User talk:Maryrebecca

James W Holsinger Photographs

I see that you've just uploaded Image:James Holsinger 2004.jpg - could you tell me where you got it from? Thanks. Secretlondon 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the picture at a Lexington party in 2004.--Maryrebecca 18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sorry for doubting you. Secretlondon 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've commented on Talk:James W. Holsinger. I've unmoved as the way it was moved broke the license by coping and pasting. However I don't think it should be moved as the son is *much* more notable and much more likely to be searched for than the father. If they father gets a biography we can put a little note at the top of the page linking to it. Secretlondon 21:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have several photographs that I would like to use on Holsinger's page. I would like help to determine the appropriate copyright tag on the following:
1. A photo of Holsinger with his wife and two people from University of China taken at his house by a party guest on Holsinger's camera.
2. A photo of Holsinger with C. Evertt Koop taken at a restaurant with Holsinger's camera by an individual at the restaurant.
3. A photo of Holsinger with a child on a mission trip taken by his wife.
4. A photo of Holsinger with his mother taken by a niece at a party.
5. The official University of Kentucky photo of Holsinger taken by a state employee that was emailed to me by a University employee to be used on the wikipedia page.
6. The official Military photo of Holsinger, which I already know has no copyright.

I know this isn't what you want to hear, but I suspect that the copyright to each of these pictures resides with the person who took it, not the subject of the picture, nor the owner of the camera. Please go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions if you'd like another opinion. Bovlb (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James W Holsinger Entry

I need a neutral point of view to read what I have written on Holsinger's entry and shorten the information without removing the complexity of the issue. I think the three editors left on this page would greatly appreciate a new point of view on a very difficult biography.

Looks good, just be sure everything is reliably sourced. --Smokizzy (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holsinger article

Thanks for the star -- it was such a kind gesture and appreciated deeply. I have really enjoyed working with you on this article. It is a pleasure to be able to say "secondary source" vs. "primary source" and have someone immediately understand what I'm saying -- even if going through a shock recognizing it (as we have all done). Learning to write in a Wikipedia style has taken me two years to adapt to. (whoops! "has taken me two years to adapt to the Wikipedia style." sorry! ;) ).

As an aside, I notice that I could include almost every one of your userboxes on my page -- except I'm a mathematician. Love my cat. Have they outlawed painting the rolling fences black yet, as I've suggested for years?? Thanks again! ∴ Therefore talk 03:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Springs Community Church

Although the previous version was more than adequately sourced (read the sources -- they say almost verbatim what was in the article), so is your version. I'm hoping that this version doesn't roil the waters, is all. The article is in a state of equilibrium and as you well know, these states can change quickly. I'm not discouraging you editing the more controversial parts but you have called for a peer review with the hope of GA or A. But if there are any on-going controversies, that will preclude a rating as all controversies must be resolved first. See what I mean? I'm hoping that this change of a previously agreed upon section will not cause (say) Aeschyla to come in tomorrow and feeling a need to react to the change. Thanks! ∴ Therefore talk 03:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- I just noticed you changed it back sans reparative therapy. We cool. ;) ∴ Therefore talk 03:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, FWIW, your change was spot on -- I used reparative therapy as a paraphrase of "cure" but that was inaccurate as that is a specific treatment that was in no way being implied from the sources. Thanks. ∴ Therefore talk 04:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Notice the autobot caught nothing wrong with the page. They use that tool because 99% of the pages submitted are written by editors who haven't made the effort to study the MoS or taken the time to observe other editors. The issue of wikilinking years is unambiguous in the MoS (you link 'em) but I looked over the Bio peer review section and noticed that one editor was saying they aren't required. The nature of life -- write for your audience and hence I reversed them out after talking to said editor (an articulate, bright 13 year old).

If we don't get much more from this channel, then we will want to submit this for an A grade article, a different channel entirely. I would recommend waiting about a week letting any controversies to breathe out, as it were. In the meantime, respond to the autobot review by saying that all dates and years are properly linked per the Manual of Style -- "full dates" linked, "years without context" not linked. Read up on WP:AO and explain that we linked "As of 2007" per "Wikipedia:As of".

Hopefully, we'll get a real editor to provide a real review and give a proper grade. Great editing last night! ∴ Therefore talk 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I can't review the article as I'm a contributor or else I would. I've reviewed many, particularly A grade articles. ∴ Therefore talk 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Holsinger University Portrait.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Holsinger University Portrait.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]