User talk:Cmadler/Archive 2

"Farbische"

You ask about the origin of the word "farbische" in my book on reenacting. I have gone back to my dictionaries of German, and agree that this is probably not a proper German term. what I suspect is that when I toured a printing plant, I mistook the term for applying the inks and dyes to creating the finished product. Years later, when I wrote my book, this confusion remained. Farbe means color, and I may have also mistaken it for a shortened version of "fabrik" or "fabrizieren", which is to manufacture. In short, I goofed by relying on my memory instead of checking the Duden. Hopefully, I won't "duden" it again!

Hadden (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Littleberry Mosby

After your note on the assessment page, I took a look at the article in your sandbox. For what it's worth, I would say notability is sufficiently asserted to take the article live - you've got great sourcing and I believe the consensus is that being a brigadier general creates a presumption of notability anyway.

One small comment based on the manual of style - you should avoid wikilinking the section titles (American Revolutionary War and War of 1812). Cheers.--Kubigula (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion of the American Civil War

Edited the lead again. Hope this makes it clearer. Does that make it clear of what I am trying to say? If you can make it better with grammer and you have the ideas of what I am trying to say - I am sure you are better on that than me. Do appreciate the improvements you made.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch on the Trans-Mississippi Theater. I'm glad to have some experts on the ACW helping me out. Thanks again.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done It passed to GA status. Thanks for all your help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Sorry? The storms didn't self publish; the NHC simply reported on them. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So an agency becomes affiliated with a subject when they publish documents on it? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cmandler, I'm sorry for jumping in like this, but the project is discussing this very problem right now on an FARC. I agree with you, in that the agency warnings are press releases, which are not independent since all warnings are produced by those affiliated with the subject; the agency is obviously very affiliated with the subject, most some storms are only covered by the agency at some point in their duration. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hurricane is a natural phenomena, so it can't possibly be affiliated with a government agency. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But when the government agency is the only source to get info on a storm, that is certainly affiliation right there. The agency has the decision to classify it or not. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. See Google. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates#Good_topic_nominations

I do not understand your commentary at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates#Good_topic_nominations regarding the 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team. Obviously, it is being nominated as a good topic or else it would not be listed at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates#Good_topic_nominations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to sound ornery. Thanks for commenting. Feel free to visit the Rob Pelinka FAC discussion as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formal Mediation for Sports Logos

As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1, I have included you in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, I hope we can achieve a lasting solution. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 02:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Deleted image: File:1859balloon.JPG

Hi Cmadler, I'm convinced this image does not belong to the uploader. Apart from the many other uploads convincing me they did not understand what "self-made" means; The image has had camera exif information removed and has been scaled to a standard image size (1600x1200) which both often indicates it's come from a website. There is also the usual boilerplate "I made it myself" with no information about the image at all (place or something about the subject). The clincher for me was that the previous image uploaded File:1859 balloon voyage.JPG of the same subject also claimed the same stuff, but for that one I found the website it was taken from. If it's truly self-made I hope they re-upload the raw camera file, which will solve all the issues ! - Peripitus (Talk) 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire ‎

Hey. I saw you made a bunch of small edits on that page. Would you mind chiming in on the talk page and give your thoughts on the two versions - that is, the one that reads like an advert and the one that does not? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ypsi

Hey, I just noticed on your userpage that you live in Ypsilanti... I spent a summer working at EMU and have fond (and not-so-fond) memories of happy hours at Habb's, deep-fried dill pickles, etc. :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance fair template

Hey. I just built a template for Ren fairs; it's at Template:Infobox Renaissance fair. Basically I used the one from the Maryland page and tweaked it a bit. One big thing I removed is the jousting field - it just didn't really seem worthy of inclusion. The template page has documentation on it, but if you could just sanity check it to make sure I didn't miss anything obvious, that'd be great. I'm going to start adding it to the various fair pages. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I made a few small changes, including setting it up to put pages into Category:Renaissance fairs. I think it's ready to go! cmadler (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on that. I've deployed it to all of the faires that fell in the category, but now they all have redundant cats. Heh. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a list of Renaissance fairs, copied from the list in Renaissance fair and from the category population. cmadler (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for such a quick response and great improvement ideas. It is so hard to "see the forest for the trees" as the saying goes. Again I appreciate your time and will tackle the points you outlined. Best regards, Marcia Wright (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Graham Waterhouse

Hello! Your submission of Graham Waterhouse at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Taiwantaffy (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FEED

Hey, I just wanted to leave you a note letting you know I responded to your request for feedback on WP:FEED. :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PARF merge?

Hey. Did you happen to see Kathyrncelestewright's merge of PARF? Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are on the PARF talk page. I've got to say, this is not the first time I've felt like an article was smacked around in a GA review and came out worse than it went in. One of these days I'll learn my lesson and stop submitting for GA. Or I'll finally figure out what GA reviewers are looking for. More likely the former. cmadler (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I gotta say, I was thinking the same thing. I understand wanting to split off some of the Mount Hope information, but he article really feels different than what we built it up to be. :/ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Waterhouse

Hello,

I happened to notice that you moved Graham Waterhouse from user space to main space via a copy and paste move. I noticed you did make linked attribution in the edit summary, so you were probably in compliance with our licensing agreement. However best practices say there should be a {{copied}} tag on both the source & destination talk pages.

Since that would be weird in this case, and to avoid any possible confusion, I merged the histories. It is probably best not to have the history of a User's main page serve as the attribution for an article, esp. considering that user may want to user that space for say an actual user page in the future.

For future reference, it is almost always better to use the move button rather than copying and pasting text. If you have any questions about this, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I caused confusion by creating Graham Waterhouse in my user space. For the German version I knew better, in case of interest [1]. I came here to thank my inspiring advisor and share with him the honours of a Barnstar Award I received on my talk page.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have known better as well. (Actually I did know better, and simply forgot.) I'm just glad we were able to salvage the article. cmadler (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Denial

Hey, Noticed your comment at the DYK suggestion page. There are now two alternative hooks which should satisfy your concerns. If you have time, please take a look, and it all's cool, you can "approve" it. Thanks, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the DYK page. cmadler (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lloyd Brazil

Good points regarging the Lloyd Brazil DYK nomination. I have fixed both issues. If you have a minute to take a second look, that would be great. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Erie Transit suggestions/help

Just wanted to say thanks for the feedback on the Lake Erie Transit proposed article. Will move it and then work on the changes. --Glasscity09 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Minor

It was very unusual to see you choose a September 17 creation on Septemeber 18.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was skipping around a bit; it seems that a lot of the older noms have been "reviewed" and have unresolved (or resolution-in-progress) issues. Possibly that particular one caught my eye because I'm going to the game tomorrow (to cheer for EMU). Given that every queue is empty right now, it's not as though we don't have space for good hooks.

cmadler (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimental Lady

Done Book source added. Should be ready to go.. Himalayan 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hook approved and moved to the prep area. cmadler (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

I responded to your inquiry regarding Kent Blazy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poke. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LCROSS

Hi. Your input is welcome at Talk:LCROSS#High-Five_Incident_and_Controversy. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Weil

Do you remember helping me with my first article Graham Waterhouse to DYK? I believe that Terence Weil (nominated October 18) would deserve at least the same honours, compare talk and smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK 28 October --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply about PLD Lexington KY

Source the outstanding reputation thing in the intro, and I'd say all or almost all peacock terms have been removed. Thanks for helping, mynameinc (t|c|p) 21:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Flatt&ScruggsLP2.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flatt&ScruggsLP2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:F77232sckxw.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:F77232sckxw.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NGRFlyFront cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NGRFlyFront cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CoverTooLateToTurnBackNow.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CoverTooLateToTurnBackNow.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have are a contributor to the article. Ikip (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

I have adopted your suggestion and "rebuilt" the article from scholarly references. Would you care to take a look?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I appreciate the comment on my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination). im willing to reconsider my delete, but thats sort of secondary to what im saying. im still not sure there are enough schlarly voices to justify the article, but maybe they will find more. thank you for understanding what i was driving at, to get rid of the articles OR tone and refocus it so it doesnt (legitimately) draw critical attention. ok, my brain hurts now. maybe a nice simple game of GO, or finding a new proof for the poincare conjecture...no, music (ethan daniel davidson)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Cmadler! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Norman Blake (Scottish musician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, for any non-bots reading this, I haven't done and am not planning to do anything on that article. I created it to spin off content that had been added to an article I was working on about a different person of the same name, and I've never edited it since. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I was wrong...

...as soon as I hit "Save page" but I totally forgot to go back and correct myself. Thanks for catching my mistake! --ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty (sports)

A big improvement. I was in a hurry to get somewhere yesterday otherwise I'd have done it myself, but it reads so, so, SO much better now. Spell4yr (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]