User talk:Psantora/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Greetings!
My name is Ryan, and it's my pleasure to welcome you, Psantora/Archive 1, to Wikipedia! First of all, I'd like to thank you for joining the project, and contributing to articles and discussion. I hope you can continue to take part in Wikipedia, because we need more valuable editors like yourself.

If you are new and need some assistance, here are some great links to check out:

I hope you enjoy editing here, and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, find out where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Before I go, here's one more tip. When you post on talk pages, be sure to sign your name and the date by typing four tildes: ~~~~. That automatically generates your username and the date. Again, welcome, and happy editing!  --Merovingian 06:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sony Computer Entertainment

It's OK, I agree but let's remove PSX "losses" because isn't a loss and call of these is POV. --Brazil4Linux 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The list of Super Bowl Champions List and about it!

I'm sorry! I didn't know that what I was doing was vandalism. Thanks for telling me about! I'll leave that caption of the Green Bay Packers helmet and their victory in the first two Super Bowls alone from now on!

Thanks! Editing Wikipedia Articles will become even more fun through time! Peace! Alakazam 17:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Tucker

I guess my reactionary rv came from traditional journalism ... but I'm not wedded to it. The article needs a clean up, butI'm not theone to do so. Plus, I feel that in the past year TM has moved from humorous to bitter and ... not funny. Just my opinion.

Cheers

WikiProject Macintosh

Thanks for joining! Our current focus is Apple Computer. Our former focus and current FAC is Apple Macintosh; you can vote here. It looks like you have already found Template:user WikiProject Macintosh. We’re all honored that you want to join our WikiProject. --HereToHelp (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

New Template

Thought you might like these new templates:

{{User apple}} produces

MacThis user contributes using a Macintosh computer.

and

{{User:Scepia/Apple-g}} produces

This user thinks Apple Inc. products are cool.

Enjoy! --t-bte288-c 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

My story

Hello Ryan,

I'm working on a Boston Globe story about wikipedia and I'm interested in finding and meeting some local enthusiasts. You can email me at mehegan@globe.com or phone at 617 929-3263.

David Mehegan Boston Globe

Who are you and why did you post on my talk page? My name is Paul, look at my user page for more information about me. PaulC/T+ 05:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sigh... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=198.115.73.21 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world?mode=PF http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/13/many_contributors_common_cause?mode=PF Thanks for the chance David. Great story. PaulC/T+ 21:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ken Kutaragi

I'm requesting your opnion about this dispute. Lot of POV-Pushing, the article is currently blocked. --GroundZero 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "persuaded"

Good day!

I was reading your comment regarding the use of the word "persuaded" regarding Kutaragi. In your opinion, what word would better be suited for the article? Honestly, I don't see a more fitting way of putting the term. His original research regarding Nintendo was widely opposed within the company. Indeed, it took a great deal of persuasion on his part (and debate) in order for him to finally secure the way for the research. It seems to me that stating that he "persuaded" a reluctant Sony management into funding his projects would be a nonobjective way of putting it. Perhaps "convinced" might be more appropriate? Daniel Davis 11:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

I have no problem with the word persuaded at all. I don't know what the deal is with that, but if it will make things smoother convinced should work just as well. I haven't really had a chance to really go in-depth on the article, I was just giving it a quick once-over as per GroundZero's request. When the article gets unprotected and I can actually edit a version of it I'll take a closer look. PaulC/T+ 11:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: B.C. Formatting

I'm using IE 6, on an 800x600 Windows 2K.

The fields containing ACC and BC-related links were on top of each other, one obscuring the other. I fixed it by merely pressing return a couple times in my edit, and it was fixed.

The second time, the "categories" field had obscured one of the aforementioned fields, and a couple returns fixed that as well.

It looks fine now, but it was a train wreck a little while ago. --DodgerOfZion 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re: B.C. formatting

Mea Culpa on the sigs. I'm still new to the Wiki thing, and it'll take some getting used to. I retro-ed my sig on the previous input.

I just tried it in Firefox, and I guess it was just a fluke, for the old pages turned up normal. There's enough wrong with this computer without something in IE being flawed. I called it like I saw it, and I saw things obscuring one another, so I fixed it. --DodgerOfZion 08:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Note to Paul about Apple Stock

Dear Paul, I did that because of what happened when I added a few words about the stock's history into the article on Apple Computer, since I thought it was about the company, and it did belong in the article. I also wanted to talk about Apple's marketing idea of selling the Macintosh to students and faculty at universities before the Macintosh had a name; I thought it would be interesting and an indication of Apple's marketing style at that time, 1983. But, a Wikipedia senior editor kept taking out my additions, no matter what I wrote. So I tried another route. But that senior editor sent me strange, angry, and rude messages, so I stopped contributing. He told me I was annoying people by contributing to the article, so I stopped. DeveloperFrom1983 03:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC) DeveloperFrom1983 03:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

BCDS

Hello, Did you create the article for Buckley Country Day School? While the article is good I think it can some expansion, plus I feel that it overuses superlatives, such as in "state-of-the-art Hagedorn Library Learning Center contains well over 16,000 volumes". Let me know if you'd like to continue improving it. Cazador 04:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I replied on your talk page. Please, do your best to make it better tho!! PaulC/T+ 04:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

Good idea linking to the neighborhood list on the Template, I kept the word not as a link for a while, but it needed to be blue to look nice. I'll do it to the others to. I hope people will fill in more neighborhoods so they can be added to the list. I still have to do the Bronx. Have you done any for Boston? The templates make navagition so much easier, but some of them are poorly designed, and not pleasing to the eye. Each state template is in a different format, what a mess. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't really looking into these templates at all. I happened to see you adding them to some Queens neighborhoods that I have on my watch list and I decided to add the template to the main list. When I added it I realized that page would be a good addition to the template also. I am going to school up here in Boston, but I don't really know too much about the area so I'm not sure where I would be able to help. I really like the templates tho, too bad a lot of the places still haven't been added to wikipedia. PaulC/T+ 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello:

Hi I'm a new Wikipedian from Natick, Mass... just popped in to say hello to my Wiki neighbor:"

This user is a citizen of the United States of America.
This user is from Massachusetts.

File:Peace Sign 2.svg Merlinus (talk)

  • Hi I Am Marc:

I was recently married to my lovely wife; We have lived together for several years already...

  • We love cats (3 currently own us)... Jeffy(15), Echo(6) & Gizmo(3). All sleep with us in the big bed and no room to move an inch.
  • I was Disabled in a 1993 (Coma)/ and am very slowly recovering. It's tough going out sometimes, though with friends I still do. I have a few supportive friends.
  • I am an "Unenrolled voter." Democrat/ Republicans, I don't care, whoever serves makes my life better in the long run I vote for!
  • Avid reader. Has collection of many hundreds of rare books. Especially Science Fiction and Fantasy.
  • Avid Music collector (2,500 albums)...mostly bootlegs...mostly rare bootlegs...Stones, Kinks, Clapton, Beatles. and solos!

I am what I am I'm strongly opinionated about disabled peoples' rights and jobs for American citizens who have trouble finding minimum wage jobs in my state today and support Universal health care, I would be dead if I did not have it. I am an idiot about Internet social skills. I hope that the Immigration Reform bill will protect disabled citizens who wish to work like myself first before considering allowing new people to come here. I was searching for an internet forum to be my outlet to express my needs, but found that Wikipedia is not best suited for that. I'm brushing up on Wikipedia's rules of conduct, and slowly starting to begin contributing again.

Current book and CD I own hundreds of rare books

  • Current Book Jack Whyte: "Uther"
  • Current CD Faves:
    • Warren Zevon... "Life'll Kill Ya"
    • Howlin' Wolf: "Greatest Hits"
  • Latest Flick: "Charles II: The Last King"

File:Peace Sign 2.svg Merlinus (talk)

ISBNs

Okay, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, and We (yes, the great and all knowing "We") appreciate the work on the Tucker Max entry. However, by usin' this here fancy Interweb thingy, you can find any ISBN you want here.

Thanks again. User:ljheidel 06:09, 30 May 06 (UTC)

Netflix and "Hacking Netflix" link

I notice you've made some contribs to the Netflix article in the past. Would you mind popping by if you have a chance and contributing any thoughts you might have on the ongoing "link to Hacking Netflix.com" discussion on the Talk page? There is a single member (Efreeti) who is dead set against this, and I'm hoping to get some more editors involved to try and enlarge the size of the consensus and put this to rest one way or the other. Thanks, David Oberst 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (a fellow Mac and Safari user).

Jesuit Ivy

Hey, I'm requesting your opnion about this vote for deletion. Seems like the initial motive for deleting it was a misguided notion of "self-styled" boosterism. Now it looks like the article will be merged with Boston College, which in my opinion is already too long. Anyway, have a look and leave your vote/comments. -136.167.93.113 02:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Howdy from the Heights...

... ok not really the Heights, but Newton campus. Anyway, it seems like there are a few other lurking BC Wikipedians here, so I thought I'd make a BC user template ... yes I'm procrastining ... Check it out: Template:User bc and let me know what you think. ( Template:User BC (captialized) is already being used for those darn British Columbians) Droitet 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Looks like we are trampling over eachother. Take a look at my edits and see if you want to incorporated them. I'll have a look tomorrow. I should hit the sheets anyways ... Droitet 08:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Dates

Could you direct me to where it says that all full dates should be linked? I'd just like to see the reasoning behind it, since I personally see none. Dan 06:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:DATE#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day It is so users who have set special formatting for their dates can see the correct formatting. PaulC/T+ 06:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been there and I still can't find where it says it has to be done that way. I'm not sure what it means by "so users who have set special formatting for their dates can see the correct formatting." That doesn't make much sense to me. Dan 06:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the first sentence in the direct section that I linked to:
If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work.
Maybe it would make sense if you actually took the time to read some of the information at the link. PaulC/T+ 06:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Golden eagle on Linden Lane

Hi there. I answered your question on the Boston College talk page, but I figured I'd post it here too in case you don't regularly watch the page.

Apparently, there's no way of knowing unless you're an ornithologist. See this article from The Heights for a detailed answer to your question. Cheers! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Alumni, etc.

Hey- I feel like there're a lot more notable alumni at Buckley. I don't know if you have any of the recent mailing pamphlets, but those usually give updates. I think they now have them online, too, but I don't have the password. As far as pop culture, I'm sure there're at least a few more connections that we don't know. Maybe ask around at the school, if you really feel like digging; although e-mail is another good tool for that. The article can probably be expanded to include curriculum, mission statement, and much more, it just depends on how much work is put into it. I'm willing to lay out an expansion plan, possibly based on the basic outline of other school articles such as Brown or Oxford. So, let me know what you're thinking, oh, and good luck in first your year at college, -Caz

Twaker bot

The bot is extremely helpfull in many many cases, but it just is not bullet proof. Just kick its butt at times when needed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks again. PaulC/T+ 23:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
And you thank you for finding those metadata, I had missed that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Current mac project collaboration

The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Midnight in The Garden of Good and Evil

Hey, I saw you asked a question re: this book and movie - who is Uga?

Uga was a dog of one of the characters. Apparently, Uga stands for University of Georgia, and I think he's a pit bull and the mascot of the team.

Whoever added it - well, it wasn't vandalism, but I wouldn't have listed Uga as a "star", either! Heh. NickBurns 02:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Lowercase

The warning still appears in my browser after having JavaScript turned off. I tested it before I started changing the templates. If you look at the code on the template page, you'll see this is accomplished with the {{LCFIRST:{{PAGENAME}}}} part, and hence does not need the additional parameter. --Kamasutra 20:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then, awesome, and my apologies. However, it would have been helpful if you had made note of this on the template page. As it stands currently it still looks like the second parameter is needed. Perhaps you can take a look and make relevant changes since you have obviously spent more time on this than I have? Thanks. And again, sorry for the mix up. PaulC/T+ 21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:LibearyGay

I only came across LibearyGay (talk · contribs) because they had edited Alhambra, California, which is on my watchlist. My first impression is that they are probably an experienced Wikipedia editor. It could be a sockpuppet account, or it could be someone who had been anonymously editing using IPs that has recently registered a user account. They do seem to have focused mostly on articles related to barely notable gay males. I only looked at a couple of the acticles. I didn't see any that met speedy deletion criteria, but IMHO the individuals were so borderline notable (based upon the Wikipedia articles) that I might have been tempted to {{prod}} them myself if I'd run across them.

If you disagree with any of their edits, you can add {{hangon}} to the speedy deletion nominations, and delete any {{prod}} templates that have been added to articles. LibearyGay may, however, escalate to nominating the articles at articles for deletion. If you want some help and some allies, I'd suggest contacting the WikiProject LGBT studies/Notice board. BlankVerse 10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I couldn't care less about (most of) the articles themselves, I just think they belong on AfD if they are not notable instead of being speedied. Thanks for your help. Not really looking for allies, just some perspective on what I can do to remove the speedy template. I'm assuming it isn't allowed tho. PaulC/T+ 10:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking for members to help out with Project Boston

I noticed you are from Boston. I am looking for people to join Project Boston in order to clean up and expand wikipedia articles directly reletated to Boston. If you feel like helping out please join up. Markco1 23:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:SinatamaddonPR.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SinatamaddonPR.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. WJBscribe 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Amie Street

Greetings. I for one would have no reservations now if you re-instated Amie Street to List of social networking websites, as I have now been convinced of it's social network features. I have asked for a more complete consensus to be shown at Talk:List of social networking websites. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi - can I just let you know that I have moved one of your posts at Talk:List of social networking websites to it's correct chronological position in the tree. It had somehow found its way further up the page. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat) 14:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl MVP References

I've added a number of references to this article. Could you look over it and let me know if you think there are still some statements that require references? I didn't reference a lot of the trivia minutae (21 quarterbacks, 7 running backs, etc...) because according to the Attribution policy, logical deductions based on attributed data doesn't count as original research. Cogswobble 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I removed the unreferenced tag and just put in one or two citation needed templates... Good job!PaulC/T+ 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 13:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Amiestreet.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amiestreet.gif. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

UW System

Please stop moving pictures around in the article. They are placed on the top to avoid unnecessary blank spaces. Removing reference is vandalism. The dates you wikified are unnecessary. They are totally unrelated with the contents of the article. Miaers 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

All full dates should be wikied, the pictures running down the side in the article cause problems when viewing the page in Safari. The edit buttons for each section get pushed to the end of the article. I tried to put each image at the correct point in the article. PaulC/T+ 21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. You should try to avoid unnecessary wikify according to MOS. Those photos are quite fine. Please don't move around again. Miaers 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is.
If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format.
As for the photos, again, when viewing the page in Safari the edit buttons get messed up. This is not "fine". PaulC/T+ 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Nobody believe your story. If it does not work, it doesn't work either way. Miaers 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

From that link:
Because of the date preference formatting MediaWiki software feature, "how" to link and "when" to link dates can not be treated independently one from the other. Unrelated to that software issue, there is no general consensus that the habit of linking separate years (that are date indications that only consist of a "year") should be abandoned, although most Wikipedians disfavour that habit currently. Details about when and how to link dates can be found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates.
Regarding the pictures, if they are separated within each section, the edit links work correctly. An even better way to deal with the problem would be to put all the photos in a gallery in their own section. I'll try and mockup an example of that quickly. PaulC/T+ 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No bother. It works fine on Macs here. I think it your own computer problem. The current arrangement is a gallary itself. Miaers 22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I should warn you that if you revert the article one more time you will be in violation of the WP:3RR. The problem isn't limited to Safari on my end either, I see the same thing in Camino as well. At the very end of the article you will see [edit][edit][edit]...[edit] when the pictures go down the right side of the page. PaulC/T+ 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm not removing references. You don't need the whole reference every time you use it, that is why the references have names, so you can just refer to the name. The actual citation only needs to be in the article once. If you look at the actual article you would see this. PaulC/T+ 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR is not appliable to problematic images. The previous reference has information about how to add references. It is much better than yours. Anyway, I'll have you reported for an incident. Miaers 22:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion to the talk page. Lets continue this discussion there.PaulC/T+ 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had you reported. Please keep this discussion on your talk page. Miaers 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Miaers was blocked for 2 weeks due to repeated violations of 3RR. PaulC/T+ 09:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is to let you know I'am disgusted by your posting of this discussion onto the UW System talk page. This discussion happened here and there is no need to make a duplicate. You also violated 3RR. You are lucky I didn't report you at that time. Miaers 12:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

redlinks in Geni.com article

If you insist on including redlinks, please create the needed article (this is obviously important enough to you to do so).--MonkeyTimeBoy 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Miaers

Just as a heads up, Miaers made a complaint against you on the 3RR notice board. I've made a comment, but I have no doubt that any admin will see that its not a violation at all. Cheers, PaddyM 03:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

iTunes and the "it is not yet officially supported" byline

Hi Paul, this guy AlistairMcMillan is at it again. See my comments after yours in Talk:iTunes it is all explained there but he is continually by stealth reverting the fact that only the 64-bit versions of XP and Vista are "not yet officially supported". You will see my quote indicating otherwise for the 32-bit version of Vista from his own Reference 2. References 3 and 4 he recently added and performed the factually erroneous revert once again. (I am not doing likewise - instead I am asking you!?) I have no axe to grind just want to see the facts set straight! Can you please help and set him straight and then the problems and my complaint and both our annoyances - him - will go away. Many Thanks in advance Paul. I will make a point of logging in future: I am User:Mattjs. 220.240.58.190 17:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have posted my response to the Vista paaragraph edit in the iTunes Talkback. Regards, 220.240.58.190 04:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the Goobuntu logo you uploaded real?


I was under the impression that Goobuntu did not have a logo. Can you respond on the Image_talk:GoobuntuLogo.jpg talk page there? If I don't see some sort of reference or citations, I'm going to request that it be deleted. —mako (talk•contribs) 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember When

Probably even six months ago I would have contested the deletion of Remember When, but I don't think I'll bother: it's a notable project in the UK, and certainly in Scotland, but there's no way it would be considered notable by Americans, and I have learned the hard way that Wikipedia is an American encyclopedia. Yonmei 12:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. PaulC/T+ 01:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw, I responded there. Try to be more civil in future. Yonmei 07:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism Deletion Review

there is yet another deletion review for the article on Matrixism going on at WP:DRV#Matrixism. Thought you might want to stop by to register your opinion. Thanks. D166ER 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:RonjohnsonPR.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Camino icon.png

Hello, Psantora. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Camino icon.png) was found at the following location: User:Psantora. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 08:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#ISO date formats: "ISO 8601 dates, for example 1958-02-17, are unambiguous. However, they are not common in English prose, and are therefore unfamiliar to many readers. Accordingly, they should generally not be used in normal prose. This applies even if they are in a link: although the software will convert such dates according to users' date preferences (for example, [[1958-02-17]] → February 17, 1958), new users and unregistered users do not have any date preferences set, and will therefore see the unconverted ISO 8601 date."

Further, from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk, which is mentioned in both the general WP:MOS page and WP:MOSDATE, "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

I've tested my own views in three different browsers with my own date preferences turned off, set to the ISO standard, and set to my personal preference, and they all work fine. It may therefore be an issue with your own machine, or your own preferences. Regards, --DeLarge 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the date preferences are working correctly, sorry if that wasn't clear. I was just trying to point out that I was familiar with them and I knew regardless of how the dates were formatted, as long as they were linked, they would display in my preferred format. (Which actually isn't the ISO standard format.) The main reason for the revert was for the other general fixes that I added to the article that were just ignored (default sort, disambiguations, punctuation, etc.). I only changed dates present in references as it has been my habit to change all dates in references to the smaller ISO standard format to save space. Since they are not part of the general prose of the article I didn't think it would be that big of a deal. Not that size is a problem with the article, it has just become a habit to try and make articles as small as possible after editing some articles that were very large. I hope this clears up a few things, I'm not looking to get into an edit war over petty stuff. Thanks. PaulC/T+ 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

FAR notifications

It doesn't appear that you have notified parties of your FAR nominations; pls see instructions at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Speaker of the British House of Commons. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Camino icon.png

Image:Camino icon.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:SocialtextlogoCCSA.png

Hello. Logos, even if they are part of an overall "free" image, retain their copyright restrictions. As such, you cannot claim that a logo is under any kind of creative commons licence just because a photo of it is under a creative commons licence. I added a {{logo}} template to the picture as it is the only tag that is appropriate, you'll need to complete the fair use rationale for it. Best. notafish }<';> 09:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:BertrandserletPR.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:BertrandserletPR.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 09:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SocialtextlogoCCSA.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:SocialtextlogoCCSA.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 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

NFL template

Thank you for your recent edits to Template:NFL. However, it seems that when the template is collapsed, the text goes onto two lines and looks rather cobbled. Do you know of any way to fix this? Pats1 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean collapsed? When the width of the page is smaller or when the "hide" button is pushed? Lets discuss this on the talk page for the template.
When the show button is pushed. Pats1 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Protocol support

Can you add columns for OTR, Xfire, Zephyr?

RobiH 15:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is already too crowded as it is, plus some clients have missing information. Start a discussion on the talk page and figure out which protocols (like QC or whatever) should be dropped before new ones are added... PaulC/T+ 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved Skype out to "others". Can you add a column for OTR? RobiH 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Amiestbetascreenshot.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amiestbetascreenshot.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 00:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

NFL on Christmas Day

Hi there. I was the admin who assisted you in restoring the above deleted page. Can you please explain your rationale for the recent move from the userfied article in your userspace? I'm not seeing a whole lot of justification for that. Thanks - Alison ☺ 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I did what I said I would do. I wanted to turn the page into a redirect and add relevant content from there to NFL on Television#Christmas. I moved the page back to its original name, but only so the history would be there for interested parties. The page is a redirect currently. Is this a problem? (That was a quick comment!) PaulC/T+ 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but the page was a redirect before you moved it back. Why was it so vital to have the history visible, when the deleted history was already there? It's just kinda weird, is all, as it now looks like you wanted the article history 'undeleted' - Alison ☺ 00:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that... was there a better way to go about doing that? I wanted the history 'undeleted', but I used some of the content from the old article and added it to the redirected page as well... I'm still unsure of what the problem is... PaulC/T+ 00:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You didn't state that in the DRV/CR. Nor did you answer my question there (and your edit comments are getting kinda defensive). I just wish to know, as your 'restoration' of the edit history is not in the spirit of the AfD. You have ostensibly restored a deleted article and instead, edited into a redirect. Naughty, and makes me want to apply WP:CSD#G4 - Alison ☺ 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You sure you meant to do this just now? - Alison ☺ 00:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, isn't that what I was supposed to do when I was done with the content in my user space?(Oops, wrong page... yeah, I meant to do it on my userspace redirect, fixed it... thanks for the heads up! PaulC/T+ 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)) Here is a quote from my request, with emphasis:

I'd like to merge the content to this section on the NFL on television article. It would be nice if the article's history was restored and turned into a redirect to this section as well.

I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I specifically stated "merge and redirect" in the request. I wasn't really sure of the best way to go about doing this and stated as much in my request as well. I am defensive because I feel like I'm getting the 3rd degree and being watched/wikistalked for doing exactly what I stated I would do in the request. I'm sorry if this is coming across as hostile, I'm just not used my every action being questioned 2 seconds after I do it while I'm in the middle of trying to finish the task... I was simply trying to implement/expedite Rossami's request from the previous deletion review. Now, what question are you talking about ("Nor did you answer my question there")? PaulC/T+ 00:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • (ec) Yeah, I must have missed that from the DRV/CR. My mistake, or I'd have had second thoughts. Sorry. Regards wikistalking - well, I'd the article on my watchlist, as I do and, as one of the few admins who will provide restored deleted content I'm more than a bit paranoid. If content I restored in good faith ends up back on-wiki (as yours effectively has), I can get into trouble for it. Especially if it went through AfD, as did yours. Nothing personal, just following up is all - Alison ☺ 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding "Indeed, but the page was a redirect before you moved it back." It was? I could have sworn NFL on Christmas Day was a redlink until I moved page there. It was a redlink when I made the original request and I didn't see anyone add the redirect afterwards... The fact that it was an empty page is what prompted me to find the AfD and deletion review in the first place... I noticed a note about it on the NFL template talk page... PaulC/T+ 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Funny. I was seeing a redir. Anyways - it doesn't look like there's much linking it, other than {{NFL}}, which should probably really be changed - Alison ☺ 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the confusion then. I'm not trying to skirt any rules, this just seemed like the most efficient way to apply what Rossami proposed, which made a lot of sense to me.. PaulC/T+ 00:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

poo

I do like the babel box. :) I will add more to it later. Thanks for fixing stuff :) and the welcome. :) Almw113 02:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I have someone watching my userpage for vandalism... :p Why are you online at 10 PM on friday? (gtalk?) PaulC/T+ 02:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{{·wrap}} and {{•wrap}}

I left a message for you at Template talk:Nowrap begin. --David Göthberg 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I replied there, with some example code that should reproduce the problem. PaulC/T+ 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

School page moves

Before you move any more school pages, please tak a look at the naming conventions for school articles. Thanks. Katr67 20:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

iPod classic article

Well, I've gone ahead and begun to add content for all generations of HDD-based, "full size" iPods to the iPod classic page. It's a rather daunting task, but hopefully there will be sections for each generation of iPod (if it's necessary). I've added a request to merge both the iPod (5G) and iPod photo articles into the iPod classic. An unrelated sidenote, I see you use a dvorak layout! Nice to know I'm not the only crazy one :) -- MacAddct1984 00:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

reddit

Per WikiRage.com, the article reddit received heavy editing today by unregistered users and may benefit from a good review. Per Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Timeline of iPod models

I think it's a bad idea to wikilink every word in a reference in this template. While this is a wiki, I seem to reall there being a manual-of-style page somewhere about avoiding excessive linking as it impedes readability. I think it makes sense to wikilink words in a reference if they are relevant to the reference itself and not already linked elsewhere in the article. So it makes sense to link MacTracker so people can learn what it is, but Apple, Inc has earlier and more relevant links higher up the page, and database is merely a label and not intrinsic to the source. —dgiestc 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I didn't realize it before, but I accidentally rolled back your edit when I just meant to remove the extra space before the references... I'm not sure how it happened, but it looks like it is correct now. You are right, there is no reason for the database or Apple Inc. link... My apologies... -PaulC/T+ 05:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:MySpace

For the time being, I have reverted your edit to the page in question. After having done so, I checked other pages, and found them to be in tact, unchanged, not '"at" → "on"'-edited. On that note, I'd like to ask you why you changed "at" to "on". I hope to hear from you soon. Qwerty (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amiestreetscreenshot.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Amiestreetscreenshot.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 '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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris B • talk 21:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:TonyfadellPR.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:TonyfadellPR.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey You know Paul Scaturro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davron (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CopyrightAllianceScreenshotLogo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:CopyrightAllianceScreenshotLogo.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 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Japanese Electronics Industry

Hello, you recently changed Template:Japanese Electronics Industry. There is now a dot before the template box, with code {{·}}. Is this intentional? The dot shows in articles where the template is used. Arthena(talk) 18:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR for Macintosh

Macintosh has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
That's the templated message, anyway. I'm not the one who nominated it—I'm going to try to improve it—but I thought you might like to know.--HereToHelp 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Apple-iPhone.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Apple-iPhone.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot & Alan Alda

Hi, Psantora! At the time of the bot's edit (see [1]), Alan Alda was in the Category:Second City alumni, which is on the WikiProject Chicago's list of cats for the bot. Tenuous, I agree. You might mention it on the project's talk page, and/or remove that cat from the list the bot runs. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:SatyrBot#Alan Alda and WP:WPChi?? for the entire thread. PaulC/T+ 04:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BCDSlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BCDSlogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 '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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IceKarmaॐ 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Template: Timeline of iMac models

Psantora, could you give your input on the iMac timeline? For fear of an edit/revert war, a third opinion would be greatly appreciated. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Your cropped image

Looks a lot better, and your minor edits and reference fixings are great too. Thanks for your contributions. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Happy to help! ~ PaulC/T+ 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Public Universities in France

Discussion moved to the template talk page. ~ PaulC/T+ 17:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Cgsister

Template:Cgsister has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wyoming Results

See Talk:Wyoming Republican county conventions, 2008 ~ PaulC/T+ 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Section Layout and MOS

Hi. I see that you recently edited the headers in Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries. Perhaps you'd be interested in adding to the discussion at Talk:Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_presidential_primaries#Section_layout? Thanks. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Republican Convention in FL

This discussion is regarding Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008#Florida.

The provided reference states wta by district and state-wide. If the situation has changed, the reference is unclear about that resulting in a solely state-wide wta contest. Can you find a different source which states clearly that FL is a wta state-wide contest without it also mentioning that it is a district-wide wta contest? —XSG 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Green Papers reference does include WTA district and state-wide language, but it is in two different scenarios. The "Alternative" plan is if FL's delegates aren't sanctioned by the RNC. In this case, the delegates would follow the original and normal plan of WTA by district delegates. The "Soft/Hard" plan is what is currently slated to happen. That is WTA state-wide, according to the source:[2]
Soft/Hard Total Plan. This plan assumes the delegation is sanctioned.
Tuesday 29 January 2008: All 57 of Florida's delegates to the Republican National Convention are allocated to presidential contenders in today's Florida Presidential Primary. All 57 delegates are to be allocated to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide.
Assuming there are only going to be 57 delegates, the state-wide scenario is the only possibility. If you allow for the possible full 114 delegates then the WTA language should be changed to include districts in addition to the state-wide bonus delegates. Does that make more sense? ~ PaulC/T+ 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes sense to me, but I've seen enough credible and clear sources discussing it that I can at least accept it. —XSG 22:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

maps on Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries

File:Map-chart-bleed.PNG
Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries

FYI, the following image is how the article looks on my screen, and why I am making attempts to reformat the way the maps appear on the article. Kingturtle (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Weird, you don't have the long table of contents? Thanks for responding to that random IP below. ~ PaulC/T+ 16:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

comment invited

As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008,
your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, it looks like by accident this edit deleted all the updated delegate totals. I reverted the edit (and foxed the Edwards delegates. Maybe you can go back and try whatever it was you were trying to do again, without deleting the delegate totals this time. Oh, and the SC delegates are listed on the CNN scorecard.--Margareta (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was intentional. It looks like Bobblehead explained the situation on your talk page. ~ PaulC/T+ 16:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrible editor

Why the hell did you add a fact check to film section of the wing commander article? you are a terrible editor, the reason why the wikipedia has a poor reputation for information!! 220.253.39.126 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wing Commander (franchise)#Film
WP:RS and WP:V, also WP:NPA. ~ PaulC/T+ 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

RS and V? haha!! How asinine can you get!! You deserve personal attacks, because your editing is stupid. 220.253.43.62 (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Republican Primary County Map

I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to edit images. The image Image:2008RepublicanPrimaryResultsByCounty.jpg is a better version of the county map in the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary Results article. I found results for individual Washington counties as well as individual Kansas counties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headforthehills7 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the Washington and Kansas county information? I'll do what I can to add it to the png image currently in the article, but there needs to be source information. ~ PaulT+/C 05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries

I was surprised by your recent edits to Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Overview of results changing the 'Estimated superdelegates' and 'Estimated pledged delegates' rows to calculated totals rather than data from the sources specified in those rows. Why are sources listed for those rows if they're simply calculated values? If those rows should in fact be calculated totals, then that must mean that the "Green Papers" web site is the defacto source for delegate data for this article. Who decided on this source and why? I appreciate your helping me sort this out as it affects a related article I've been working on with several other editors Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell, the delegate data for each of the states in that table is pulled from each state's results table later in the article, which have their own sources. The Green Papers source is only to specify the number of delegates at stake in each contest and the date, at least that is all I use it for. I go with whatever numbers are present in the table and calculate up because otherwise it looks sloppy. I agree that the delegate numbers in the table need to be sourced better. Ideally, The Green Papers would be a good source for this data as it calculates based on party rules in each county how each delegate gets allocated, but the information is still in the process of being updated and there is incomplete county-level results information from Super Tuesday states. ~ PaulT+/C 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I was making the error of assuming the Green Papers citations applied to each row's entire contents, not specifically the number of delegates at stake, but now it makes sense to me that the citation applies only to the information immediately preceding it. I've not heretofore been familiar with the Green Papers site, but now that I've checked it out, it seems like a terrific resource. My only lingering qualm about using it as a source is whether or not the site fits Wikipedia's criteria for reliability. It's hard to tell from the Green Papers site, but it seems like it's the work of just one guy.
As to the question of whether the 'Estimated superdelegates' and 'Estimated pledged delegates' rows should either be calculated values or agree with the cited sources:
I don't see much discussion or consensus on the article's discussion pages. Based on your history of contributions to Wikipedia, particularly Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, I'm placing a higher degree of confidence in your input to that article than my own. I've therefore gone ahead and removed the citations in those rows and replaced them with footnotes explaining how the values are derived.
This, of course, means that the numbers on Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 won't match the numbers on Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which has been a great source of confusion among editors of these pages. I'm still not sure how to resolve that issue, but I invite you to join in the discussion at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008#Sources for candidate results to help us figure it out. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Navbox subgroup

Perhaps, then, pluralize {{Navbox generic subgroup}}'s name - or even replace it with {{Navbox subgroups}} as {{Navbox generic}} was replaced by {{Navbox}}...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the /doc page, navbox subgroup is still under construction. (Though it doesn't look like it is under active development currently.) I don't see the rationale for the "s". Articles and templates for the most part are singular, while categories are plural. Discuss the change on the template's talk page to see what other people think, but I don't see any reason for it. ~ PaulT+/C 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it's a minor niggle, yes, but the rationale is this: I'd say most instances of subgroups occur with more than one subgroup beside a single overarching group. It's only a matter of a single "s", though, so I don't reckon there's any great loss if it's not pursued. Meanwhile, however, combining {{Navbox generic subgroup}} and {{Navbox subgroups}} as {{Navbox subgroups}} might be worthwhile for the sake of consistency with {{Navbox generic}}'s replacement with {{Navbox}} (i.e. remove the "generic"). Thanks for your reply and the neat {{talkback}} template, Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

{{wrap}} in {{nowrap}}?

I left a response for you at Template talk:Nowrap begin. --David Göthberg (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncommitted in Washington Primaries

Hi Paul. It's been nice working with you on Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I am puzzled by a row you added to the Washington primaries table. There was no uncommitted option on the Washington primary ballot (though there was a blank for "write-in"), but the source for the table's results doesn't show uncommitted numbers anywhere that I can see. Where did you get those numbers from? Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How odd, I thought I added this source to the table... curious that the numbers don't match up to the official source. Let's go with the wa.gov numbers... ~ PaulT+/C 06:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that explains it. Thanks for the info and thanks for already updating the article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows

Thanks for your past comments and contributions at Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Right now there is a significant vote taking place at Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vote to overturn previous consensus on rows about whether or not to overturn a previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should represent individual nominating events. The vote ends at the close of March 19, 2008 (UTC). The vote contains the negative-option that if there is a tie or fewer than 4 total signatures the previous consensus will prevail. I invite you to visit the talk page and submit your vote on the matter. Thanks! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The vote has completed. The result was to uphold the previous consensus that each row in the Overview of results table should summarize nomination events, not aggregate state results. Thanks for your participation in the vote! --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my curious Babel template problem

Thanks for helping out! I don't think I would have figured that out by myself. ;-) — Northgrove 02:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Apple celeb

This discussion was moved to the talk page of the template in question ~ PaulT+/C 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:IT_giants

Salsesforce.com is not a company on the level of Amazon, AOL, eBay, Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo!, despite you adding it 3-4 times to the list since december.

SSDDR (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Systems science (and maybe elsewhere)

Hi again.

Are these now superfluous, i.e. the occasional rightside collision problem with {{·}} has been solved? Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am not aware of any rightside collision problem with {{·}}. Can you please point me to the discussion? ~ PaulT+/C 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's in various places, e.g. Wikipedia:Line break handling (and/or talk), Template:· (and/or talk), Template:Navbox (and/or talk) and/or similar places related to navbox template formatting. However, it should be much easier to view a template using {{·}}s in a browser window whose width you then reduce gradually. Sooner or later one or more of the {{·}}s should approach a little too close to the template's righthand border and sometimes even touch it.
It's not a devastating problem, but, if the rest of a template's formatting has been sorted out, it becomes noticeable. At least, that's my experience. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before... again, I've read those talk pages and I haven't seen any discussion that points out problems with {{·}} not wrapping correctly or not as intended. There are many instances where {{nowrap begin}}/w/end templates are very helpful and should absolutely be used--I helped with the testing of these templates--, but they are not needed with {{systems science}} and {{Apple celeb}}. Can you please point to a specific discussion that outlines the problem you think can happen when using {{·}}? ~ PaulT+/C 04:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's one now. Have you tried the experiment I outlined above? (In any case, as you've been working with templates and {{·}}, I'm sure you must've seen what I've described -- unless, perhaps, it's something confined to Firefox on a Windows XP PC (my usual work computer)...?) Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
PS Please use the talkback template again as I may be offline soon. Thanks.
I stumbled over your discussion here. As perhaps both of you know this "expanding out of the box" bug is a Firefox bug. So first of all you need to use Firefox to see it. Since we talked before I have learnt more about it and written down parts of it here: Wikipedia talk:Line break handling#Firefox bug. And yes, {{·}} actually does provoke the bug. However, the width of the text you add after each nowrapped string matters. And since {{·}} is fairly narrow (only one non-breaking space and a dot) it only shows the bug a little. That is, the dots usually do not flow outside the box, they just touch the box border. So if that should be considered a problem or not is a matter of taste. Personally I usually don't convert lists to use {{nowrap begin}}+{{·w}}+{{nowrap end}} that only has that minor problem, but I also do not convert lists back to {{·}} just to get the simpler {{·}} code, since {{nowrap begin}} etc renders better.
The bug only becomes a serious problem when one has nowrap protected strings followed or surrounded by several other characters. Like for instance nowraplinks protected links with text around it, like this: [[Some link]]&nbsp;(2008){{·}} or "[[Some link]]"{{·}}. Those two texts have 9 and 4 characters respectively outside the link before the real space. That's enough many characters to expand outside the box and become a real problem.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks as ever for your input, David. I hadn't clocked that ultimately the problem is a bug in Firefox. I don't know whether or not the Firefox developers are aware of it and planning to address it, but if so, that'd be good news as I agree {{·}} would be preferable. I hardly know anything about the world of software development, so I'd be grateful if either of you could point me toward what looks the most appropriate place to make enquiries; there seem to be various possibilities (forums, webpages, perhaps even irc?). Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean you want to report the bug to the Firefox developers? I have thinking of doing that for some time too. So I took a quick look over at bugzilla.mozilla.org and searched for "nowrap", it turned up at least two bug reports that clearly is the exact same bug:

And there are several other "nowrap" bug reports that seem related. I am going to get myself an account over there so I can write comments at those bug reports telling them they are both the same bug. And also link back here to Wikipedia:Line break handling and it's talk page.

But even if the next version of Firefox is fixed we still have to handle the bug for the next two years or so. And we have the problems with wrapping in several Internet Explorer versions which means we need to use {{nowrap begin}} etc in many places anyway.

By the way, I will copy parts of this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Line break handling#Firefox bug.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Here's to two or so years from now. In the meantime, I think {{nowrap begin}}--{{·w}}--{{nowrap end}} should continue to be used, as a bot or bots could be tasked to replace it once this bug is sorted out and most users have upgraded. What do you think, Psantora? Thanks, David, for the bugzilla research. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so now I see the bug with {{·}} on Firefox, but in order to work around this bug, would there ever be an appropriate use for {{·}} (whether inside or outside navboxes)? I'm not sure that there is anymore and, if that is the case, should we temporarily redirect {{·}} to {{·w}} and include the {{nowrap begin}} and {{nowrap end}} templates (or redirected templates so it will be easier to locate and remove once this bug gets fixed two years from now) as default for the {{navbox}} group code? This would preclude the need to replace existing {{·}} code in navboxes and the need to move them back once the bug is fixed. We would also need to come up with an alternate solution for uses of {{·}} outside of navboxes. ~ PaulT+/C 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, people tend to come to the same conclusions and ask the same questions. Sardanaphalus asked the same thing some weeks ago. See my response to that at: Template talk:Navbox#Incorporating improved linewrap handling code
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup. {{·}} is still very useful outside templates, and, if/when the Firefox bug is history, can be preferred within them again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Table Mobile operating systems

Hey, I moved my message here to the discussion page InternetMeme (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Palmsource logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Palmsource logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora/Archive_1&oldid=1190229933"