User talk:Rudolph2007

Welcome!

Hello, Rudolph2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Your suggestions on English Renaissance are good; please have a go at it. I wrote some of the article--e.g. some of the part on music, though it was almost three years ago now. In those days we didn't always cite our sources... times have changed. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph2007 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Focus the Nation[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Focus the Nation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. J Milburn 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hella[edit]

A tag has been placed on "hella", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom Coord.[edit]

might i suggest you check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classroom_coordination? i think it might be of some help for you. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hella[edit]

Since "hella" is a word, it is not likely to survive as a Wikipedia entry. Articles on words are housed at Wiktionary, but note that the formatting, length and other editing conventions are very different over there. The article as written would not survive there either (see the Wiktionary article on hella). As a sysop for Wiktionary, I see a lot of entries on words migrated to Wiktionary, where they are subsequently pared down to meet local formatting standards. The word "hella" is just not likely to be considered appropriate material for an encyclopedia.

If you'd like to see who deleted the article here, you can search the deletion log. They may be able to give you more information. --EncycloPetey 03:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help in future quarters[edit]

Thanks for your classes contributions to Wikipedia. If you choose to assign this project again, please feel free to contact me on my talk page, User talk:Basar, especially to help confirm that chosen articles are encyclopedic enough to not be deleted. I'm sorry that a few of your articles were deleted -- some Wikipedians are rather tight when enforcing the guidelines. The ones that survived look really good though! Basar 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, and image guidelines[edit]

Greetings again, welcome back! I remembered you right away. Your students are doing some good work. I'm very familiar with the Carrizo Plain (as well as most of SLO County). Let me know if you are looking for article ideas; there are significant gaps in our coverage of central California, as I'm sure you know.

Images. Ah, yes, images. This is one of least trivial aspects of Wikipedia policy, and we are getting ever tighter on standards -- since we've grown so large and well-known, we are at increasing risk of legal trouble if we violate someone's copyright. So we are getting really careful not to do it.

The Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is the place to go if you want to know how to use a copyrighted image and you are unable to get permission from the copyright owner. I'll tell you, in four years on the project I am yet to upload an image copyrighted by someone else. It's just too much trouble. All those pictures of places in Santa Barbara County I took myself, and then assigned a PD-self tag. It's just easier. But if you want to use images on the Cal Poly server, and you know the copyright holder, try to get them to release the image under the GFDL license. If you feel you can make a valid fair use claim (no suitable free image is possible to get; it's lower resolution than the source; and so forth) then go ahead and try. Remember that "non-commercial use only" is not free enough for Wikipedia, and those images get deleted: that particular bit surprises a lot of people.

Happy editing for you and your students, and welcome back! Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images: yes, if you've created it yourself and own the copyright, you can upload them. Pick a license from the pull-down list -- usually GFDL self-made or PD-self are good choices. Remember you are making it free use by doing so -- your image may appear on a commercial website somewhere as a result. I believe you retain the copyright to images you made yourself even if you upload them to another website, but I am not a lawyer -- I imagine there are exceptions.

Regarding Swanton Ranch: I see no evidence of a deleted page at Swanton Ranch itself. Swanton Pacific Ranch was 1) created on Feb 13 by Jtgolden and deleted on February 13, two minutes after its creation. In my personal opinion it should not have been speedy deleted -- that was, again in my opinion, an admin error. It contained the following text on the first revision:

Swanton Pacific Ranch is a thirty-two hundred acre ranch located in Santa Cruz County, California outside the town of Davenport. The ranch is owned and operated by Cal Poly State University for educational and research opportunities. The ranch encompasses rangeland, livestock and forestry operations for the College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental sciences. This ranch fosters Cal Poly’s teaching philosophy of “learn by doing” with emphasis on sustainable management of these agricultural practices.

It was then recreated, and made into a redirect. You can see the post-deletion history here: [1]. Here is my suggestion, since I believe it can be made into a valid article. Have your student(s) write at least three or four paragraphs on it, including sources, and include a clear assertion of notability in the first paragraph (usually where the thesis statement goes in an essay -- for an example, it's got to be one of the largest working ranches used by a public university in California, isn't it?) Once the draft article is ready, add the text to Swanton Pacific Ranch and remove the redirect. Use the {{inuse}} tag while you are working on it to keep the (sometimes overzealous) deletion brigade away. Then put the following template in the Cal Poly article in the correct location: {{main|Swanton Pacific Ranch}}. That is how we split out sub-articles from large articles. It's usually best to have a single paragraph on the subject in the main article, just under the template, and then an interested reader can go to the detailed article. See for example how it is done at Renaissance#The_Renaissance.27s_characteristics, grabbing one at random -- the "main" article on Renaissance humanism splits off from Renaissance at that point.

Hope this helps! Antandrus (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 05:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swanton_Pacific_Ranch&oldid=193407780[edit]

I looked at the article and it appears that someone has redirected it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanton_Pacific_Ranch#Campus. To keep your page from being deleted I'd suggest adding some external links and a template like the ones at the top of here. But your first concern is that redirect. I'll see what I can do to fix it. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message on RC's user talk. It wasn't RC who redirected the page, but Orangemike. You could ask him. For now I've copied the article in it's pre-redirect form to User:Rudolph2007/Swanton Pacific Ranch. You can work on the article there, ensure that you prove notability and add appropriate verifiable sources and then copy and paste the article back to Swanton Pacific Ranch when completed. If you need any help or clarification on this, just let me know. xenocidic (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I fixed the redirect; removed the pic (it was too big) and cleaned it up. If you neeed anymore help, let me know. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classroom[edit]

The classroom coordination link given above should be the most help, if I protect it from deletion you won't be able to edit it... SGGH ^speak! 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class project response[edit]

Greetings again! No problem at all from me; I hope it was a useful assignment. It looks like your students did some good work.

I'm at work right now and don't have much time, but later on I'll have a closer look at the article, as well as some of the others I know about (e.g. Carrizo Plain). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the San Jose Flea Market article, and started to make minor edits (formatting references) but held off on doing a major copyedit since I suspect you want your students to do that. It's a great start. There are some minor writing issues, as I'm sure you see; some mild POV; the organization is good; the referencing is excellent; I'd give it a "B" for a general Wikipedia article and an "A" for a newbie-collaboration article. Yes, it could become featured-quality, but would need some more work. Best of all, it's an interesting and notable topic, and I'm floored that we didn't have an article yet; but then we are missing a lot of articles on places. (Anyone in your class interested in wilderness areas? I'm blasting my way through California oil fields right now, of all things.) Are your students enjoying the assignment? :) I hope. If we'd had such things when I was in school, I would have been elated; in general I think it's a wonderful time to be an undergraduate, with Web 2.0 and user-created information. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Floatopia[edit]

I don't believe we have had contact before, and certainly not last year (as I have only been registered on wiki for a few months). I did look at both the changes to the article, and the response on the AfD page. The changes in the article are positive, and the discussion comments were well-thought out. I will consider changing my opinion, but I think at the end of the day, without some broader coverage I am not convinced that the event is notable enough to warrant an article. The good news is that plenty of people on wikipedia would disagree with me on that, and the article may be kept nonetheless. Cheers. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Focus the Nation for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Focus the Nation 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/Focus the Nation 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 high-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. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]