User talk:Mxpc05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mxpc05, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 04:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] University of Arizona

Hello. I am on vandalism patrol, so when I saw that you took out a few sections that are not described in much detail at the U of A's daugther article, Going back and looking at your edit in greater detail, I probably shouldn't have used the administrators' rollback, since it wasn't a malicious edit, so I apologize for that. That said, I have a few suggestions for the article: cut down on the list of champlionships, leaving only the really important ones (like the 1996 NCAA basketball trophy), but leave the rivalries on the main page, since those are important. For full disclosure, I'm a Sun Devil, so I don't know if that discounts my opinion... :P But then, I'm an admin too... :P Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U of A

Thanks for your message. Ok, I've added my comments. Dialog is good, just don't panic--we'll figure everything out on the page and make it look grand in the end. Madmaxmarchhare 04:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you sometimes edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 18:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oro Valley edits

I think the record population growth would be something that could be interjected in the current state of OV. however, the table belongs in the demographics section, because its a demographic table, granted an important side note in the history section. It does have historical relevance, but its a bit redundant to have 2 tables, when the person reading the article can fancy towards demographics and population growth if they want specifics, after they read the side note in the history section pertaining to the abnormal population growth. Somerset219 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already given my input through the discussion page... I then edited. You have not responded to it. Considering that there is no such thing as a "status quo" for these articles, I fail to see why you keep reverting it back. I am tring to make the article flow better, disrupting the series of chronological paragraphs with an obscure table holds it up. I believe I've explained myself on the discussion page, please explain why the table "has" to be there.Somerset219 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MT Map questions

I have noticed that you have edited the maps showing the locations of various communities in Metro Tucson. I was wondering if you knew where it was that map originated, and on what data it was based. I'd like to know, because I am working on an .svg map of Pima County, and the data I found on PAG's website (from this map) doesn't show unincorporated areas. I'd like to include the borders for unincorporated areas from the existing maps that you have edited, but it doesn't show the full extents for all of them.

Thanks for the help.

Ixnayonthetimmay 08:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I shall use the U.S. Census site for making maps if I can't find any more up-to-date versions on local government association sites. I have noticed from a quick perusing that the Census maps are from 2000 and in Arizona, where laws have been passed forbidding a field not being developed into a housing development before too long, they are slightly out of date.
Ixnayonthetimmay 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironwood Ridge High School

Hi Mxpc05,

The tag stating that the article "indiscriminately cites" sources was added because the same source appears at the end of each paragraph. If the section is so closely tied to the subject of the pygmy owl, as concluded from the fact that each citation led to the same source, an "Owl Digest," perhaps this controversy description should be moved elsewhere, or shortened. Although perhaps a "one source template" reading "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source." would have been in order, the suggestion that the citation is indiscriminate is also accurate. Indiscriminate is defined as wanton: one should use the source less.

A category of "School history" should provide a more broad array of information about a school, and while the pygmy own incident was integral to the development of the school, other, more varied, information should also be provided.

Thank-you,

Adamjaz

Hi Mxpc05,

Of the nine sources in the section, 5 link to the owl reference, 3 to a court document, and 1 to a commentary on said court document. Good Wikipedian style includes a variety of sources. It is usually not in good style to repeatedly refer to the same citation.

Although the school is relatively young, there must be more to the history than this. As the article is now, there's about one line of non-owl information. The pygmy owl's conservation should be part of the pygmy owl's article, with little crossover. Don't get me wrong, I think it should be mentioned, and even examined, but it seems too long. The citation quality could use improvement, and that's why I tagged it.

Please don't take my tag as a personal affront to your editing credibility.

AdamJaz 01:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


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

Thank you for uploading Image:Amphi logo.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) 02:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)