User talk:LtPowers/Archive005

Con Brio

I notice you proposed Con Brio for deletion (which is fair enough, I see that’s what was decided). But I noticed also that Con Brio had a couple of "other uses" tags, which have been lost in the process. Doesn’t that argue it should be a disambiguation page, (like Allegro)? How should that be addressed? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet stubs

Hi, Pubdog. I see you created stub articles for several hamlets in Niagara County. I'm not sure they meet our criteria for inclusion. Usually hamlets have very little notability and are redirected to the town in which they are located. Powers ^T 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Lt Powers. Thanks for noticing the addition of the geography stubs for Niagara County hamlets. Given how populated Hamlets in New York is and my recent completion of many hamlet stubs for Template:Erie County, New York, I guess I wasn't aware of this notability criteria. You will note that each hamlet is referenced in the GNIS and the link is provided to it. Before deleting the hamlet stubs, could we evaluate further? I have only a few left to do in Wheatfield, New York to complete the hamlets referenced in the various Niagara County town articles.--Pubdog (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there were so many, although a quick check of a few selected at random indicates that most of them are CDPs as well as hamlets, which seem to have more widely-accepted notability. I'm currently looking for someplace where these guidelines might be written down; right now it's just my perception which could easily be completely wrong. Powers ^T 17:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. Please look at the county templates as you peruse the various hamlets and CDPs linked to Hamlets in New York. You'll see that the "Other hamlets" links on those templates are often populated, such as for Template:Albany County, New York and Template:Rensselaer County, New York. While I may have went a little overboard with Niagara county, the ones I added to Template:Niagara County, New York were all anchored in the various town articles to begin with.--Pubdog (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Snuba

Your nomination of Snuba at WP:Articles for deletion/Snuba has produced some activity with several sources found. I've done my best to clean up the article and incorporate the sources as cites. I think it may now be in good enough condition for you to withdraw the nomination if you agree. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts, you should let it run. If the threat of deletion encourages more folks to improve the article, it will be at GA by the end of the seven days <grin>. --RexxS (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Young adult (psychology)#Which to use for young adult and adolescent?

Hey, LtPowers. Will you weigh in on the above linked discussion? Do not worry; it is not as stressful an environment as the Character (arts) talk page has been these days, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Morrow

Longstanding practice is that redlinks don't get included in situations such as this. There's no good reason to include a nonnotable group, and without an article you can't prove notability. Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the edit summaries have always made it clear that those adding the names are adding the individuals, not the band. Again: no article, no include. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't paying attention to the state of the band — thus I didn't observe that it had an article — because its notability is irrelevant here. If they belong anywhere on this page, these two people belong in a notable natives section, and there's no good reason to include them there. Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem, as long as there's a source of course. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know contemporary music much, and I didn't understand that the band originated there. Moreover, there's always plenty of cleanup to do on these smalltown articles; if I put much effort into all the nonnotable individuals that get added to community articles, I'd never do anything else. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Statue publicly displayed since 1946 in public domain

Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice indicates that works published (in the case of a statue, "displayed without restrictions on access" is considered "published") between 1923 and 1977 are in the public domain unless they had a copyright notice. Please see discussion on Commons at commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 20#question about PD-US-no notice. The SIRIS entry for the sculpture indicates that it is unsigned, and thus has no copyright notice. File:Murphree statue.jpg, another shot of the same statue, is already on Commons and has been for years (not in itself evidence, admittedly). I don't see how this file isn't valid. Powers ^T 23:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LtPowers, how do I document the resolution of this matter, so that the photo is properly documented and not subject to challenge later on the same basis? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you're up for it

I noticed the AfD on Antebellum and thought you might be up for handling the merge tags on Redemption (United States history) and Redeemers. Another thing that's long been on my "to do, eventually" list. :) Recognizance (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LtPowers. You have new messages at Talk:Yogi Bear.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Big Bad

LT, not that I want to get into any edit war with you <g>, but the reason I removed this character from List of characters in Sesame Street was because I wasn't able to find any reliable source about him or that the great Jerry Nelson performed him. I know that he exists, silly--I've only seen every Sesame Street episode made since 2000 about a dozen times each! Unfortunately, since the credits at the end of The Show doesn't list the puppeteers by their characters, that unfortunately constitutes original research. I direct you to this WP policy, WP:SPS:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.</ref>

I would like to see this list became a FL, and the best way to do that is to make sure that every single entry can be verified by a reliable source. Unfortunately, it's not enough to say, "I saw Big Bad on an episode the other day!" or even worse, "I remember that character when I was three!" That's exactly the kind of thing I think we should avoid with this list. A more "complete" list is available at Muppet Wiki, since that's the place for that kind of thing. So I'm gonna go ahead and revert your revert. ;) If you're able to find a reliable source, please feel free to add BB back in. --Christine (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, LtPowers. You have new messages at Figureskatingfan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Christine (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Split opinion

Do you have an opinion on Talk:Cardboard box#Split proposal? Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Links to redirects

Okay then, thanks for telling me, I thought I was helping. Damn. --Lightlowemon (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'll take a look at it. --Lightlowemon (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Redshirt Cultural Impact

Please take the discussion about keeping or removing this section to Talk:Redshirt_(character) Samboy (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Glad to see the editing I've been doing hasn't gone unnoticed. On a slightly different topic, I found it oddly coincidental that you, out of the other millions of people on Wikipedia, welcomed me. I grew up in Henrietta, 8 minutes away from RIT. What are the odds, eh? -- BinaryMn (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense

Hello, LtPowers. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Adolescence#Image debate: Image:A boy in the mirror.jpg vs. Image:Adolescentboy.jpg.

Will you respond here? I am asking you not only because I am slightly familiar with you but also because you watch the related Preadolescence article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyer22 (talk • contribs)

Hello, LtPowers. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonie AfD

The article has undergone a significant expansion since you commented in the AfD - most notably to the subsection on History. Perhaps you could take another look at the article and revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonies? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Task Force

I see you have commented that the task force may not fit under the WikiProject for Disney. Which WikiProject do you recommend to put it under? -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo NY *Suburban Schools listed in City Page

LT,

Please stop breaking the RFC and listing suburban schools in the article on Buffalo. NY. Although you might not agree with the consensus, you still should respect it. Also, editing an article anonymously when you have an account is really silly.Tommycw1 (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Toy museums in Rochester

Sorry I didnt see your response immediately and didnt respond quick enough. Anyway, I put the cat up for db-author. dm (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Downside of the Signpost and Wiki takes Manhattan publishing into my talk page. I was offline for a few days and when I came back your comment was nestled in between them. Anyway, no harm done and your concern was addressed. dm (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD comments

I appreciate your commenting on the Sneer AFD. If people were simply disagreeing with my opinion or providing evidence to support their point of view, I could accept that without comment, but I'm honestly puzzled at the need for two of them to attack me personally (and a third to claim that I'm "assaulting" everyone who's edited the article, which is the most bizarre thing I've ever read in an AFD). Anyway, thanks. Propaniac (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Saratoga Springs

There was a reason why Saratoga Springs, New York was moved to Saratoga Springs; it would be greatly appreciated if you move it back please and bring your opinions to the talk page regarding its correct name. Thank you for your cooperation in advance.Camelbinky (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, i came here also regarding [this move that C refers to. C invited me recently to fix up disambiguation of these. LtPowers, thanks for improving the internal wording of Saratoga Springs (disambiguation) already. But I believe that the original, New York one is the wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for the term, so by article naming conventions it gets the term. All the other locations are surely named after the New York location. I've been following discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) recently and am quite sure that this treatment is correct, if you accept that the New York one is the primary one, which it is. I think we could either discuss further here or at a Talk page of the dab or the NY article, but since we're here now I will watch here. Thanks! doncram (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, fellows, but WP:PLACE#United States is quite clear on this topic: "The canonical form for cities in the United States is [[City, State]] (the 'comma convention')." Also: "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may have their articles named [[City]] provided they are the primary topic for that name.... No other American city may have its article named [[City]]." (Emphasis mine.) Saratoga Springs, New York is the correct title for the article. Powers ^T 02:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that's pretty definitive, my mistake. I've been following the active discussion on neighborhood names where it is being held that unique neighborhood names don't need any city or state following, and that distracted me. I'll try to fix it back, but it may require an admin. doncram (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then can one of the two of you do as my original proposal was for Saratoga Springs (disambiguation) to be moved to Saratoga Springs instead of the Saratoga Springs name being a redirect to the Saratoga Springs, New York article? If someone could do that I believe that would be the best and was my original suggestion and all I'm looking for because I dont want it to get back to where everyone was putting a hatnote on the NY page mentioning their own Saratoga.Camelbinky (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; the city in New York is clearly the primary usage. The hatnote to the disambiguation page is sufficient. And Doncram, that's an excellent illustration of why one shouldn't re-revert like that, especially with moves. Once someone has reverted your move and given a plausible reason, that's when discussion should occur, not after you've redone the move. Powers ^T 12:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Redshirt (character)

I’ve started a discussion there. I think it would be more productive to discuss things there instead of on user’s talk pages. Samboy (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NRHP nav box

Hi, Pubdog. It seems like this is a navbox, which according to guidelines should go at the bottom of articles. Is there some other documentation that advises otherwise for NRHP lists? Powers ^T 13:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello LtPowers. I added the county lists to New York and Maryland counties. I was taking my lead from various Pennsylvania lists, such as National Register of Historic Places listings in Tioga County, Pennsylvania. I'll ask User talk:Niagara, since he created the Penna pages.--Pubdog (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Massachusetts county lists have a county navbox at the top. The Maine county lists don't have one at all. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC) (Full disclosure - I didn't look at all of either state).

Infoboxes

You write, in obvious good faith, "I am not yet convinced that we can't use just one infobox for all musical performers.". I'm wondering if you have read the archives covering past debates? The subject has been exhaustively discussed both in general terms and in detail, box by box, field by field. Many of us feel that infoboxes work well for quantitative data, geographical articles etc. but are tricky for biographies. This particular box has a history of continual alterations, without even considering classical music articles, with no agreement on even basic fields such as 'genre'. (Anyway, there are links to some of the main discussions here). --Kleinzach 00:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I admit I lack the time to pore through extensive archives. I can certainly understand how the infobox gets edited without regard to certain uses. I continue to think those can be resolved, but maybe the people who can facilitate that are just spread too thinly. Powers ^T 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though please note people have tried making 'Beethoven' boxes (etc.) in the past. Your last point about too few people is right, however coordinating ancillary material with main text is always difficult. My background is in print encyclopedias and we always found this problematic, even though we only put boxes in a very small percentage of articles. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia that has ever tried to put a summary box on every article. --Kleinzach 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Manual of Style

I didn't see that rule anywhere when I opened that link, honestly. I may have missed it and am willing to give benefit of doubt, but I'd rather see it etched in stone. I feel that it is inefficient to add lines that don't even display on the page for the sake of readability. Between paragraphs, sure, its necessary for readability, but between sections is not, as those equal signs pop out quite nicely. Frankly I'm tired of being told to type for readability when the code isn't the part you are meant to read, lol.

Btw, I cleaned up this page, and your main page is next, and I will only change to your standards.--User talk:Feneeth of Borg 21:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC-5)

This is not Policy

Power read this:

Indirect style

A lot of the MoS seems to be written in an indirect style:

"The following types of quoting should not be used:" "Quotations are enclosed within double quotes." "Capitals are not used for emphasis on Wikipedia."

rather than the stronger and more direct:

"Do not use the following types of quoting:" "Enclose quotations within double quotes." "Do not use capitals for emphasis."

Was this a conscious decision? All other things being equal, the second style seems better to me. 81.129.129.192 (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

You may prefer User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style. Tony (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The less direct style is also a by-product of the MoS's status as a gudeline, not policy, and therefore not absolutely required. (Though, as has been discussed before, many treat it as "the rules".) oknazevad (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with our anonymous contributor entirely. The MoS should be phrased in the imperative. It is telling people what to do, not describing the nature of the style. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this offends you, but I think you are taking readability to the extreme when one goes out of his way to write code less efficiently on a large scale in terms of effort required to do so. No matter how it is written it is readable if the syntax is correct, and this complacency towards efficiency is irresponsible considering none of us own or maintain the servers that this is stored on, the more efficient we are the less severs required, the less energy is used, so Wikipedia enjoys lower costs and we enjoy faster load times and smaller cache usage of our browsers. When you write a program, it is readable because it was written as efficiently as possible, although even little kid games have a better editors than this. Sure, lines and spaces are a bit different, who the hell designs a language to compensate for the number of spaces between one command or a another, its idiotic to make your language open to inefficiency intentionally. I'll post this all on the MoS talk sure, but I know they won't listen, because I'm not new to the fact that the closer you get to the authority of the MoS, the less consistent and efficient the formatting becomes. Look at the talk page, edit it and you will see inconsistencies almost immediately, and not obscure ones, everyday ones. I can't believe I'm arguing over the matter of individual bytes, for logic's sake!--User talk:Feneeth of Borg 00:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC-5)

I read what you wrote on my page, and you are right, I didn't really think about that too much, so the most efficient way to make such changes when I have something to contribute, the earlier extra characters are removed from the current version, the less times they will show up in later versions, and the less edits that are submitted the less resource use. You didn't exactly explain yourself clearly, but yes I understand, small edits aren't worth it. I will think this through before editing, and hope that people simply write pages efficiently the first time, or that wikipedia changes their logging system to only record changes and then implement them to current version of an article when they are displayed in the history page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feneeth of Borg (talk • contribs)

Star Trek pics

Can you tell me why 1 year after our trouble on the Starfleet Ranks page you just decide to go ahead and mark my pics for deletion? Why didn't we just finish this a year ago? Whey are you doing this??? --Flans44 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Comment lost

Thanks for your comment on Application of IINFO in FAs in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. It appears however that your edit was lost due to an edit conflict. Just thought you ought to know.--RDBury (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography page guideline proposal

Hi Powers,

As you have been involved in the previous discussions about bibliography pages, I thought you should be notified about a formal proposal here. Any constructive contributions would be welcome.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps rating

Hi LtPowers, I've noticed that you've repeatedly rated Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps page, but the film hasn't been released so it can't be rated. Also, when reviewing a page, your supposed to fill out a check list, and I noticed that when you reviewed the film's page you simply just choose a rating, which you aren't supposed to do. Ashley92995 (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Division III move

Hey, I noticed that you reverted my previous move of the article about the NCAA's Division III. I wanted to object. Your reason stated is that, since the previous title, now its current title once more, was still a redirect, no disambiguation was needed. I heartily disagree. The term "division III", or variants such as "division 3" is far too commonly used for the article about the NCAA classification to be the primary meaning. Division III should be a disambiguation page. The same with Division I and Division II.

That said, the titles for the NCAA divisions should lead with "NCAA", instead of using it as a parenthetical disambiguator. I tried to make that move for Division III, but was blocked.

Overall, I'd like to hear your thoughts. oknazevad (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Padmé Amidala featured article review

I have nominated Padmé Amidala for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet Brands

What misinformation? Check out their website right now. They don't work.

Red marquis (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Hi, thanks for assessing Andrew Russo. You could have assessed all banners I think, because WP:ASSESS says "Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope", so they must be the same. Regards Hekerui (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Lake Forest & the NCHA

I appreciate ya catching the typo. I meant to put that only Lake Forest's men left the NCHA. Cheers. Mtndrums (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Architectural Photography Tutorial

Thanks for the comment. It's always good to get feedback when you drop something out there and then wait.....and wait.....

I'm curious. appears to be perfect architectural perspective -- verticals straight and vertical (the lamp post on the left is within a couple of pixels of parallel with the traffic light post on the far right) , horizontals vanishing both ways -- so perfect, I might use it as an example, if I knew how you did it. How far away? At the tele end of a zoom? How much cropped?

My own favorite similar image (probably favorite because it was just DYK) is , which was shot with an AIS Nikor 15mm f3.5 on a Nikon D1, shows some barrel distortion at the sides even though I cropped it 12% on both sides (and 40% off the bottom). Mine is a good example of making the best of what you've got; yours is of making it perfect.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (If you choose to respond, please do so here.)

With that image, I was across the street on the fifth or sixth floor of a parking garage. I had the camera resting on a concrete railing that wasn't exactly flat but apparently was good enough. The only cropping I did was to chop 172 pixels of sky off the top. I'm glad you like the picture, but I'm really quite an amateur and I guess I got lucky. =) Powers ^T 16:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What camera? -- can I assume a point and shoot? Were you on wide or tele? You may be "really quite an amateur", but you have a good eye. And yes, there are several of yours that I wouldn't wax ecstatic about, but that certainly applies to my collection, very much so.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a simple Kodak EasyShare. No special lenses; I probably used a bit of optical zoom but not much. Powers ^T 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I use a Kodak Easy Share too and think some of my pics came out pretty well. I rarely crop or modify, but do lighten from time to time. For those mods, I use Picasa 3 software. I was particularly happy with the sky on this one.--Pubdog (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sky is very subtle. I wonder why the barrel distortion is more noticeable in Pubdog's than LtPowers' -- not mind you, that it's objectionable, but on LtPowers' theatre you can count the pixels that the verticals on the side are out of vertical only with a rectangle at full magnification -- in Pubdog's you can see it fairly easily. If we could figure out the difference, it might be helpful to you guys.

Pubdog, if you regularly lighten back lit images, you might read again my tip on locking exposure in advance.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Rappyunzel.png

I've restored per your request... I'll leave it to you to put it back where you deem appropriate in the article! Skier Dude (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Snuffleupagus

See User talk:Wizardman#RM of Aloysius Snuffleupagus. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:LoadMeUp101

He's been blocked, and the IP block was already declined :) Good catch. Skier Dude (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Charles W. Howard

On December 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles W. Howard, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 19:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Daniel Spivak

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Daniel Spivak. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Spivak. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory

Is it worth trying to reactivate this project? I only recognise you, S.dedalus and jmclark. I note too that the creator nrswanson is a banned sockpuppeteer... However, there are a huge number of articles that should in theory come under the wing of this project and could be buried in a larger project such as music. Thoughts? Reply at the talk page. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg

The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, LtPowers/Archive005! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello LtPowers! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Ezequiel Adamovsky - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Elk County

1. We assume that they're correct; it's not standard practice to leave comments like that.
2. Comments belong there, but only (1) if they're referenced, or (2) summaries of information in the article on the topic. I remember that I checked and saw that there was no article on the topic for which you left the comment. Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what we do. Nearly all of them are correct, so we don't need such comments. And there's no source for your additions: a reference would have sufficed for something for what there really is a need. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Read other parts of the reference — it says that only about 1% have been found to be incorrect. And what do you mean that there's no information for the other stuff? See the source at the top of the Landmark Name column: the entire table (aside from fixes such as the coords) is derived from the NRIS source. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

West Albany, New York

I was hoping that if you have any spare time if you could do another evaluation of the class for West Albany, New York as I've expanded it as much as I can for now and believe its length and 15 references now means it surpasses that expected of a stub article.Camelbinky (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Character (arts)#Half revert

Hey, LtPowers. You may want to weigh in on the above linked topic. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Happenstance

Heya LtPower, I just realized that I've made two replies towards you that are generally negative. I just wanted to come here in order to mention that this is pure happenstance. I'm certainly not intentionally criticizing you or your behavior specifically, or anything like that. All the best,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Titles of Eastern Orthodox officials in the article title

An RfC is currently open (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(clergy)#naming_convention_associated_with_Eastern_Orthodox_officials) regarding the appropriateness of having position titles in the article title of religious Eastern Orthodox officials. I noticed your involovement in a recent related move discussion and thought you might offer your 2 cents. I have been finding it really hard to gain any commentary (positive or negative). Any commentary you might have would be welcomed.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Perry's Ice Cream logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Perry's Ice Cream 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

PD-textlogo

Wondering what this was about. The logo is comprised solely of text and simple geometric shapes (circles), which to me matches the definition of the template perfectly.--Terrillja _talk 16:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LtPowers. You have new messages at Terrillja's talk page.
Message added 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Terrillja _talk 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LtPowers. You have new messages at Tunads's talk page.
Message added 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daniel J Simanek (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, LtPowers. You have new messages at Tunads's talk page.
Message added 23:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daniel J Simanek (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg.

I have restored to deleted edit; however, I am unsure why you believe that the image should not have been reduced and how such a large image file falls under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I feel that it will possibly be reduced again with the larger image removed to comply with this. If you could explain anything I might not be aware of or missing, I would be very appreciative as it will help me in the future when working with these types of fair use images. Kindly Calmer Waters 14:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Josh Kassel

Sorry - I did forget about it, and then my talkpage archive bot archived the thread automatically, so I didn't even see it any more. I sort of agree with you; I would probably suggest that the best way forward is to either talk to the author about it, or procedurally nominate the article for AfD again. Black Kite 14:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

:D

Hi! Ba Limp II (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Spivak

Here's his profile on EliteProspects.com showing past IIHF stats for Spivak. Geoff ^T 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

David Selby

Thank you for the info on my image use Evilarry (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Deaf Culture

For being far more polite in informing people on the Talk page for Deaf Culture than I would have, and therefore keeping me from probably starting a flame war, I present unto you this cookie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deafgeek (talk • contribs)

Deafgeek has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Orphaned non-free image File:RIT athletics logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RIT athletics logo.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Anti-pedophile activism" Article Nominated for Deletion

You have previously edited or commented on the article entitled "Anti-pedophile activism." It has now been nominated for deletion. If you'd like to follow or contribute to the AfD process, please visit the page created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism. Your input would be appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Velleity

I am working on it now, hopefully to what to want. If you have specific constructive criticisms, please address them at the AfD page. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bausch and Lomb logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bausch and Lomb 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Perry's Ice Cream logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Perry's Ice Cream 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: File source problem with File:Bausch and Lomb Logo 2004-2010.svg

Regarding File:Bausch and Lomb Logo 2010.svg, File:Bausch and Lomb Logo 2004-2010.svg, and File:Bayer Logo.svg: Source information was originally there and was removed by Terrillja, claiming logos were text only (does heavily stylized text count as text?) and therefore do not require source info. Should I revert to my original version? Please let me know. Thanks. lordoftheoats 18:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

>> Thanks. Reverted all. lordoftheoats 19:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP Star Trek in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Star Trek for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and remember to sign your name. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Eating pussy‎

I notice that you have decided to move this unilaterally. I am happy to leave it there provided that you accept a hattnote on Cunnilingus. Without a hattnote, the disambiguation page will become orphaned. If the hattnote is not acceptable then I propose to move the page back. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kasi/Kassi/Kansi

Hey LtPowers, you've removed {{db-copyvio}} from Kasi/Kassi/Kansi with the comment "remove speedy tag - answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror". That link is an answer to the question "Kasi tribe of pashtun?". I've searched but I couldn't find a link between Answers.com and Wikipedia. Why do you think Answers.com is a mirror of Wikipedia? Cheers, Vipinhari || talk 18:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 23:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Katie Linendoll

Hi, You deleted Katie Linendoll's bio from her page due to a copyright issue because the bio was the same as the one featured on Katie's website. I actually work at the PR agency that represents Katie and we wrote the bio featured on her website with her and are the copyright holders of that text. In this case, wouldn't it be okay for us to use the text since we are the copyright holders - or does the bio need to be modified to use? Would appreciate any help/guidance you can give - I am new to Wikipedia and not sure how this works. --Brookette1 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

File:RIT Athletics Logo.svg

Lt Powers, All the SVG images I uploaded for the RIT article, were extracted from http://www.rit.edu/upub/graphic_standards.html Here is the link to the PDF file having vector images http://www.rit.edu/upub/counter/click.php3?id=35 See, if you can source all the images properly. Thanks Venudxb (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Deaf culture

I would appreciate your comments at Talk:Deaf culture#Disability template. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mario Pinball Land

Re moved. Let me know if we are still having issues. From the talk page I think we should be OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Duffy

As a heads up I moved it to Robert Duffy (politician). I would've done it originally but I got it confused with Robert Duff (politician). DC T•C 04:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

List of last surviving Canadian war veterans

You participated in a discussion respecting the proposed move of this list. Unfortunately, the proponent of the move initiated overlapping merge, move and AFD discussions, causing some degree of confusion, when it appears that his objective was to merge this list into one list for North American veterans. If you are interested, the actual merge discussion is at Talk:Last surviving United States war veterans#Merger proposal. Best regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Animals' use of sign language

I would appreciate comments from editors knowledgeable about sign language at Talk:Sign language#Animals' use of LANGUAGE, where an editor is trying to make an argument that animals such as apes, dogs, and horses use language. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganga

If you see the comment history you have more than a few users arguing for the name. It's not just one person. Thanks. --SpArC (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

An apology

Hi LtPowers, I write to apologise unreservedly for the nasty way I replied to your polite arguments to delete an article a few months ago. The terms of my reply were gratuitously lewd and prompted by a spirit of mischief which afflicts me when exasperated. Whatever our disagreements you did not deserve that and I am sorry you and everyone else were exposed to it. On reflection I have mothballed my account. Eebahgum (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry

Didn't mean to make it sound bitey. Thanks for the png! Your edits are always good, just I questioned the name since we had the file here. Sorry if it came off wrong.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Muppets Holding Company

Sorry, did realize that new messages had to be put at the bottom. Thank you for making this correction. 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory

Hello LtPowers, I am attempting to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory. I hope you will be able to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory to stay abreast of any developments. Thanks in advance for your continued interest. BassHistory (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission.

I really think the information we had about the supposedly controversial move needs to be deleted and stick to the consensus on that particular section, it's not helping the vote at all. I ask permission to do so. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore it sounds like your chewing me out. If I offended you I am sorry. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes to College hockey season template

I was wondering why you revered my changes to said template[1]? I know I included all of the old parameters, so I am sure I didn't break any existing instance of it. The fact of the matter is template code should be clean, and at least somewhat human readable, and unless edits explicitly break with existing instances, then there is no reason to revert them just because it wasn't "discussed." In fact, that is generally a bad reason to revert any edit.

That template's code is atrocious and needs to be cleaned up. Not only that, the Infobox's visual appeal leaves something to be desired. Unless there is some other objection to my changes (other than I never told anyone about them), I am going to put them back. Please let me know here or on the template's talk page, if you feel this discussion should end up there. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Assassins

Hi! Were you talking to me? The move was discussed there. Alfie↑↓© 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a general comment; upon moving, the article should have been given a hatnote because there are other uses of the word "assassins". Powers ^T 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see. Alfie↑↓© 20:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Brig

Hello, LtPowers. You have new messages at Talk:Brig (ship).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Hampton Roads

Wow I can't believe list of tallest buildings in upstate new york was brought up as an example of ridiculousness.... because I MADE IT! A little while ago, only it's just called list of tallest buildings in New York and explains right away that that excludes New York City as any of building in NY wouldn't make the bottom of that list. And list of tallest buildings in Upstate New York should redirect there. I thought about making it called "list....New York outside of New York City" or something to that effect but I didn't. It doesn't seem to be a problem because the page did not previously redirect to list of tallest in NYC as I thought it would and it doesn't get views from people thinking it's the NYC one because it doesn't get many. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact it should be moved there, I can't believe I didn't think of that in the first place. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

zero fare

Thanks Powers for your comment, which I have replied to here: [2]Nankai (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, LtPowers/Archive005! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

able seaman

Thanks for your reply; sorry for my slow reaction time.

Well, if I were to write a sentence, I would write something like "An able seaman is a sailor in the United States Navy," or "I began looking for an able seaman to whom I could delegate the order."

As you may have deduced from Talk:Rear Admiral, I agree. (viz: Talk:Rear Admiral#rear admiral and/or Rear Admiral, but Rear admiral?)

Thus, it fits our naming conventions to use the uncapitalized form in the title.

Perhaps, but that wasn't the request. (The request was "Able Seaman (rank) → Able seaman (rank)")
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but article titles (almost) always start with a capital letter; it's no different than for common nouns like ball or hockey puck. So the discussion has no effect on single-word ranks like "Captain". Powers ^T 15:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ann Arbor

Hi Powers,

Thank you so much for your interest in the Ann Arbor article! However, requesting that it be reverted to its old page two weeks later is unacceptable. And, by the way, I was not the one who actually MOVED the page; I simply requested that it be moved, and I gave a friendly explaination. I know you're all about guidelines and random things like that, but there's life beyond Wikipedia--get with the times, man! -Krauseaj 22:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Superior (state)

Talk:Superior_(proposed_U.S._state)#Requested_move

Your "negate" comment let me think a little bit. I guess I will think more. Thank you for this input. TopoChecker (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Courcelles 10:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rochester Sports

Template:Rochester Sports has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a comment to the deletion discussion. Also, can I suggest you increase the size of the "talk" link in your signature? I use a stylus/tablet pen for my daily computing, and it is next to impossible to accurately tap an 8-point letter "T" with a pen. Even with a mouse it can be hard to click. Maybe expand it to the word "Talk"? — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

PittsfordTownSignRt96.png

The picture of this sign was deleted, apparently because it violates copyright. I really don't understand that and would like to better understand. Your comment that "Someone created that sign and owns the copyright on it" doesn't make sense to me. Using that logic, I should consider suing Google for copyright violation because there is a picture of my house in Google maps and I created that house. Your comment would imply that we can never use any image because, at some point in time, someone created the thing. Shouldn't we then delete all images of artworks like the Mona Lisa for the same reason, "someone [da Vinci] created [it]"?

Specifically back to the sign, it was created by the Town of Pittsford using taxpayer money and therefore belongs to the public. I fail to see how the Town could ever prevail in a copyright lawsuit against anyone who takes a picture of the sign, nor do I believe the Town would ever consider such a lawsuit. Hence, why can't Wikipedia, or any other organization, use it in an article about the town?

Just out of curiosity, if someone took a picture of the road that happened to include the sign, and included that picture in the Pittsford (town), New York article, appropriately labeled as "Entering Pittsford via Route 96, town sign on the right", would that be considered a violation and similarly deleted?

Thanks, in advance, for your response. Truthanado (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Gideon

A strong consensus favored that move. Given that neither side produced concrete evidence, the discussions after the relisting did convince me that even with the weak evidence the move was called for. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a strong consensus to make the change. Personally I don't like to replace dab pages at the main name space. In the discussion, including the discussion about the fact that I was considering not following consensus, there was no real data presented to support either position. Given that, it falls back to strength of the arguments. Neither side presented a great argument. That leaves us with consensus which was clear. In the end, there was nothing for me to say that the arguments for not moving made a better case then for moving. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Strong museum logo - Sep 2010.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Strong museum logo - Sep 2010.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of EGRS doesn't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I remember you as having been very involved in years past.

They also are trying to remove the notability and relevance criteria for EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Melolagnia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melolagnia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melolagnia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Marasmusine (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Will, do, thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary discussion

Hiya LtPowers,

I wanted to reply to your last post on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary regarding Salad days (and more specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salad days (second nomination)). I wanted to reply here though, rather then on the NOTDICT talk page, because we're getting off into a pretty specific issue, and I'd rather not overwhelm the talk page any more then we already have. Also, I apologize for the delay in replying to this. I became rather involved in the DASH thing for a bit there, among other things.

Anyway... I think that the "Salad days" AFD's are an excellent exhibit of precisely what our readers want from Wikipedia. For my own part, I see a distinct difference between our encyclopedia content on the phrase, which is located here on Wikipedia, and the content at Salad days on Wiktionary. What's on Wiktionary is a definition, pure and simple. What's on Wikipedia is much more then that: there's a history given, and some analysis of the phrase. I would (and do) argue that while some of the content on Wikipedia may be acceptable to include on the Wiktionary page as well, that most of it is not appropriate to move there. If that's considered to be true, then it should be kept here on Wikipedia.

You said yourself, during the second AFD, that "There is a severe misunderstanding on this project of the differing domains of "dictionaries" and "encyclopedias", and there seems to be a strong movement toward making Wikipedia a comprehensive reference work instead of just an encyclopedia." (the emphasis is mine, obviously) The emphasized portion is certainly an opinion that I agree with, but I don't see that as the bad thing that you seem to think that it is. Just because all other Encyclopedias before have been limited by publishing constraints doesn't mean that we should be as well (See: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia). In my view, the distinction between a dictionary entry and an encyclopedic entry is one of depth, which is why myself and others argue for keeping articles such as the salad days article which we're discussing here. The main point behind NOTDICT is to exclude potential articles that could never be more than a dictionary entry. Common phrases, or really uncommon words and phrases (neologisms, for example), are what comes to my mind. That's the position that both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary both take, by my reading.

Regardless, this is all way off topic to the discussion that was at hand. It's (still) my feeling that the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy is located at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The document located at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a supplement to that policy, explaining some salient issues surrounding the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy (interpreting it's meaning, clarifying it's application, describing it's effect, etc...). Marking is as a guideline does not change... well, anything really, other then classifying the page "more correctly", in my opinion. Other users (yourself included?) may feel that changing the page classification (or keeping it the same) undercuts the policy (or emphasizes it) or something similar, but I don't see any evidence of that effect (in either direction). Here's a possible compromise though: what about creating a new classification? Something like "policy supplement" may be clearer then using "guideline", for both these sorts of pages and what everyone agrees are firmly guidelines. I can't recall what pages, off the top of my head, but I'm certain that there are other pages within the Project namespace that could utilize such a classification. Would you be supportive of that proposal?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that last question is a topic for the talk page; you should probably raise that proposal there. I could perhaps support it.

As to the other point, though. You say: "In my view, the distinction between a dictionary entry and an encyclopedic entry is one of depth..." -- but that's exactly what WP:NOTDICT warns against! Dictionary entries talk about the word qua word, in whatever depth is appropriate for the work. It's not our fault if Wiktionary entries tend to be superficial or brief. A comprehensive dictionary ought to include every bit of information we have in our salad days article; not a shred of it is inappropriate for a dictionary. That's what I mean when I say it's not an encyclopedic article.

-- Powers ^T 11:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the proposal, I think that I will bring it up. I'll probably post it on the Village pump though, since it's a project wide thing.

Anyway, I've read both WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOT itself, and I don't see where "that's exactly what WP:NOTDICT warns against!" Additionally, I saw the "it's not our fault" argument coming. I've heard that one before. But the thing is, you can't "have your cake and eat it too". Wiktionary is not some third party site that we have no control over. It's a WMF site, and more importantly it's a Wikipedia sister project. The association between Wiktionary and Wikipedia is extremely close... Wiktionary grew out of Wikipedia in the first place. If the content is good enough to transwiki to Wiktionary, well... let's do it! I'm game if you are. I just... I don't think that the history stuff, in addition to the extended details on our article, are dictionary material. The content at our Salad days is more than a dictionary definition, which is what I see plenty of others saying at both AFD's. I think that the current state of affairs with respect to our article and the entry at Wiktionary is appropriate, and since there are hundreds (if not thousands) of similar related articles on both sites... *shrug*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I quote: "Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article ... or encyclopedic dictionary entry would contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed." So the difference between a dictionary article and an encyclopedia article is not "depth", as you claimed. No, they differ in scope, focus, and content, but not in depth. The "history stuff" is totally relevant to a comprehensive dictionary entry (note, I didn't say "dictionary definition" -- of course the content at our article is more than just a definition) -- note that the second quotation in the History section is from a dictionary! How you could say that's not dictionary content is quite simply beyond me. Powers ^T 01:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

while similar in some respects, "depth" is not synonymous with "length". Depth of information is a key differentiation between an encyclopedia article and a dictionary entry. Length is part of that, but that's more due to the fact that more in depth information can't be provided without lengthening the article. Similarly, depth is a natural consequence of the difference in scope, focus, and content, which you mentioned. Dictionaries are more focused reference works, is all. And I fail to see how including information from a definition somehow makes a potential encyclopedia entry... wrong, or something.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. I'm saying that the very section you claimed was inappropriate for a dictionary -- "History" -- incorporates half of its content from a dictionary, proving that it's not inappropriate for a dictionary at all. Powers ^T 12:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, what about the second half (referring to "incorporates half of its content from a dictionary")? I don't accept the premise here, but I'm willing to put that aside for a minute.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The other half -- quoting the Shakespeare play -- is already in the Wikitionary entry. Powers ^T 18:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well then what about the half that's not in our Wiktionary entry? I don't understand why you think it would be appropriate to put a bunch of analysis in the dictionary entry. Even most of the content in the "Usage" section in our article doesn't seem to be dictionary material, to me. But... eh. I think that I'm getting weary of this topic. If you'd like to get Wiktionary to be more accepting of etymology content, I'm certainly supportive of that. If the goal is to decrease the amount of information contained within WMF projects though, then I'm absolutely opposed to that. Your own statement to the effect of "it's not our fault that Wiktionary won't accept this content" is what really concerns me, I think. I believe that it is our "fault", primarily because we control what all WMF projects contain.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do I think it would be appropriate? Because it came from a dictionary in the first place. Powers ^T 22:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Spycraft2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Spycraft2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support on the Julia Goerges issue. -- James26 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Renaming of Yaesu_FT-1 to Yaesu_FT-One, Yaesu_FT-ONE etc

You opposed the move of Yaesu_FT-1 to FT-ONE, but agreed with FT-One. Personally I think Yaesu_FT-ONE or FT-ONE is better, but given you are an admin and disagree, can you at least change it to Yaesu_FT-One or FT-One? There has been no other comments on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.42.15 (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think I'm an admin? Powers ^T 15:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Days of our Lives

Hi! Just FYI in case you're not watching the page: The move you requested at Talk:Days of our Lives#Requested move has been reverted and the discussion reopened. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Erie County map

Yes, I did trace it from a source, although I can't recall what the source was. I think I may have been working on an SVG version at a later time traced from a census map as well, but I'm not sure where I have that work now. Were you hoping to make an SVG, or were you looking for maps of other counties? Or something else? Lexicon (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Disney Role Call

Hi, WikiProject Disney has been rather inactive recently. I saw that you are a member of the project. If you still consider yourself to be an active member, leave a response on the Project's talk page. Hopefully we can get the project up and running again. Thanks!--GroovySandwich 23:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster Templates

Hi Lt, I recently tagged Template:2010–11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster for speedy deletion under criterion T3 because it is an unused and duplicate template of Template:RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster. I noticed that your edit summary for splitting the 2010-11 season roster off was to "Move to season-specific title, make room for next year's", however WP:Ice Hockey precedent is to have one main roster template for each team that is updated season by season. If you have any questions or concerns let me know, Thanks and happy editing! Bhockey10 (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your removal, however if you still disagree and remove it again, we can just take it to template for discussion. Although it is not an exact duplicate it still applies for T3 criteria because it is 1) "not employed in any useful fashion" and 2) while not an exact duplicate it is a "substantial duplication" because there's generally only minor changes from season to season. Secondly I already explained, we don't create rosters (at any level of hockey- College, junior, pro and even NHL) for individual seasons. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:2010–11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster

Template:2010–11 RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster has been nominated for merging with Template:RIT Tigers men's ice hockey roster. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Lt, Once I got into the templates for discussion I noticed it is possible to merge rather than delete the template. That works better than deletion because the histories can be kept in tag. So I started the discussion to merge the 2010-11 Roster template with the appropriate RIT roster template. My reasons for merging are essentially the same as my deletion, the separate season roster is an unused and redundant template to the main roster. In addition WP:Ice Hockey present is to have one roster per team that is updated season after season. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Adultism

Hi Lt,

The "Adultism" page is up for deletion or merge (I saw you previously took an interest in it).

And yes, it is still the closed-page of editor "Freechild" - with no "adultist" rebuttals allowed.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adultism

Thank you, Bhrundle (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What if a newspaper article wasn't microfilmed?

I appreciate your effort, but here is an email response I received from the person in charge of the state archives:

After checking our holdings, I can verify that we do not hold any copies of the Sunday TV section of the Sun News, either in microfilm or original papers. As ... explained, our previous director remembers that she contacted you, saying that we never received your mailing, so we do not have the articles.

Although we try to collect and maintain newspapers from every area of the state, we do not collect advertising, television listings, or other inserts to the papers that are not news-related.

I’m sorry that we are unable to help you with your efforts.

GeorgeFather (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion in one place. Powers ^T 15:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania townships

I realize that category talk pages are not the usual place for discussions, but I think this is the best place for this discussion. It covers all of the townships in Pennsylvania. There has been much discussion lately about how township names in Pennsylvania should be titled. Some go for X Township, Pennsylvania. Others want X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania. Of course there are many Washington Townships in Pennsylvania so they and others like it will need to include the county name in the title. The townships in question are the unique ones like Horton Township and Plunketts Creek Township. I think it is best to limit this discussion to Pennsylvania. If other wikiprojects want to do it differently that is fine. The status of townships vary greatly from state to state.

• The original place the subject came up is Talk:Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania
• A broader discussion of the topic is here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
• The Category talk:Townships in Pennsylvania by county link. Gerry D (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Noddle

Wouldn't it be easier to just start a new article? I thrust that you're able to write a neutral article on that subject -- more so than a company employee, anyway. DS (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Had I access to the sources listed in the original, perhaps I could. I'm not exactly an expert, though. Powers ^T 15:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, then. Use them wisely. DS (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering I don't have all that much interest in the subject, I'd rather let Ms. Baker's effort stand as a starting point. Powers ^T 15:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to help User:Amyabaker and I am sorry I arrived on the scene too late. I expect I couldn't have helped much anyway). I have posted at User_talk:Cunard#Noddle but I would be interested in your views as well. Thincat (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It turns out I had misunderstood Cunard. I thought he supported speedy deletion which was perplexing when he subsequently put so much effort into saving the article. So, the issue in my mind still stands but I am no longer puzzling to understand his line of thought because I entirely agree with him! Thincat (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame

In the TfD discussion regarding the UFHOF navbox, you have erroneously claimed that the guideline that "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article" is "Not met; in fact, most of the articles don't mention membership in this hall of fame." There are 177 linked articles in this navbox; 172 of those linked articles explicitly mention the article subject's membership in the UFHOF. Your statement is demonstrably false and is based on an embarrassing lack of due diligence underlying your TfD nomination. Will you correct your false statement of the facts in the TfD? To premise this TfD on false facts, and to continue to do so after the actual facts have been pointedly made clear to you, would seem to be an obvious exercise in Bad Faith, and is certainly misleading to any editors who may read your nomination and choose to comment based on your false statement. Please respond. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you would wait FIVE FREAKING MINUTES, I'm composing a reply RIGHT NOW that addresses this. FFS, man, calm the hell down. Powers ^T 12:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ashlyn Harris

Greetings. No problemo. I removed the "total caps" line because Harris is an active player and that parameter should only be used when a player's pro career is over. Digirami (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the example for "TIm Template", then no total caps and goals is not used in that example. Nor is it used in any other active footballer out there, like (the obvious famous examples) Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, David Beckham, or someone not as famous but has played in multiple clubs like Iván Kaviedes. Digirami (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Good point. I could see how that could throw people off. I'll fix that to avoid more confusion. Either way, it still isn't used for current players. Digirami (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sports award navboxes

LtPowers, saw your recent TfDs on a number of college sports award navboxes. What you've nominated is just the tip of the iceberg out there and before we get a lot of people scrambling to defend a whole bunch of templates, perhaps we ought to have a discussion first about the role of sports award navboxes. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Three Wise Men

I support this kind of move normally (as per ongoing korban olah to burnt offering etc.) but was very surprised to find the vast majority of Google Books hits in favour of Magi. Apologies. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Munchman (tabletop electronic game)

Did you even look at the sources? They're three fansites and a picture on Flickr. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously they're insufficient to prove notability, but they're sufficient to indicate that there may be some notability to be had. Powers ^T 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

AN Notification

I'm notifying you because you were mentioned here. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Muppets logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Muppets 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Chipmunks

WHY?? Why...? That's all I can think of to say. Why. You know that Alvin, Simon and Theodore are very popular around the world, and you had the nerve to merge the characters pages into one page? They are famous! Characters that go all the way back to the 50's deserve a page of their own. With all due respect, what were you thinking? This is absurd, and down right annoying. You and I both know that it was much better when before when all three characters had their own page. You just made the biggest mistake of your life chump. And I want you to remember that. Now, I know that you are going to get mad at what I am saying, and not undo your edit. But you know what? Even if you don't, I'm so glad I got my point through here. Good day. 142.68.137.25 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Relax, man. Please try to remain civil when expressing your opinion about something. I agree, too, that these articles should not be merged, and therefore reverted the edits. Again, try to remain civil with other users. Happy editing! Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus for this merger on the talk page. Do not reverse it again without gaining a new consensus. Powers ^T 01:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You just love ruining pages, don't you? Pages as good as they were, and you still butted in and HAD to destroy all three of them. Round of applause. (Go ahead, like I said, at least I got my point through). And that's all that matters. 142.68.81.46 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry

but where does WP:ENGVAR have to do with Contact fuse? Did you look at the sources? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello LtPowers/Archive005! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

DYK for David Hochstein

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why the over-capitalization?

Why do you prefer to ignore MOS:CAPS so much? Why object to a style fix supported by our MOS, without reason or evidence, as at Talk:Lemass Era? Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does it offend you so much that I prefer proper nouns to be capitalized? Powers ^T 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not offended, just wondering why you so often judge things to be "proper nouns" when they are not treated that way by most writers. Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Simply common sense about what is a named entity and what isn't. How "Murphy's Law" isn't a proper noun is beyond my understanding. Powers ^T 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, English is not very predictable from common sense. When usage varies, WP style is to go with the non-capitalized, since usage proves that the capitalization is not necessary. See for example List of eponymous laws. Is there a reason to treat Murphy's or Lemass's differently? Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed there was. But then, you're assuming your conclusion; "WP style is to go with the non-capitalized", but no one has yet explained a reason why that should be so, beyond appealing to common usage. Powers ^T 19:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was assuming that the statement in MOS:CAPS has consensus: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." I take you disagree with it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That depends on how one defines "unnecessary". If the mere existence of uncapitalized uses is sufficient to qualify the capitalization as unnecessary, then yes, I disagree with that statement. Otherwise, then I agree, but disagree with you on which uses are considered unnecessary. Powers ^T 02:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lemass Era

From reading the discussion this came down to two points. One was that as an era, both words should be capitalized. The other was that the books, RSs, use lower case for era. Given the strength of the RS argument, that was hard to ignore. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Scrooge Mc Duck

Thanks for spotting that. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

Philip J. Fry

Since you commented on my recent request to rename Professor Farnsworth, I'm notifying you about the rename of Fry, feel free to comment: Talk:Philip_J._Fry#Rename. CTJF83 06:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I quoted you in this rfc

I took the liberty to use a quote of yours to put you down in support of the original wording at this new rfc section so you didn't have to repeat yourself. Feel free to delete/change or whatever as appropriate... they are your words. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you participated directly in that section, I removed this quote now. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)