User talk:ScottMainwaring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please note: I'll reply on this page to messages put on this page, unless you ask otherwise. Thanks, -- Scott

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, ScottMainwaring, Welcome to Wikipedia!


[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or The Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on My User talk Page.

Additional Tips:

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like &#126&#126~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • You may want to add yourself to the New User Log
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Matani200505:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PBS Kids Sprout

Have you checked for any PBS Kids Sprout ident?? If so, please add a picture to PBS idents. Georgia guy 00:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] tv-logo template

I think that's possible. It has something to do with setting the default parameter in the template. I'll try to figure something out. — J3ff 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damariscotta-Newcastle

I disagree with the Damariscotta-Newcastle article being deleted. While Damariscotta Maine and Newcastle Maine are towns, Damaroscotta Newcastle Maine is a CDP which does not cover the towns, but rather areas without a municipal government. The possibility is that Damariscotta-Newcastle Maine is an area between the two towns? Or perhaps it is just geographically located near both, and the name was decided upon becasue of this. Onthost 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll research the CDP problem tomorow and get back to you, however I dont think it was a database error since there is data from the census for this.

[edit] Oregon Zoo

Thanks for delinking the years and otherwise simplifying the links on the Oregon Zoo page. Just a few days ago I read in the wikipedia manual of style (or maybe one of the related articles) that all dates need not be linked—only those relevant to the article at hand. So it was one of those to do things vaguely haunting me to go back and look at. Thanks for eliminating some of it. :-) —EncMstr 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thanks for the considerably greater efforts you've been making to improve that page. ScottMainwaring 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNESCO controversy

Hi ScottMainwaring

Thank you for the contributions to the UNESCO page. About the controversy: your edit suggests that the controversy was not limited to the three mentioned countries - I wonder if you could substantiate that, as to my knowledge the controversy emanated from the US. regards, Jens Nielsen 17:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jens, thanks; and you bring up a good point. I can't substantiate the breadth of the controversy. My inference was that it was unlikely that the controversy was strictly limited to those countries that ended up taking the extreme step of actually withdrawing from UNESCO. I certainly wouldn't object to this inference being taken out, until it can be documented. ScottMainwaring 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Parks and Creationism

OK - take out that stuff about Bush and Death Valley if you like. I had some links in there but can't really vouch for them. In general, as a scientist, I have refused to sign petitions/statements against astrology, flying saucers or whatever, as I felt it just gave them more attention. But now with the ID people coming in everywhere, it might be best to confront this "Answers in Genesis" and similar claims. It is hard to frame the correct site (outside of elections and courts). My wife's aunt had a tour of the Grand Tetons last summer and was told by the tourguide that these mountains were created in the Great Flood! I feel it is worthwhile for scientists to know of these things and have their replies at ready (though I did not try to get the name of the tour agency or the guide - no sense nitpicking - or I was lazy). Anyway, I made a stab at it and perhaps I will give up on that methodology for now. Thanks Carrionluggage 20:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Source for Paraguay flag information

You know what, I completely forgot about that edit, but I remember pasting that paragraph in after having written it up for a Spanish project in high school. I remember basically paraphrasing a website, but I can't find the website I used anymore, since I created that project on a computer back home – I have no access to it, since I'm clear across the country at college. If I ever find that website again, I'll link to it on the page, but as I paraphrased the website for that article, it's possibly a copyright violation anyways, right? So I'll move it to the talk page for now. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please respond on my talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention; in retrospect, some of my earlier contributions were less than stellar. :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to post updates at Talk:Flag of Paraguay. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mojave Desert

Thanks for all of your work on the Mojave Desert and related topics. -Will Beback 19:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. My pleasure. ScottMainwaring 21:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey...

Hey, Scott I happen to not agree with you on the flag issue.

That is were I made my point.

Thanks, Kseferovic 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Putting "Valleys of the Mojave Desert" in its place

All of the valleys are listed by the state they are in and in the Mojave category. So Valley foo is listed in state foo1 and Valleys of the Mohave Desert. This is the proper way of doing this, at least that is my understanding. By including all of the state entries in the Mojave one you list things in the wrong places. The Sonora desert has a similar problem but it is a bit more involved since it apparently includes sub deserts and crosses more geographical boundaries. Vegaswikian 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that each valley page should be in both the "Valleys of [state]" and "Valleys of the Mojave Desert" (VotMD) categories. My issue is that the category VotMD should itself be part of the set of overlapping trees rooted at Category:Valleys, so that that top-level category includes all appropriate subcategories (not just, as it does at the present, all appropriate pages). As I understand it, your issue with putting VotMD under multiple "Valleys of [state]" categories is that, for example, Category:Valleys of Nevada would then have a subcategory that included items that weren't themselves valleys of Nevada. But I think this is OK, as Categories do not form a tree. But perhaps we could compromise and include VotMD not under any "Valleys of [state]" category, but under the category one level up: Category:Valleys of the United States? --ScottMainwaring 23:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As a general rule, there should only be one path to the parent or grandparent. Maybe your suggestion could be OK given these wide area groupings are going to be different in some way. Kind of like rivers. Vegaswikian 04:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are images from portlandconnected.com in the Creative Commons?

You've marked several images uploaded from http://portlandconnected.com with the cc-by-sa-2.5 tag, but I can't find a note on that website indicating that they are publishing those images under that license. Do you have evidence that this is the case? --ScottMainwaring 05:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm using the wrong tag. I took the photos myself and they're also posted on my web site http://portlandconnected.com. Do I need to put a note on my web site, or should I change the tag? Thanks for your help!--Dbc12
Oh, I didn't know you were associated with that website. Thanks for all your work helping to document Portland! In terms of wikipedia, I would just suggest for future uploads that you identify yourself as the creator of the image, in addition to tagging it however you like. And on portlandconnected, I'd suggest putting some kind of notice indicating that the images on the site are available for re-use under according to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ Hope this helps, and thanks for the clarification. --ScottMainwaring 16:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communities in Oregon

Hi there~ Thanks for making all those other categories into subcategories of this one. I had wanted to see all those cross-refed in some way. Yay for organization! Katr67 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katr67! Thanks for your kind comments. There's certainly much more to do (e.g., aren't Indian Reservations a kind of community? Haven't looked into how this is handled elsewhere in wikipedia). And we'll never win the fight against Entropy, will we? :-) --ScottMainwaring 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right about the reservations--that's an excellent idea. I'll take a look around and see how (or if) it has been handled elsewhere. Must...fight...entropy... Katr67 06:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Framingham, Massachusetts

Don't know if you knew, but when you copyedited Framingham, Massachusetts on the 19th, you deleted a large chunk of it at the end. I reverted it back to the version before it. 209.150.61.247 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I had no idea -- sorry for that carelessness. --ScottMainwaring 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of the Falkland Islands

Thanks a lot for restoring and sourcing the information! As you probably noticed, I'm having quite a problem with two users there. Thanks again for your help! =) --Nkcs 08:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herr

The Mennonite church has changed over the centuries.

For instance, a fellow was looking for the house where Hans Herr lived finds it, and talked with the Mennonite man who lives there. "He asked us as though he could hardly believe it, "Is it true the Mennonites in America don't use alcohol?"

So while I feel comfortable in showing cites that the house is old, and I don't mind calling him a bishop, calling him a Mennonite bishop is somewhat misleading. What he thought of as Mennonite, and what we think of as Mennonite, is different. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galleries

Good work with the turning of Gallery of city flags into a proper gallery. If you have time, you could to do the same to Flags of subnational entities]! :) --Himasaram 00:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridgecrest, California

Re: Ridgecrest, California. I use a tabbed browser and often open up a number of windows with diffs to check, though I sometimes take a while to get to each. I think in this case you fixed the same edit I was looking at, only quicker. By the time I got around to actually investigating it the text had changed so my repair (reverting to an older version) was at cross purposes. I've reverted my fix, as your solution was better. Thanks for following up and for fixing the vandalism in the first place. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourist trap

Thanks for your review of the article Tourist trap, I took your comments and ran with them, I struck through stuff that I believe has been accomplished as I did it. Please take another look at the page and provide what ever comments you have. There are still a number of short sections that I hope will have more detail added to. Please feel free clean up the text in the clean up section of the talk page as well. Jeepday 19:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gas price trivia

Hello. Saw your clean-up of Panamint Springs. What was the problem with the trivia on gas prices? The photo I just added with the information even shows that, only last week, the price was over $4.00 a gallon, which is something people passing through might want to know (especially if they can plan away from it). --Bobak 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I just saw that kind of "travellers take note" information as something appropriate for Wikitravel, but not notable/encyclopedic enough for wikipedia. A judgement call; I won't object if you feel strongly it belongs in the article. --ScottMainwaring 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl District

Second time I've had to remove commercial realtor links to their own website! thanks for putting in that link to the neighborhood association. for some reason, i couldn't find it...they've moved it recently or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.105.28.169 (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] You too? No way!

You're a NAVA member? Really? Me too! Have you been to the NAVA 40 meeting in Reno? If so, how was it? Do you think there should be an article on the NAVA meetings, or should it just be mentioned in the NAVA article?

NA
VA		 This user is a member of NAVA.

ANNAfoxlover 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi ANNAfoxlover, thanks for your note. Yep, I'm a fellow NAVAn (?), though I've yet to make it to an annual meeting, actually. I do try to make it to quarterly meetings of my local affiliate, the Portland (Oregon) Flag Association -- nice people. In terms of expanding the NAVA page with more info about the annual meetings, I'd say, go for it! I think the fact that each meeting has it's own flag and name (NAVA 40 = NAVADA in Nevada) is kind of interesting (in a geeky way, for sure); perhaps that aspect could be covered/illustrated? --ScottMainwaring 01:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try. I'm workin' on it right now. I need to find some images of the flags for each meeting from NAVA 11 to NAVA 40. Got any large images? Where can I find some? ANNAfoxlover 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

I reverted your edit to Green Line "D" Branch for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --NE2 06:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People from Foo (American State)

I thought that having persons from a particular US state (Foo) in the 'People from Foo' might be sufficient for history and all other purposes, but maybe not. So similar to the 'People of Foo in the American Civil War' categories that I created, I am thinking of creating the following: 'People of F00 in the American Revolution' and 'People of colonial F00', both of which would be subcategories of both 'People from F00' and 'History of F00'. Any given person could be in both categories if they were prominent in both periods. Persons would be removed from the 'People from Foo' category itself unless they were also prominent after the Revolution (this is how it seems to be with the persons in 'People of Foo in the American Civil War' category. What do you think? Thanks Hmains 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan! Thanks for helping improve Wikipedia's categories. --ScottMainwaring 04:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will do my best. Hmains 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You should have more userboxes.

You should have more userboxes. A•N•N•Afoxlover SIGN HERE, ANYONE!

[edit] You need a flag.

You need your own personal flag. I know I have one. NAVA would like it. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE!

[edit] North America (Americas)

You may not know this, I'll try to explain it as simple as I can. User Corticopia has been pushing the POV that Mexico is part of Central America. We had an edit warring in the article Mexico and a debate Talk:Mexico, in which we provided enough evidence that a portion of southeastern Mexico is physiographically in Central America, but that geopolitically Mexico is in the North American region. He agreed and he proceeded to edit the article in that way.

Now he's denying that and is editing all the articles that mention Mexico is in North America (namely Americas (terminology), Middle America (Americas), an article he defends a lot; and used to edit the article Central America).

He nominated the article North America (Americas) for deletion, saying that it was created following a POV pushing. I created the article in order to avoid confusion and in order to have the different models used in the Americas (North, Central, South or the model Corticopia likes, Northern, Middle and South). Also because the Template:Regions of the world lacked an article about the NA region, it used to have a link to North America (continent).

Can you please vote in this? I think it is unacceptable to try to delete a perfectly valid article, just because he wants to. Thanks for your help. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than being a veiled ad hominem argument, I think YOU have gone too far AC. As I've stated there, there is a key difference -- the content regarding the sub/regions of Northern America (which is not merely a UN construct; see article) and Middle America (numerous definitions provided) are well sourced, while that of the 'region' of North America isn't. This doesn't deny other continental models, but no sources have been provided that clearly delineate what the model upon which the nominated article is based. The sources in North America (Americas) do not support the content in that article, and a read of those sources will reveal that. Regardless, if necessary, applicable content can be added to the North America article instead of forking and conflating. Corticopia 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion or expertise in this area, and so abstain. I must say I'm saddened by the animosity in this debate, and wish there was more evidence of WP:AGF. --ScottMainwaring 06:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Canadian pale

Hi Scott - you wrote: the definition on the Flags of the World website states: "The central stripe (or pale) in a 1:2 vertical triband/tricolour whose internal proportions are 1-2-1, and which is therefore square - as in the Canadian flag." Do you have a reference for the broader definition of any pale that is half the length of the flag?

Then it's inadvertently my fault, since I wrote that definition at FOTW! However, I did so in the context of the flag of Canada, which is itself 1:2. The term Canadian pale is also used for flags which aren't 1:2, however, and the important feature orf the definition is the ratio of the stripes being 1;2:1. I shall have a word with the DoV page editor at FOTW to fix the definition there! Grutness...wha? 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

You seem to be a flag maven. One editor posted some weird-looking U.S. Flag knockoff and said something about it being a hoax flag. Applying my sense of logic, I deleted it. So, had you ever heard of that "hoax" flag, which is referenced a couple or three entries back in the editing history? Does it belong in the article, as a legitimate "alternate" flag? Wahkeenah 02:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wahkeenah. Not sure if I'm a "maven", but I'll own up to being an interested amateur vexillo-person. Anyay, if I recall, what was posted was the so-called United States Civil Flag. It's the subject of some conspiracy theories about the U.S. being under de facto military rule, etc., not seriously believed by anyone in the mainstream. I think he properly identified it as a hoax and "proposed alternate" or something like that; nevertheless, I agree it doesn't merit being highlighted on Flag of the United States as it's already listed under "See Also" there, and also included in Flags of the United States. --ScottMainwaring 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. People who think we are living under military rule have no clue about what military rule is. First off, the mere fact that someone can say something like that, and live to tell about it afterwards, suggests that they are, at the very least, exaggerating. Anyway, as you note, that flag can be found from a link if anyone is interested. Wahkeenah 03:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The flag of South Dakota

I uploaded the 1909 version of the South Dakota flag, like you requested on the talk page. But I cannot find the flag template to put on the image's page. Do you know where it is? Thanks! A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 14:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi ANNAfoxlover. And thanks! I'm not sure what the right template is. I found Commons:Template:PD-US-flag, which might be appropriate (but is it really true? I thought one could copyright particular depictions of U.S. state flags); on the other hand, Commons:Image:Oklahoma1911flag.png uses Commons:Template:PD-self instead. --ScottMainwaring 15:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Aptn.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Aptn.png. 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 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Portugal

Thanks for reverting my last edit. I was about to change that "defacement" mistake after I realized that it was not the case, but you beat me to it :) I was looking at some vexillology rules to add info on another section, and decided to clarify the lead, but wasn't that rigorous on this last edit. Thanks again. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 02:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

Looking down your review request

(1) is nothing to do with the deletion process. It's an argument as to why we should keep this. Those participating in an AFD are free to ignore any information they believe irrelevant. (2) Likewise it's just you disagreeing with those who participated in the AFD. (3) One person mentioned it and didn't state anything to do with precedent, none of the others referred to it at all and the close doesn't indicate any sway based on the previous deletion. Again this is just you disagreeing with someones input, nothing to do with the overall process. (4) Seems to be a conspiracy theory of some sort, again nothing to do with the deletion process. If you believe someone is not acting in good faith, then you need to discuss it with them or seek some other dispute resolution. Deletion review isn't dispute resolution. We don't do any sort of stare decisis, however if the community believes that all articles of a particular type are misguided and the information better represented in another form, then the community can decide that, deletion review is again not for deciding that.

i.e. it is merely you disagreeing with the outcome of the debate, not that there are any process issues (e.g. being closed too early, or ignoring core policies like WP:V or even the debate being close and the consensus read incorrectly). As DRV is for reviewing the process and any errors in that, your listing gives nothing to review hence why I closed it. --pgk 09:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Just to let you know, I was the nominator for deletion of Gallery of flags with stars. I am not part of any strategy by Zscout or anybody else, I stumbled upon the article during Recent changes patrol, and it immediately hit me as a non-article, and therefore nominated it. Corvus cornix 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy at my part; just moving all possible free content to the Commons. Even if we use "all free content," these lists will never be complete. I add flags daily to both Wikipedia and the Commons and new flags are being discovered with different element types. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portland neighborhoods

Hi Scott! I noticed that you created the infobox for Laurelhurst (and probably many other neighborhoods.) I'm on the boards of South Tabor and Southeast Uplift, and would like to create a similar box for S. Tabor and maybe some other neighborhoods. Can you tell me where you got the info, and share any tips about formatting that you may have picked up? Thanks! -Pete 05:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete! Take a look at Template talk:Infobox Neighborhood Portland OR -- basically I pull the info out of the City's PortlandMaps (includes census data for most, but not all, neighborhoods) and PortlandOnline (see "neighborhood associations" section under "Services Menu") databases. Glad to see interest and activity around these pages! What kind of formatting tips would you like? --ScottMainwaring 05:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that should be plenty to get me started. I'll try to report back… -Pete 23:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sfsymphony-logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sfsymphony-logo.png. 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 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NAVA meeting flags

We got authorization from NAVA to use the meeting flags, past and present, on Wikipedia. You can use the license at Image:Flag of NAVA.svg on the images. It would be best to take the images from NAVA's website. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commons soft redirects

Please don't remove the soft redirects from flag gallery pages. Go ahead and restore the contents, but please leave some kind of reference to the Commons version, as the two should be kept in sync. --Himasaram 05:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added commons links to the "See also" sections. --ScottMainwaring 05:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Oregon/Portland

Hi, I'm not sure if you watch WP:ORE, but I noticed that despite your excellent work on Oregon-related articles, I don't believe you belong to the Oregon Project... Well, Aboutmovies has created a subproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon/Portland, and I thought you might be interested in joining. He made a really nice userbox for it, if those sorts of things entice you. :) Maybe you're not a joiner, but again, your work on Portland and related articles has been excellent and it would be great to have you on board. Cheers! Katr67 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to join! --ScottMainwaring 05:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dora Jumping Sharks

See "talk" page of Dora if you still disagree. We can discuss it there.ZookieByTheSea 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Union Flag

Hi, Scott! I wonder if you might want to reconsider deleting the image of the NC currency. I thought that it really added to the page by showing that the GUF was widely recognized as the de facto flag of the United Colonies. The discussion on the page has been interesting -- thanks for your support! BTW, the little picture of the ship flying the EIC flag caught my eye, and triggered a whole new line of research. I'll be presenting a paper about it at the NAVA conference in Hartford in October. Peter Ansoff 13:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter! That's a good point -- I think I did throw the baby out with the bathwater in this case, so to speak. Rather than figure out how to frame the relevance of the NC currency image to the topic of the page, I just avoided (deleted) the issue entirely. But it would certainly improve the article to re-include it as you suggest. I'm not sure when I'll have time to do this, though, so if you're so inclined (and don't have to end up citing yourself :-)), please do go ahead and edit away! BTW, I'm sorry not to be able to attend NAVA this October, it would be great to hear your latest paper and meet you in person. Your I think research really raises the bar on what vexillological work should aspire to; it's great to have your knowledge represented on wikipedia. --ScottMainwaring 14:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Moldova

I do believe that some mention ought to be made in this article that there is inconsistency regarding the reverse of the flag (i.e., whether the yellow bar contains a reverse image of the coat of arms or is plain). I'll readily concede that I put too much of a detailed analysis of the screen shots on the main article page; however, I feel it needs to be at least included and minimally acknowledged, and the screen-shot image won't satisfy the fair use criteria (and will therefore be deleted) unless it appears in at least one article (talk pages don't count). What do you think about this? Richwales 00:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ARIS citation

Thanks for adding the citation. I went to Census Bureau and kind of dropped it after that... :). Good work. -- Ben 22:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --ScottMainwaring 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Flags of the United States

Hi Scott, I thought it necessary to remove non USA flags from this article, given the title and following other flag list pages, and to include all US State flags rather than the POV "top 10" and "bottom 10". Apart from non dicussion, is there any reason why you disagree with the edits? Thanks Astrotrain 10:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Astrotrain. In terms of the similar flags section, I think it belongs here (or, arguably, on the Flag of the United States page) as the US flag is the most prominent example of a large/notable category of flag designs, a category that deserves to be documented in wikipedia. (I do think the section is rather large and maybe should be spun-off into a separate article, but narrowly-focused flag lists/galleries seem to be on the chopping block lately as "non-encyclopedic" and delete-worthy, though I strongly disagree with this de facto policy.) Perhaps the intro sentence could be made better? It currently tries to explain the inclusion of various non-USA flags on the page with the vague term "associated with the USA".
In terms of the state flags, two points: First, listing all 50 of them here seems unnecessarily redundant with the main article Flags of the U.S. states. And second, I'd disagree that using NAVA's ratings to give a basis for which subset to represent is POV: NAVA is the most prominent civilian organization of flag experts in the US, and they endorse this ranking; though it's obviously a critique of relative flag design quality, it represents an important consensus. That being said, I think the current set of examples is too large (at 20); I'd like to see it reduced to the 4 top-rated flags (no need to call out the low-ranked ones so prominently, I think -- that's unnecessarily provocative of fans of those flags, or residents of those states).
I realize I'm being a bit contradictory here -- arguing for inclusion of a bunch of admittedly peripherally-related (but still noteworthy) material regarding the first section, and for exclusion of a bunch of highly relevant (if redundant) material in the second. But it's hard to balance conciseness with coverage sometimes. Thanks for considering my ideas. --ScottMainwaring 16:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the article should move more towards the "List of..." flag series, rather than stand as a gallery- which as you point out could be deleted. In any case, the contradiction highlighted is hard to deal with given the title and the format followed elsewhere. Astrotrain 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to "Flag of Singapore"

Hi, thanks for proofreading and making some improvements to "Flag of Singapore". However, I am wondering whether the changes that you made to the first paragraph in the section "Flag of Singapore#Elements and symbolism" should be reverted, because the description of the flag was actually taken directly from the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules. Also, the present wording, which plunges right into the meaning of the various elements of the flag, seems a little abrupt. Cheers, Jacklee 04:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jacklee, and thanks for your comments. To explain the reasoning behind my edits to that paragraph: The first sentence was basically redundant with material in the introduction, so I thought deleting it was appropriate. I then shortened up the next two sentences by replacing "The X colour" with "X", which I don't think affects meaning. I agree that this left the section with a bit too abrupt a beginning; I've just edited a bit more to try to fix this, let me know what you think.
In general, while I think its great to reference the actual legal language that defines the flag, I don't think an encyclopedia needs to uncritically reproduce it verbatim or accept its style. For example, the legal language talks about an "upper left canton", which sounds quite awkward to a vexillologist's ear: flags don't have an inherent "left" and "right" side, since they blow around in the wind and are viewed at a variety of angles, so "hoist" and "fly" are the preferred terms; and the "canton" is by definition the corner in the upper fly part of the flag -- I don't think the other corners can be considered "cantons". Seems to me better to try to make all "Flag of X" articles conform to vexillological standards rather than to have each use the respective country's idiosyncratic terminology. --ScottMainwaring 05:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being a vexillogist, I shall defer to your superior knowledge regarding how the flag should be described. However, when I previously worked to get articles up to Good Article status, I was advised by (presumably) more experienced editors that the introductory paragraph is meant to summarize what is in the article, which suggests that what is in the introduction must appear elsewhere in the article. I've made some minor tweaks to the words that you introduced in the "Elements and symbolism section". In particular, I've removed the "(sic)" ("equality of man" is an old-fashioned but grammatical usage) and the "presumably" after "waxing" (yes, the crescent moon is waxing). For the benefit of other editors, I've copied our discussion into the "Flag of Singapore" talk page. We may want to continue this conversation there. Cheers, Jacklee 13:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Gallery of flags with crosses

Gallery of flags with crosses, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Gallery of flags with crosses satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of flags with crosses and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Gallery of flags with crosses during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. OsamaK 19:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 51-star US flag?

Hi Jacobolus! I'm trying to track down the source you used to create Image:US flag 51 stars.svg - has the Army Institute of Heraldry published the design somewhere? It would be a good citation to add to Flag of the United States. Thanks, --ScottMainwaring (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC) (class of '85, btw)

I got it from this FOTW page. --jacobolus (t) 08:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MAB-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:MAB-logo.png. 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) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:PBSKIDSSprout.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:PBSKIDSSprout.png. 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. - AWeenieMan (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tbc-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Tbc-logo.png. 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) 06:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flag Entry Template

Greetings. I wanted to give you a heads up that the flag entry template isn't working as it should for flags that are out of proportion of the de-facto 2/3 standard. This can be seen on Flags of the United States page that I have done some work on. In particular, the Width attribute does work properly for flags such as the Guilford Flag. I can take a look at template and attempt to fix it, but you are far more qualified to work on it. Have a great day. -DevinCook (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi DevinCook. Yes, really long flags are a pain in the neck. I think the template as it stands can handle most, though, since there is a parameter called Doublewide (see Template talk:Flag entry) that when set causes the flag entry to span two columns in the display. (For really extreme flags, maybe there should be Triplewide and Quadruplewide as well?) I edited Flags of the United States to use it, and rearranged things a little, hope this helps. Thanks for working on improving that page! --ScottMainwaring (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. However, shouldn't the width attribute be able to set the width of the image? That would make it easy to resize each flag to fit to a certain width. Strange flags like the Guiford Flag wouldn't present a problem. We could also use it to set all the flags to a set width giving a uniform layout like the <gallery> tag. Anyway, thanks for the great template. Have a great day. -DevinCook (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be great to be able to set the width just once, in template:Begin flag gallery, but I don't know how to do this so that subsequent "calls" to template:Flag entry could reference the value; a small matter of programming beyond my current knowledge, I'm afraid. But in cases like the Guildford flag, just because that entry needs to be 400 pixels wide (say), it doesn't follow that all the other entries should be that wide (you'd just get a lot of whitespace for the sake of consistency). Hence the logic of "Doublewide" to flag an exception to the general width rule for a gallery. --ScottMainwaring (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Setting the width once would be nice, but I doubt it's possible - especially since we have a mix of HTML and Wikipedia's markup. All the images in on that page are set with a width of 200px, but none are rendered that way. I can take a look if you like. I'm exceptionally nerdy. :-) Oh, on another note, have you had a chance to play with Inkscape? Its a great open-source program that I used to create some of the flags in the gallery (the nightmarish Guilford one as well). -DevinCook (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Metro-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Metro-logo.png. 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) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Flags of North America

An article that you have been involved in editing, Flags of North America, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of North America. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Questions about User 72.64.154.253

This is an interesting situation. Overall, I think the only action that needs to be taken is to ask the user where they get their information from. I am assuming that it's all either from the same book or from the same website. Also, feel free to ask that the user adds references to the paragraphs they are adding. I think they are certainly doing more good than bad for the articles – especially to those that don't have a single reference. The user's additions are not very controversial, and simply explain why a flag looks the way it does without adding anything out of the ordinary. Gary King (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)