i mentioned in, to prevent any problems, but in the meantime, could you also give me a page that uses the small parameter so i can see what the problem is? i may be able to fix it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the comment! I appreciate it. Rougher07 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam in Be Bold (book)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Be Bold (book), by G1ggy, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Be Bold (book) is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Be Bold (book), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Be Bold (book) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 05:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please don't remove project banners from talk pages any more, like you did to Talk:Falling Up. Pop music bands are explicitly in scope of WPBiography, and Falling Up originates from Albany, Oregon, according to the infobox, and are thus in scope of WP Oregon. Errabee 00:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Washington_state_seal_green.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Washington_state_seal_green.png. 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 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Redcorns.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Redcorns.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahem

Look at these edits for sundown towns. Need your input. :) It's taken right from Loewen's book, which is fine, but I'm not sure that's good enough. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, not even Loewen is completely certain. He makes that clear throughout the book. Thanks for the help. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color sources?

You have any basis for all your recent changes to magenta and fuchsia color stuff? Dicklyon 06:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of road accident

Please donot revert, I'm typing my arguments on talk.Circeus 22:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] care to vote?

A vote at Talk:Cougar is taking place, where you have been a recent participant. All the best. Beyazid 03:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Explorer

You reverted a large number of properly cited and crosslinked criticisms of Internet Explorer with the vague justification "reverted a large number of unfounded statements". You have to come up with something better than that to remove properly referenced facts from an article. I'm putting them back. Please don't remove again unless you have evidence that the statements are factually incorrect. That you disagree and happen to like IE is not sufficient reason to remove factual statements demonstrating its failures. Kwertii 23:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrite

You call yourself a Christian? Do you think Jesus would leave a snippy message on someone's talk page entitled "Don't make me laugh"? Kwertii 11:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential elections

Hello. We worked together for a brief period of time on the George W. Bush article. I'm contacting you because, as someone interested in American politics, I would like your opinion. I'm currently taking issue with the format for the U.S. presidential elections pages. I'd appreciate if you participated in the discussion on the 2004 talk page. As the changes in question have occurred to all the election pages it's hard to centralize the discussion, so the most recent election page seems like the best place to start. Here's my comment, thanks! SpiderMMB 04:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winner/Runner-up

I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rattlesnake Mountain

I am undoing the change to Rattlesnake Mt. redirect and reverting to the redirect to the DAB page. There are 60+ mountains with the same name in the US alone including several much taller than the one in the Tri-Cities. Oh Snap 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but there are two articles. Rattlesnake Mt. originally redirected to Rattlesnake Ridge in North Bend, WA. The info box is for Rattlesnake Mt. Oh Snap 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Template:Cy used on your main page

Your main page is the only page in all of Wikipedia using template {{Cy}}, which is actually an alias for the template {{City}}, so I have changed the one usage on that page from using Cy to City.

The reason is, since that Cy template exists, I want to hijack borrow it for a similar purpose. The City template is used to create a link in the form City, State with both visible. I'm going to use Cy for the same thing but where the state is not shown in the visible part of the link. For example, where someone shows a list of cities in a specific state, it's not necessary and quite redundant to show the state. So this provides a quick way to do that. Just thought I'd let you know. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me give an example. Cities in Nevada: Las Vegas, Reno; Cities in Wisconsin: Milwaukee, Madison. These are links to the location without showing the state, but the state is in the link. using the {{Cy}} template, I can do {{Cy|Las Vegas|Nevada}} otherwise I have to do [[Las Vegas, Nevada|Las Vegas]]. This way is faster, shorter, and you can't misspell the name in the link. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 06:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:PN

Template:PN has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Picaroon (t) 04:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tfdnote

A template you created, Template:Tfdnote, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Steve Pederman

A tag has been placed on Steve Pederman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Falling Up

Why do you keep removing the project tags from this article? [1] [2] Once you characterized these as "silliness". The band is from Oregon, and band articles are part of WP:WPBIO. Articles that are looked after by WikiProjects have more people watching them, tend get improved more often and any vandalism gets reverted quicker. So, care to explain your objections? Katr67 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bulbasaur. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. While you may not currently be involved in these continuous page moves, I have noticed that you did so a little while back. Several days ago I opened a discussion on Talk:List of Pokémon (1-20) to try and avoid an edit war. Instead of continuing to revert, please discuss the issue there instead. I am not accusing you of edit warring, I simply want all those who have been involved to take part in a mature and reasoned discussion instead of constantly merging and demerging. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad that one edit--unblanking a full, formerly featured article--makes me "appear to be engaged in an edit war". I mean no harm, but throwing a B.S. standardized (thankfully subst'd, though) "if you continue, you may be blocked from editing" line typically doesn't lend itself to a reasoned discussion. Just throwing that out there. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize, but that line comes up automatically when the template is posted; unfortunately that is the only template I thought to be suitable for use in this case. I am aware that you only made one edit, although as the page was continually being reverted on both sides the edit war template was appropriate for just that single edit. I posted the identical message to everyone who was continuing to revert the page from a redirect to a full article, and from a full article to a redirect. Instead of turning it into an edit war, I was trying to begin a reasoned discussion so that it would not become one. I sincerely apologize if I did not make this clear in my notice, or if you interpreted my notice in a different way than I intended. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.


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

Thanks for uploading Image:Crashings.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) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Myeager1

A tag has been placed on Template:Myeager1 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) 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Myeager2

A tag has been placed on Template:Myeager2 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) 22:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you believe it?

It's deja vu all over again, Talk:Bobcat#Capitalization_again. It's hard to believe this still is going on. It has even branched to a request for arbitration and a discussion on the wikiproject page, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization_re-visited. Beyazid (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Cities

You added the Tri-Cities as one of the larger cities in Washington. This is actually a region commonly treated like a city, and believed to be a city by misconception. Please see my rationale in the Washington template talk pages. I feel that you may be biased because you live in the Tri-City area. Please see the Wikipedia article: Twin City to understand what a twin city, on in this case a tri-city is and isn't. And please use the talk page before changing something that is being discussed. Thank you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of You're either with us, or against us

An editor has nominated You're either with us, or against us, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're either with us, or against us and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Mammal

Your comment As per the consensus... I love your dedication, but one single editor doesn't overrule a consensus. when reverting Uther, the discussion referred to didn't look very consensusy to me. Several comments in favour of caps, several more in favour of not caring. A slight majority in favour of caps, for sure, but some steadfast refusal from some very prolific mammal contributors. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's 9:3:4 actually - My vote in Pro-caps was not a vote, simply an explanation of what a point in favour was. I sided with either. Just saying. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] straw poll

I know you will say that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but please check out my straw poll anyway. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red gazelle

Hi Matt,

Just want to draw your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization, where the question of capitalizing mammal names is summarized. Note the point about original authors and please reconsider capitalization of Red Gazelle. By the way, I am not the original author of the article in question :-). Cheers—GRM (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)