User talk:Cacophony/Archive2

Image:UnionStationPortland.jpg

Per WP:CSD I1, when an image is duplicated in Wikimedia Commons, use the {{NowCommons}} template. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal about categories and subcategories

I've posted a proposal about categories and subcategories here. Please take a look. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 09:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox_Bridge

It would help if you would explain in specific terms what was "broken" about my edit. -- Netoholic @ 21:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm using Safari. The images were no longer inside the box and they were offset to from the infobox (the image went further to the right than the infobox. I don't know much at all about infoboxes, I just know that they looked much worse after your change today. Cacophony 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. In order to use the template, and move the image to the right place, follow this example. Notice also that the [[Image: ... |size|caption]] is eliminated, so you just give "image= filename". -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes Camp in Portland

FYI RecentChangesCamp Tedernst | talk 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Highways WikiProject

I've noticed that you have contributed significantly to the wiki pages on Oregon state highways. Are you interested in starting an Oregon Highways WikiProject? If so, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Thanks! --EngineerScotty 06:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portland police

Why did you remove the photo?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was a concensus to do so on the article talk page. Based on my experience with other city articles, the only other time that I have seen a photo of a police car within the article is when the police department is talked about explicitly. I can think of 2,000 better photos to represent "Portland Government" then the photo of a polic car. Cacophony 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks

Hi Cacophony! You aren't following me around, are you? You followed me with edits on two totally unrelated pages! Just kidding. Thanks for your assistance on my "categories" problem. I went through the FAQs, but they are sooooooo long! Sorry about leaving off the edit note on "Baseball home run calls." I usually do; must have not been concentrating at the time. (I did it at work.) Talk to ya later! Michael J 00:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Categories

You seem to be having some problem with categories. I removed the Categories Bridges in Pennsylvania and Bridges in New Jersey, becuas both categories are parent categories of their respective Toll Bridges in "blah". Becaus the toll bridges actegories are subs of the Bridges in Category, the placeing of the articles in both categories is more or less redundant. As per WP:CG guldelines

Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Oscar. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories.

With the bridges being an example in this case as well, it is clear that this situation would follow the first portion of this guideline. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bridges#Categorization Cacophony 08:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My responce, time to redo the guideline, as it does not work, only makes for redundant listings and the dreprecheat sub cats. It basicaly like listing every article about New York City under the category just for New York City and then all the subcats it would be included , and the subs of those, so in the end you get more cats then are need on one article, in other words, inefficient, confusing, and pardon my language stupid . --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal fix for this particular instance would be if Category:Bridges in New Jersey allowed the toll bridges to be marked with a (T) after them. Otherwise I would say the toll bridges by state categories are too close of an offshoot of all bridges by state. Can you understand why one would want all the bridges in Oregon listed in Category:Bridges in Oregon rather than some listed there and others in subcategories. The subcategorization could go on and on, continuing until each article has it's own category, rendering the whole thing worthless. The point is not to create a heirarchy, but to give users different ways to group articles. The bridge category by state is a very logical and useful division. Most states have 10-50 bridge articles, which is a pretty good number to navigate. Also, most major bridges are maintained by the respective state highway agency. In the end I think it is better to give users (category browsers) more options rather than trying to limit the number or categories an article is contained within. If anything we should get rid of the toll bridge by state categories. Cacophony 09:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

The acutes were patients who could be cured and the chronics were ones who would never be. It's mentioned on the page and about fifty times during the novel. Though I agree with your edit, have you read the book? Czolgolz 00:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the book, but I forgot about the acutes and chronics. I'll go back to the article and create links (to the section about acutes/chronics that appears below the main characters) for the ones that I removed. When reading the article from top to bottom it dosen't make sense what that meant. Great book, but I like Sometimes a Great Notion even better. Cacophony 04:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Stoke FA candidate

You have previously kindly edited the article for Chew Stoke, which I have recently nominated for FA status. Would you be kind enough to give your comments or suggestions for improvements. Rod 14:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your edit to Typhoon Chanchu (2006) was reverted by me in updating refs. Please avoid editing an article marked with {{inuse}}. Circeus 17:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American people by ethnic and national origin

thank you for your concern about this category/its subcategories. See Category talk:European Americans first and we can talk some more. Thanks. Hmains 00:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that various proposals in 'Wikipedia:Categories for deletion are proposing the deletion of all the super-categories, categories and sub-categories in Wikipedia that mention 'ethnic or national origin'. These proposals are receiving various approval and very little disapproval or questions, so I suppose they will be implemented for more countries. I see they have been already implemented for some countries. Thanks Hmains 02:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'll opine on CFD. Cacophony 02:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added all the subcategies I previously emptied. Sorry about that. Thanks Hmains 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Oregon

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon. Please help out in any way you can.PDXblazers 23:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Waterfalls in the United States

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Category:Waterfalls in the United States. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Category:Waterfalls in Oregon, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Category:Waterfalls in Michigan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

--William Allen Simpson 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be mistaken, I didn't remove any content from said page. In fact I created that page, but I did start moving subcategories from Category:Waterfalls of the United States into Category:Waterfalls in the United States. My understanding is that pages should be orphaned before they are listed for deletion. I guess I was being too bold in making a change to this category. I was making the change to have subcategories in Category:Oregon following the same naming patterns, but I later realized that this is a much bigger issue that is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Waterfalls#Landforms_by_country and also Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Landforms_by_country. Cacophony 05:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should never orphan before bringing to CfD. CfD is where we decide whether your proposal is valid. Moving them in advance makes the decision process and cleanup much harder.

There is no issue about Landforms by country, the issue is well decided and settled.

--William Allen Simpson 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments again and, dude, you are way off base. If you are going to threaten to block me you should at least get the article names straight, preferably with correct wiki syntax (it shows that you know what the hell you are talking about). And maybe look at my edit history and edit comments to see if I might be working on something bigger than one or two minor categories. Don't just throw up 3 vandalism templates on my talk page at once. If you do have something to say to me don't act like I'm a newbie and your an admin. Cacophony 06:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ettiquete

Please read Wikipedia:Etiquette, specifically Wikipedia:Assume good faith before posting vandalism templates on user talk pages. Thank you, Cacophony 06:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism Avoidant vandalism -- and don't do it again! You don't "OWN" those categories that you created, that are contrary to existing naming convention policy, and were tagged for removal within days of your misbegotten creation.

Several times, several templates. Especially as you are not a "newbie", but write and behave like one. William Allen Simpson 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show a little bit of class. You are 1000% correct and I'm 1000% wrong, but you can communicate such without threatening me. Unlike yourself, I'm going to make mistakes. If you are that hung up about people making mistakes, then it is time for you to take a break. Cacophony 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hi, Cacophony. Are you aware that William Allen Simpson has posted about your conflict here, with a request for you to be blocked? Perhaps you would like to comment. Bishonen | talk 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Bridge categorization

Thanks for your message. Many of the WikiProjects have made localized decisions that it is impossible to keep track of, so I appreciate the pointer. As a general rule, as you probably know, the WP guideline is that an article shouldn't be in both the sub- and super-category; my edits were based on that guideline. I don't plan to be making any more edits in this space — it was just something I had stumbled upon. But, for the record, not all of the New York City bridges are categorized according to the system you described. It was this lack of consistency that led me to think (wrongly, as it turned out), that there was no policy per se. Marc Shepherd 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion continues at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Category_duplication. I will try to find those pages that are not categorized the same. Thanks! Cacophony 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cloud Gate photos

Hi! I don't know if you noticed, but following our previous discussions I have now claimed fair use for the two photos in the Cloud Gate article. I think that in the long run I would like to see these replaced (or perhaps complemented) with photos taken since the polishing of the sculpture was completed—particularly the omphalos photo, which clearly shows the seams. Thanks, BTW for re-removing the unencyclopedic flowery language in the article. —JeremyA 18:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==Doughnut==

Don't forget to assume good faith. - BalthCat 04:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that I removed (What was wrong with what he said was a grammatical error similar so saying I am an object rather than a person belonging to a group.) is nonsensical. Even after breaking it up into parts, it is still "so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". I feel totally justified in removing it. Cacophony 05:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I agree. It was when you called it vandalism. That might offend some one who was trying to be constructuve. That's all. Ciao. - BalthCat 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template mod requested

The template BridgeTypePix (a bridge taxobox with image) is used in table bridge. Owing to a short introduction, the section divider line writes over the bridge taxobox. Is this fixable? Thanks, Leonard G. 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I dropped the section header down one secion level (now three "=") and that fixed it (not a template problem) - Leonard G. 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Jake

I'm done, if it's of sufficient concern, perhaps an admin should protect the page? I don't know. Doesn't seem worth my time. - BalthCat 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo, thanks for your attention. I'm going to continue to revert because I refuse to be silenced. He will get bored with it eventually. Cacophony 03:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not be you, Cacophony, but there are people that believe that their pseudo-authority is important, and they must flex it. I'm sure there are many more important pages out there, more important than my discussion page. Bigjake 15:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your quest to twart pseudo-authority is hardly more noble. Please note that it is considered inappropriate to remove comments from a talk page without archiving them. - BalthCat 06:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's probably a good thing that I don't care about your idea of nobility nor do I bother with what you consider 'appropriate.' Bigjake 06:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 'Cacophony', just had to let you know that not only do I not respect your ideas, or ability to 'edit' things, but I found it flattering that you're following me around, making sure that my edits are legit on other articles. Regardless of if I ever get blocked (by other people not minding their business,) I still never cared for your words, and effectively silenced you. How does it feel? Instead of just letting something go, you wasted your time simply based on your power hungry nature. *kisses* Bigjake 22:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cacophony, please do not continue revert on Talk:Bigjake — lets just concentrate on the main issue here... Which is to write an encyclopedia after all!! Thanks/wangi 23:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and disruption might be ok with you, but I feel strongly that it hinders our ability to collaborate in writing an encyclopedia. Just because someone is persistant in their vandalism does not make their actions any more acceptable. Your "let the vandals play" attitude is a detriment to Wikipedia. So if no admins want to take care of it, I will continue to waste my time on this stupid edit war. Thanks for nothing, Cacophony 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider, or you might well end up getting yourself blocked... Which i'm sure you'll agree isn't very useful. All the warnings etc are still on Bigjake's talk page history. Do not get focused purely on a personal disagreement - it's not productive to constantly revert that page. Do something useful :) Thanks/wangi 23:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the constant reverts - nobody wants to block you over this, please take time out and chill out. Thanks/wangi 23:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the talk page alone, users are allowed to blank their pages, however other users are not allowed to continue edit wars. You are being asked by numerous people to stop, I suggest you do as this is only making you look bad at this point. --Nuclear Zer0 00:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bigjake has also been asked by numerous people to stop (namly User:Heimstern Läufer, User:Bookandcoffee, User:BalthCat, User:MacGyverMagic). As for the policy basis to not blank a user page (other than common courtsey):

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable: "Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details)."
Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...: "Deleting or removing text from any Talk page without archiving it. Talk pages or any discussion pages are part of the historical record in Wikipedia."
Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism: Talk page vandalism: 'Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. "
Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks#Answers_to_concerns: "Pointing out that a user is breaking a rule is not a personal attack and should not be removed. If someone claims that you're breaking the rules, and you don't think you are, please don't respond by deleting their accusation as a "personal attack". If people can't discuss whether or not folks are following the rules, then the rules would be pointless."

Cacophony 06:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to keep one's sanity

But please do grit your teeth and be as polite as possible ... Working productively with people you think are idiots is probably *the* most important skill you can have on Wikipedia.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/034346.html

216.239.165.81 07:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Just wanted to drop a note that I'm sorry for our little 'clash'. It went way out of hand, I acted immature, and I have since gained respect for your proper edits and thorough work. Olive branch? Bigjake 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem-o. Sorry if I was acting the fool as well. Now lets get to making Wikipedia better. Cacophony 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went over to try

and put Pablo Picasso on the Protected Species list, got sort of tangled up with you doing it at the same time, but i think it came out okay. Thanks a lot for being there. Carptrash 18:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Blagon

Hi, I saw you participated in pages related to radio. I just wanted a little bit of help to correct an article I've tried to translate from French. It's about a French independent Internet radio called Radio Blagon. If you have a bit of time to have a look at the grammar, the spelling and the general style of this article, that would be great. Thanks, Ajor 18:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Aerial Tram

Hi Cacophony. Thanks for the great work on the tram article. It has gone from hodgepodge and snippets to a good quality article. Very impressive. — EncMstr 07:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. It still has a little ways to go, but it is progressing very nicely at this point. I can't wait to take some pictures of it once it gets finished. Cacophony 05:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of Template:Infobox_dam

Your modifications destroyed any pages in which that infobox was transcluded. If you modify a template you must fix anything that you screwed up. You need to see what was linked there. You added fields, you changed the order of fields, etc. This makes anything that used to use this template broken. Now I'm going to have to edit all my dams. ---LymanSchool 11:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When trying to modify pages that used the template, I noticed that you REMOVED fields as well! You broke anything that used this template. Also you have variable names with SPACES in them! PLEASE revert and don't modify a template until you learn how they work. ----LymanSchool 11:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know how templates work. If you look at Template:Infobox Bridge, the page that the dam page is a direct ripoff of, you will see that I made many contrubitions to that. At the top of the dam page it says "this page is experimental". Sorry for trying to improve an experimental template. I will stop trying to make it better and leave it like the piece of crap that it currelty is. Have a nice day. Cacophony 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of Chicopee Falls Dam

You broke this article as well. Don't you even LOOK at the result?? Clearly you would have seen that something was wrong. I pulled all the articles that I wrote off the Template:Infobox_Dam template until you are through mucking with it. I made a temporary one called Template:Infobox_OrigDam so that you can learn how to make templates. After you are through, please send me a message and I will try to use your template. Upon success, I will delete my temporary one. ---LymanSchool 12:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that one or two of the fields might not have been included after my changes. I would hardly call it "destroyed". I WAS going to fix the articles that used the template, but now I don't really feel like it. Sorry for trying to improve it. Cacophony 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could have prevented people from getting pissed if you looked to see what was linked to the template before you started working. Then, you could have tested your new template in your sandbox (see the response from my friend below, he shows you how). When you alter an existing template, you need to know that you can thoroughly mess up anything that uses that template. There are several other things you need to understand about templates. One is that the parser will get confused if it sees a space in a member name. Also, a template can never be "all things to everybody," so you don't try to provide for every possibility. Additonally, it is common practice to capitalize only the first word of a title or list. Any structural errors in a template get replicated throughout all the articles using it, so you need to be very careful. That said, I hope you will accept my apology for not sending you a "sweet and quiet" message. They tend to be ignored, compounding problems. If you would like to continue with your improvements, I can help with the testing. Please don't change a live template until it's tested.

If you are "pissed" about me making changes to a template, then it is time to take a break. Seriously, it is not that big of a deal. It is not like the template is being used on more important pages like Grand Coulee Dam, Hoover Dam, Glen Canyon Dam, Bonneville Dam, etc. So I won't make any more changes to the Infobox, I'll create one from scratch to use on the bigger pages. Heck, a Dam wikiproject might not be a bad ideal also. Cacophony 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Infobox stuff

Sir. You need to keep the road members in the infobox. Many dams have roads. Some are just service roads, but others carry traffic. See Barre Falls Dam as an example. The modification of a bridge template to a dam template was a good idea because they are a lot alike. N26825 14:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jellybeans

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Wikipedia, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmmm, me likie jellybeans. Many thanks. Cacophony 05:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Sarcasm aside, citation templates can't be treated as straitjackets. If they don't have obvious spaces for the information that should be cited, and you can't work out how to fit that information into the template, there is absolutely no requirement to use the template. It's not like the earlier form of the citation was in any way confusing, and it was accurate. - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are right. In hindsight I shouldn't have changed the citations because they were working fine the way they were. I was mistakenly under the impression that my preferences had a choice in how to display citations. No sense in wasting time fixing what isn't broken. Thanks, Cacophony 02:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm genuinely having a hard time judging your tone. I don't follow "my preferences had a choice". Are you talking about Wikipedia's "my preferences" settings, or are you saying something sarcastic about about me not caring about your preferences as to how to format? If I was wrong reading your initial comment on my talk page as sarcastic, my apologies. - Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant the "my preferences" settings. I was figuring that since the citeweb template defined the fields (title, publisher, date, etc.), users could change they way they view citations. Cacophony 03:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For the rock! Tanzanite is a particularly nice rock too. :) Katr67 08:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Yakima-OfficialSeal.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Yakima-OfficialSeal.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BellinghamCitySeal.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:BellinghamCitySeal.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Pomeroy

Why did you remove Jim Pomeroy from the Yakima residents section? Sure he was born in Sunnyside, but he was a resident of Yakima as well. Pomeroy's cycle shop was located on 1st street in Yakima for many years and he even died in Yakima on the west side of town when he had the roll-over in his jeep last year. Mrhyak 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was cleaning up that section and couldn't find a connection. Thanks for putting it back. Cacophony 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert it back because I wanted to find out what the reason was before I did that. I didn't want a war to break out (haha). I'll add him back in. Mrhyak 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odilon Redon

Please don't revert corrections and additions to the text. You were shunting lots of pictures around & could easily have spaced the pictures in the text correctly. If you don't restore the text changes I made I shall feel within my rights to revert all your changes. Those gaps are unacceptably unsightly. Johnbod 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any gaps in the article at any screen resolution (using Safari as my browser). Moving all the images to the top, however, did cause all of the "Edit" links to appear at the bottom of the page instead above their respective section. Please do fix it so that it displays properly for you, but do so without breaking the Edit links. Thanks, Cacophony 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can see large gaps at every para, which I don't normally, plus you have removed my text & category changes - small but I don't see why i should repeat them just because of your carelessness. You please sort it out. Johnbod 04:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC) PS there is no problem with the edits on my version on my screen. Johnbod 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added you category add. That was the only thing that my "careless" edit changed. Have a nice day! Cacophony 05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Picasso

The page is obviously going to be vandalized after I unprotect the article. However, we shouldn't keep articles protected for extended periods of time, and that's why I had to protect, even if it will be protected shortly thereafter. Nishkid 64 18:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it publisized which pages are recently unprotected? I think it is strange that the vandalism happened that suddenly and frequently after it was unprotected. Cacophony 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oregon

Hey, since you disagreed with my changes can you take a look at the discussion a couple of us were having about the campus section and weigh in? I was trying to start implementing the changes we had discussed but if you think we're wrong, I'd like to hear about some other ideas. Thanks. Katr67 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Aerial Tram

I was reviewing this for Good Article status, and it looks good in general. However, there are a few statements that are not cited; can you take care of those? Thank you. --NE2 13:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renewable energy

When you edited this article, large chunks of text went missing. After I did some tinkering with the citation coding, I think I've found out why. You added a space before and after the slashes "/" in your citations which cause them to fail working. You might want to doublecheck next time. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U S WEST

I am sorry, but the official legal name of U S WEST is "U S WEST". After reviewing several legal documents, including the FCC's official page regarding telephone companies ([1]), the official name is "U S WEST". If you are not satisfied with all caps, the official legal name contains a space between the "U" and "S". I was not trying to be "disruptive" as you may say, rather, I am trying to keep the legality of the former company straight. "US West" is an incorrect for the official company title. KansasCity 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of disambig from Johnson Creek, Wisconsin

Why would you remove the disambiguation link atop the Johnson Creek, Wisconsin page? Johnson Creek redirects to the city page, thus the disambig is necessary. -- drumguy8800 C T 07:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that because I thought I created a disamb page at Johnson Creek and removed the redirect to Johnson Creek, Wisconsin (that is why my edit summary said "removed redirect from Johnson Creek"). Something strange happened and my edits to that page were not saved. It is fixed now. Cacophony 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for adding a picture to Scott Feldman (baseball player). Good shot, too. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 00:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

I have moved my 3 most recent images to commons per your request. If you like you can feel free to move any of my images to commons. Once moved you can use the {{nowcommonsthis}} to mark the local page as obsolete so it can be deleted. You can also just mention it to me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue Thanks

Thanks for your improvements on John Ball Park. As the only editor that has been working on mostly, it is nice to see someone else work it and provide another point of view of how it should look. BeckyAnne 17:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont Bridge Image

I commented out your image Image:FremontBridgeHAER.png from Fremont Bridge (Portland) because it was not displaying properly. It was just displaying an error. I'm not sure what is causing the error. It may be that it's just too big (7207 × 4892) and Wikipedia—and Commons too—can't create a thumbnail for an image that size. You might try reducing it to about 1/4 size and uploading it again. If you don't have the tools to do it, I can give it a go. I was able to download the entire full-size image from Commons even though it won't display a thumbnail. ●DanMS • Talk 05:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Tabor

That ain't no minor edit! Nice photo. -Pete 06:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to keep them coming! Cacophony 22:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much-needed cleanup to Richmond article

Thanks for your efforts at cleaning up this article, particularly the removal of much flotsam and jetsam in the picture department. But please be prepared to do battle with—and I do mean battle—a certain editor who doggedly insists on putting this crap back into the article. He's apparently a student who lives in the area, is only semi-literate (see numerous comments on that article's discussion page), and may be operating a sockpuppet or three (haven't raised that issue with an admin yet but may do). Anyhow, your edits here are appreciated. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think the article is looking much better now. I think I see what you are talking about regarding that editor. The article is on my watchlist now, so I'll make sure it dosen't take a turn for the worse. Cacophony 07:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're baaaaaack ... by the way, I think it would be interesting for someone to run a checkuser against the most recent incarnation of that particular illiterate editor ("Cholga") and "QRC2006" as well as the IP address he sometimes edits under. Can you say "sockpuppet"? +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help. I could use your help, as there's a rapidly-deteriorating situation over there at that article (yep, Chloga again. Latest event: I offered a bona fide compromise to stop the edit war over an erroneous edit they insist on sticking in, and that editor basically shit all over my offer.

If you don't want to get involved in that mess, I totally understand. But please help if you can. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Stoke FAC

Hi, I've recently put Chew Stoke up as a Featured Article candidate. As you have edited this article in the past I wondered if you would like to make any comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chew Stoke?— Rod ^talk 07:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Record Task Force

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Hi Cacophony,
I'm looking over your edits and wondering if you might be interested in this new task force. Please come by and have a look!
Cheers,Cyrusc 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

images to commons

I actually have been thinking about setting up an account there for some time. Now that Its summer, I'll probably set one up. Sorry if I came off snappy at FPC, or maybe you havent checked back, I was just frusterated at myself that I wasn't able to get the wells fargo center and koin tower in better. Thanks -Fcb981 16:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Actually I went out night shooting this evening and took a few more of the city. I'll see tomarrow how they turned out. As for the bridge pedal, I'm hoping I'll be around for it. I'm leaving for Boston mid august but it looks like I'll still be here. I hope : \ -Fcb981 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not Mt. Adams. but on saturday I did go hikeing down near estacada on bear mtn. Truly strange... anyway, I think what you might have gotten is either a sagebrush or northern checkerspot. The coloring doesn't look quite distinct enought for a bay checkerspot. plus the sagebrush checkerspot is quite common in SW washinton and northern can be found there. I'm even sceptical of my own bay checkerspot. Not only are they endangered, but they are almost never seen north of San Francisico. And, uh, did you happen to get yourself a 5D... : ) -Fcb981 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

richmond image

what's so low quality about it? shoudnt we keep it until a better alternative becomes available?^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For starters it isn't straight. The fact that it is take from ground level, in the middle of the road, makes it extremely difficult to illustrate the road. It would be a vast improvement even if you were to take the photo from the offramp to the left, looking back towards the road. That would at least show the entire roadway. Ideally it would be taken with some traffic on it, to illustrate that is a busy road. If the caption talks about how busy the roadway is, the picture should show the road when it is at least slightly congested. Cacophony 04:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd come here and congratulate you on your work on both the Richmond, California article ([2], [3]), and its associated talk page ([4], [5]). Now, I need to create a template. {{bloodygoodediting}} :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you have also done a good job. I'm amazed at how much attention that page gets. I think I'm about ready to take it off the watch list now that it has improved so much since I first came across it. Cacophony 05:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oblique rays

Hi I've taken on your suggestions at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Oblique rays. Feel free to leave feedback. —Pengo 07:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll go ahead and nominate it! Cacophony 05:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color correction on stiched images

Hey, there. I manually edited that image in Photoshop CS3, but I was lazy and rushed it (hence my not supporting the edit in the end). As for your photo, I only see only very, very subtle stitching problem in the sky, practically only visible if you're really looking for it. Regardless, if you'd still like me to fix it, let me know the pixel positions of each of the stitching locations. ♠ SG →Talk 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subst:

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. Cheers, Mystytopia 02:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]