User talk:Daniel Case/Archive 2/16/2007-6/6/2007

Yonkers Train Station

Thanks for letting me know that you replaced my photo on the Yonkers Station article. My photo only showed a small part of the station and I was planning on taking some better photos, but it looks like you beat me to it. Nice work!

NYSR-NYCR Newsletter - Issue 3

The New York State and County Route WikiProjects Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 3	15 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Newest state route to go airborne Member News Tappan Zee study progress to be released From the Editor Route 12B to receive safety upgrades Special introduction
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line Shortcut : WP:NYSR/N

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:NY_map_showing_Catskill_Park.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NY_map_showing_Catskill_Park.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. MECU≈talk 00:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey Daniel. I love what you've done to U.S. Route 9 in New York; if we can get a map for the article, I think we may have a shot at making US 9 in NY the first NY road-related Good Article. Quick question unrelated to US 9: I noticed that you "piped" a couple of links on New York State Route 155 with the edit summary "fix this". Personally, I prefer to have the links expanded so that anyone who may not know what "NY 32" means does not have to figure it out prior to hovering or clicking, while a link showing "New York State Route 32" is much more obvious. The full link also stems from my interpretation of WP:USSH, where I believe that the common name as shown on the page is what should be displayed on links in the article proper. My full comments on that issue are available in the last section on the talk page.

The question is why do you consider piping the links a "fix"? Regards, TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #2

File:New Jersey blank.svg The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 2	24 February 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project News Notability of state highways is upheld Deletion debates Kansas Turnpike is now a Good Article Featured subproject U.S. Roads IRC channel created Featured member Infoboxes and Navigation subproject started From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Apologies for the late delivery. Filling in for Vishwin60: Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

US 6 in New York page troubles

Over in the U.S. Route 6 in New York article, there's an error in the routebox. Could you change "Western terminus of US 16/NY 17 overlap" to "US 6" for me? For some stupid reason the PC I'm using won't let me make that correction(as well as a few others), nor will it allow me to go into my user page and talk page(@#%!%#! Internal Server Error!). ---- DanTD 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Somehow, I was able to fix it without signing on. ---- DanTD 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey, Thanks for unblocking me, it wont happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloder (talk • contribs) 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Note: Within a couple of hours of leaving this message, Bloder was blocked indefinitely.

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Allegra Goodman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Allegra Goodman.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. - NYC JD (make a motion) 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

With reference to [1] Please don't place tags without discussing on the article talk page. Better still why not work on the problem rather than merely tagging.--Golden Wattle ^talk 04:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that the tag is self explanatory but ... in your reply you did indeed empathise with why I might raise the issue with you. I don't like tagging and running if the article deserves better. will see if I can work on it. --Golden Wattle ^talk 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict - it is indeed a new article and needs still a lot of work including on the structure. Regards--Golden Wattle ^talk 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert vandalism

Hi Daniel, I reverted your user page after it was blanked and reported the vandal at WP:AIV. Take care, Ruhrfisch 22:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

New NRHP Collaboration Division

Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 3	10 March 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news Inactivity? Deletion debates Article Improvement Drive Featured subproject Good and Featured Articles Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification

Hello, Daniel Case/Archive 2/16/2007-6/6. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada

I saw your peer review nomination for the film and went to check out the article itself. It was an excellent read! Kudos to your hard work on the article and good luck in achieving the Featured Article status for it! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: A handshake

Apology accepted.  :) Bushytails 20:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Backpacking

Hello,

As part of the Trails WikiProject, You may be interested in the newly formed WikiProject Backpacking, an effort to increase the quality of Backpacking related articles and media on Wikipedia. I hope that we may work together with other closely related WikiProjects to make camping and packing articles the best they can be!

Regards,

-Leif902 13:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!

Thank you very much for joining the project, I'm sure your contributions will be invaluable! -Leif902 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

USGS river discharge data

Hi Daniel Case, thanks for your work on the infoboxes of these various rivers. I do have a concern about the river discharge data: it appears to be data for a specific calendar day, averaged over time, rather than an average of data for all calendar days over time. For instance the 2,250 cfs figure for the West Fork River from the USGS page is in a table labeled "Daily discharge statistics, in cfs, for Mar 13" (i.e., today). If you click on the "more" link just above the table it takes you to another table which confirms that the "mean" figure of 2,250 is only for March 13 and not the entire period of record. I've been looking for a reliable source for mean streamflow data for U.S. rivers for a long time (including going round and round in circles on the USGS websites) and was very happy to see some progress! But I think the figures as presented would be misleading (and not an accurate statement of "average" flow) if left as they are. Cheers-- Malepheasant 19:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean ... sort of assumed without looking too closely that those were the avg daily figure. Is this something more like what you want (average daily discharges per year)? We could add (2005) to the footnote in question. Or you could find a way to derive an all-time average from this data. Daniel Case 04:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's frustrating isn't it? For the life of me I don't understand why a long-term average flow seems not to be a basic figure associated with all of these USGS gages across the country. (The information doesn't seem to be on the internet, at any rate.) Of the suggestions above, I think the first one, a single year average with the year clearly noted, is probably more clear, and the safer option. A multi-year average could be calculated from the first link you mentioned above, but I'm not sure how much math it takes to run afoul of the no original research policy. Anyway, thanks for your work and please let me know if you ever run across a good source for these numbers. --Malepheasant 05:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Geobox River

Chapter one

Hi, actually all fields should already have the _note parameter, incl. all discharge fields. But I see some fields are just badly named in the template code, I'll fix it together with the whole code if you don't mind, they'll show up then. As of the year, I believe the _note field can be used for that too. It's not primarily designed for references, it's for any type of comments related to the data. I'll let you know when I finish the upgrade. - Caroig 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The cleanup's finished. The _note fields on discharges should work as expected. I've renamed (shortened) a few fields but their old names are accepted too. If there are any issues, I'd appreciate if you report them. There are also some extra functions and a field for a second map. I've made some rather cosmetic changes concerning home some values and fields are displayed. I'll update the documentation and blank templates accordingly. I don't think the label Discharge elsewhere sounds very good, any idea? I'm also not very sure whether Sources confluence is good English, shoudn't it rather be Source confluence? – Caroig 19:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just saw some your edits, FYI: you don't need to wikilink any name (tributary etc.) in the Geoboxes if an article with the same exist, the template does it for you. Of course, yopu can if you wish, this is just a function to make their use esier. Happy editing … – Caroig (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Chapter Two

Up to 15 states, regions, cities should get displayed now, I guess there were more supported states etc. before the major cleanup so this was sort of regression, sorry for that (the trouble with the current wiki syntax is that all such fields must be defined in the code, no abstraction's possible, that doesnn't apologize me though).

I added discharge_max_as_of and discharge_min_as_of, hope that works, I haven't tested it. Will that be OK this way? – Caroig (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

Hey Daniel,

Yes, I am the Ingrid Haas from the Youtube. I was trying to clear up some statements that were put in the media. Not realizing that it was a footnote I'm sorry about that. Everything else I edited- I think is fine- but the one footnote on the bottom will have to be changed back.

How to go about changing it back? This is my first time using WIkipedia; I hope this finds you well. I'm a bit confused about it all!! Cheers, Ingrid.

Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada

I changed it from 40 million to 27 million because that is what the movie grossed in its opening weekend and it grossed 40 million in its opening week.

Re: DJvac

Thanks. If you didnt already know, he also added them to it seems as many high schools as he could think of. I went through and reverted some of them, but there are just too many to go through (and I dont have that kind of time to spend on here). I will work through reverting some of them now. (Sinisterminister 03:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC))

USRD Newsletter - Issue 4

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 4	24 March 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news March 16 IRC Meeting Deletion debates Kentucky and Utah projects demoted Featured subproject A quick look at the structural integrity of state highway WikiProjects Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

List of cricketers who were murdered

David Hookes cannot be called a "possibly murdered" cricketer because the court decided that the other guy acted in self-defence. Agree that "Other deaths" doesn't sound too good but we should go for something more accurate. Tintin 04:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Hookes should be moved or demoted to just a "notes" section unless the title is changed. Let me just check with others. Tintin 04:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! and welcome

Hi Daniel,

Welcome to the Fashion WikiProject! :D Don't worry about the "first" thing, we're all in it together; as you say, most fashion articles are pretty meagre here, and we fashionistas have to stick together. You're doing great work on the D. W. Prada series, and if we can help in bringing them to FA, please let us know. Looking forward to reading your contributions, Willow 13:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Post Office (Ellenville, New York), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a brilliant story to turn into an article. I love it! -- Zanimum 14:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

Hi there! I noticed your rating on Talk:Trinny & Susannah Undress‎ which was classed as a stub. It was a stub before when it only consisted of three lines, but I've recently (before your rating) added viewing figures, air dates, a synopsis of every episode plus an info box. Therefore I've raised the class to start and not stub. I hope you don't have a problem with this and feel free to consult me on my talk page. I was really pleased with your rating on Talk:What Not to Wear as it was a stub before I got my hands on it! Whether you would like to rate the articles of the presenters of What Not to Wear with your work on your fashion project — it's just a suggestion. Many thanks. Eagle Owl 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah well it doesn't matter, it's fixed now! With regards to joining the wikiproject — it is something I would definitely contemplate in the future but right now I have so much on my plate! I would love to join it so we'll see in the future, I have observed all the hard working going on in those sectors and it's really good.

Some suggestions though, I was wondering if you would include Trinny and Susannah in your projects, I have already reformed their articles as they were stubs before. And I looked at the Talk:Donatella Versace article and it is only classed as mid importance. In my opinion she is one of the most recognised icons in the fashion world so maybe raise that to high importance? But that's just my view. Thanks for your reply. Eagle Owl 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vogue (dance)

Hi, Daniel. Are Vogue (dance) and Vogue (song) related to the Vogue magazine? Shouldn't Category:Vogue contain only articles related to the magazine? Best regards --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The dance move was (I believe the article says somewhere) inspired by the poses on the covers of the magazine, and likewise the song was about the dance move. Neither of them would exist without the magazine. Daniel Case 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I just wanted to be sure. I'm not that familiar with the magazine. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Fashion

Thanks for the invite, but actually I have no special interest in it, and merely was trying to help a newcomer with WP policies, having watched the page because I had added the succession box (and I think reverted some vandalism). However, I wish the project the best, as it is clearly a poorly covered area. Rigadoun (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Althouse

Hello Mr. Case! You don't know me, but in this case I think that's a good thing. I'm at an impasse over at Ann's entry Ann Althouse, where I notice you have previously commented, and being new to wiki-wars and such, I am uncertain how to proceed. I would like to invite you to re-visit the entry, and make any comments or observations you feel are germane. I especially suggest you browse the article history (if you're at all interested) beginning with the version immediately prior to my own. I understand completely if you choose not to get involved, am happy to hear your opinion whether or not it agrees with my own, and hope that in my ignorance I haven't violated some wiki protocol with this request. Thanks! Snickersnee 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for chipping in over there. I respect your optimism. Snickersnee 01:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Help

I notied that you had your user page in French, but I can't figure out how to get my user page in French. I know how to get the language up on the left side of the page, but when it comes to editing the page on the French Wikipedia it shows an IP address in the history. How to you get your userpage in another language? If you're too busy then don't worry. Eagle Owl 14:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 9 in New York Split?

This article is great, but it's getting very long. I have a feeling that I'm going to nominate it for GA status, but I am going to need your help to decide what improvements that are needed to get it there.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wonderbra in Fashion Project

Happy it's there. You might also take the next step and add a relevant fashion sub-category to the article itself, rather than only on the discussion page. In an earlier version of the article, I had a link to the fashion category, but that link was removed by Calliopejen as part of her restructuring of the category (hence my queries to her on the logic and approach). Under the new fashion category taxonomy, I'm not yet sure there's a place for this article, so I encourage you both to look into it. Mattnad 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan. Picked up your changes. Double check this, but I think there's a convention to put categories in alphabetical order at the bottom of a page. I could be wrong, but it's worth looking into that for a featured article. Just to clarify my idea above, I think you can help identify or creat a sub category that would encompass fashion brands (rather than fashion designers). There are lots of clothing brands that are not named after designers - what do we do with brands like Levis, or Wonderbra, or the Gap. While Fashion is often associated with "couture", we should lose sight of many brands. There is a category called "Clothing Brands" which might be a catch-all (and should be included as a fashion sub group), but I suspect that's almost a cluttered as the Fashion Category became. Don't envy your project, but good luck. Mattnad 22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan, re: External links to youtube - it was brought up and discussed at length during the FAC process. SandyGeorgia and I also had a nice long discussion about it off stage on her talk page. WP:EL guidelines require us to avoid linking to known copyright violations. An expectation for anyone to proactively prove content on other sites is used with permission, fair use, or public domain goes well beyond the guidelines. Given that these external links add a lot to the article, I would expect that anyone calling for the removal should demonstrate actual, rather than assumed copyvio. Of course, all of this is pretty theoretical. Out of curiosity, I had a media lawyer friend look into the the status of those commercials. They are probably public domain in the US but that really is moot since the commercials are not hosted on Wikipedia servers. Regards. Mattnad 11:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nominating Wonderbra for Main Page: I wasn't sure if that's a bit too self-serving and/or indulgent. Might work better if someone else does it. Would you or perhaps Jen be a better person for nomination or is it usually a main contributor who does it? I don't mind the risk of vandalism - it's easy enough to fix. Mattnad 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the willingness to nominate. The latest date is fine. The article has been very stable for weeks. Mattnad

The Lovely Bones

Thank you, Daniel, I appreciate the fact that you don't think I'm infiltrating your playground. I agree that there's so much info already in the article, it just needs formatting and clean-up. Definitely jump in if you have the time! I'm also considering nominating it for collaboration as well as getting a few more wp:novel people involved, so hopefully it will be up to par in short time. María: (habla conmigo) 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, man, hold your horses and have some faith. I like taking some time with my edits, and I wasn't done with the plot summary, or the intro, or any of it. The intro is shorter than it should be for the time being, and the plot was still overly long before you got to it, but I did not intend to go at the article in one, clean sweep. I'm sorry if you thought that's what I meant to do. It's far too big of a job and a girl has to sleep sometime, you know. So my point is relax, okay? We'll get this taken care of. María: (habla conmigo) 12:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

On a more detailed note, the 451 irks me the same as the comparison to Ordinary People and The Ice Storm. Although I have read all three of the novels and agree that there are similarities, these claims are merely just observation. There is always some debate, in any kind of media, whether it be movie, show, or book, if these observations are OR or not. I tend to lean towards yes, because if the door is opened to one or two baseless comparisons (meaning that the writer/publisher/etc hasn't stated whether the comparison was intentional), any other comparison is fair game. I see similarities between Bones and an episode of House, but I wouldn't want to add it. I think we can simplify the novel's unifying themes, therefore not putting emphasis on one work or another, so as not to make it seem like OR. I agree with sticking it in the references to other works section, like you said, as long as we have a source. As for the trivia, I want to move the remaining few bits into prose (probably inspiration). Trivia sections make me shudder.

As for the intro, I agree with you completely. I wanted to break it down to the bear bones and work on it from there, but I like your addition. Again, to reiterate what I said above, I wasn't going to leave it like that. I've long assumed that a trustworthy editor is one who has longevity, yeah?  :) María: (habla conmigo) 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No kidding about the lack of time *smiles*. I do agree about obvious observation and OR, and how muddled it can become. We're having a hell of a time over at 300 (film) with that very issue, and since I've become involved, I've rather turned into a zombie, sensing "it would seem"s and "it is obvious what is intended is"s and smoting them. I think Bones has some fantastic detail in its material, and I'm sure that a majority of it can be referenced. When I'm done doing a preliminary clean-up, I'll go on a bender and see if I can dig up any more reliable reviews and/or interviews. I'll let you know if I find anything of interest. María: (habla conmigo) 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the thumbs up! I also agree about the film release date; PJ's going to have to work like a madman to even have it released in 2008, I think, if all he has is a start on the script. As for the heaven quote, I quite like it, as well. I thought it important to point out the fact that the book isn't religious, though some may think it is simply because it features a girl's idea of heaven. Anyway, I think the article is looking much better, and I'm still on the look-out for other sources, but I'll take a break from it for now and give others a chance to step in if they'd like. All the best, María (habla conmigo) 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 5

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 5	5-8 April 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news Good and Featured Articles are promoted Deletion debates Interstate 238 revert war Featured subproject IRC discussion comes to light Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — V60(Bot?) ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · 啤酒？} 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

North Mountain

I didn't know what template to use. Apologies, and thank you for your help! Arthmelow 15:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sartorialist

Hi Daniel,

The Sartorialist has also been mentioned in The Wall Street Journal and UK Daily Mail that I know of, and may have been mentioned elsewhere as well.

He's definitely one of the few fashion bloggers I'd nominate as notable enough for his own page. Manolo the Shoeblogger is another I'd consider.

I hope this helps, and I apologise for the delay in getting back to you!

Sara.g.goldstein 06:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Fashion importance

Hello Mr Daniel Case,

I modified the importance tag (notability) of about half a dozen articles within the scope of WP:Fashion (namely John Galliano, Cristobal Balenciaga, Albert Elbaz, Comme Des Garcons, Thierry Mugler & Morgane Dubled(which I added to the project alltogether)), I wanted to get back to you now as it seems as though the page for this isnt generated automatically but by hand (or am I mistaken?). Thus I wanted you to know before I decide to go any further.

Thanks for your time.Thiste 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok so in any case you mean it's ok for me to go on clarifying some more tags without worrying about the quality graph as it'll probably update itself sooner or later (I wouldn't consider trying to change it manually anyways).

I'd be willing to help some on the WP:Fashion, mainly to upgrade the quality of articles about fashion people (ie. models and designers). Seems like you're the main person to talk to as you seem a lot more active than Calliopejen. If you need anything particular I'd be happy to hear about it, even if i'm not that active it's still better than nothing. If you DON'T have anything particular though, I might want to talk to you first about the classification of models as it seems to me extremely hasardeous for the moment.

For instance, in the category French models (I'm french), you can see such different people as a high fashion top model, a male actor and a porno actress. Actually it's mostly a collection of various french actresses to be honest, who must have done some modeling in their youth or maybe a cosmetic contract which to me doesnt qualify them as models.

It would be nice to create a better classification.Thiste 14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be mistaken, I'm not trying to minimize Jen's contribution, I was just stating that you seem to be the most active right now.

The French models category was just an example, I chose this one because I'm french but I'm completely aware that this problem is general within the models categories. What I was talking about is not a better selection of people, but more of a make over of the category system. For instance, I'm not convinced the "by nationality" categorisation is best suited for this industry in particular since it's so global. Let me explain. The point of categories is to help navigation by putting together people (or things) that have something in common. As we could see in my example, this is not satisfying for models right now. People are put together that share nothing and evolve in completely different worlds.

To me, nationality is relevant for say, actors or singers as they are generally reknown mostly in their own country, but I don't believe it is in fashion as it is so global of an industry and models from various countries are working and living together, traveling around the world for shoots and collections. It would make so much more sense to have categories like "fashion models", "glamour models" (girls of maxims, fhm...), "nude models", etc... at least they would be lists of people that have something in common. And if really needed, why not create an "actresses that have done modeling once" category or something of the sort.

But to me, we should only consider as models people for which modeling is/was the primary occupation or was the way they became famous. Otherwise, I'm quite certain that pretty much everyone in the entertainment industry could be considered a model one way or another.

Now for the fashion portal, I did work on it some time ago to improve it, as it seemed so creepy to me. I could get back to work on improving the look of it indeed, I'll probably leave the content to other people though.Thiste 16:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Hmm now that I think of it, maybe if I want to start a discussion on improving the categories system I'd be better off going straight to WT:FASH instead ? I think I'll do that.

CHICOTW

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you helped edit the Chicago COTW, but did not vote. Thank you for your help! Your input in future selections would also be appreciated. This week Chicago Landmark has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wintour GA nom

Thank you! I'm touched ... it's the second time that someone else has nominated an article I've done most of the work on for GA (the other was New Coke). Of course, I was grooming it for a nomination myself, so it wasn't totally out of the bluw, but it's nice that other people can see the hard work you did.

Most of what was suggested by User:Yannismarou in peer review has been addressed, so I would certainly consider it ready for consideration. I've been working on the Wikiquote page; I was going to start the GA after that. But having someone else make the nomination gives me a little more room to work on splitting up The Devil Wears Prada and prepping that for a GA nom.

Oh, wait a minute ... I did want to do a full copyedit from a printout that's been sitting atop my desk for a week or so. Better take care of that.

I will add a little note on the talk page to try and address some possible concerns a GA reviewer might have (something I would have done anyway).

Once again, thanks! This will be a good thing for the new fashion project. Daniel Case 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an impressive article, and I'm no stranger to WP:GAC :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there's about a 1-month backlog on GAC, so it might be a long time before someone comes around to see your article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada under LGBT

"Whether to tag or not?" is something we're constantly working on at the Wikiproject. I just saw the movie for the first time yesterday - hence the reason I looked it up on the Wiki. I was surprised to see the section on "Nigel's gayness" (odd phrasing) and thought it should be tagged for now. Perhaps there's a better way (or place) in which to compare the book and the movie. Depending on what happens with that section, the tag may not be needed. Guess I was being a bit preemptive - the idea being to place the tag now, sort out how the "gayness" is being dealt with, then reevaluate the tag's appropriateness. ZueJay (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I was just going to change things around such that we dump our project tag and add instead Category:LGBT-related films. I think this is the more prudent course of action, especially after reading this discussion. That should be adequate so that we remember to keep tabs on it without claiming so much involvement, which the Project has not had. You know, I think I'll still do that. Thanks for calling me on this, though. It certainly will make me consider more of my options before straight-up placing the tag on an article. ZueJay (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill Blass' Picture

I'd like to have your take on Bill Blass' picture since I kind of fail to see which aspect of it makes it fair use. Now, don't mind me, my point is not to have it removed but on the contrary, to upload more images with this kind of fair use if it's one I'm not aware of. Thanks for your time. Thiste 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I know it's fair use, I'm asking what makes it fair use ? is it some sort of cover art ? is it promotional ? is it a publicity photo ? how do you know that ? Because otherwise, I must say I fail to see the difference between a picture we can use as fair use and one we cannot. Thiste 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you mean that we can use whatever pics we want to when it's about dead people, under the fair use tag... nice enough, I wasn't aware of that one. Thanks! Thiste 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cormac McCarthy Photo

Thanks for the note on there, it took me alot of work e-mailing his publishers to even get the photo. LilDice 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRD, list of store locations

I don't know if you're aware, but WP:BRD is a way to prevent edit warring. I really don't see why you made this change when I brought it up on the talk page, but if I revert it then I'm using the {{content}} template as well. These lists are also a problem for me too, but I don't think getting rid of them is the answer. I suggest marking them as {{list to prose (section)}} if that is what you think. See Target Corporation#History for an example, although I wouldn't consider it done. I am looking forward to finding a common solution on this. Tuxide 04:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed you've been adding the WP:RETAIL template as well to talk pages :-) In the Target Corporation article, in some places an accompanying table would be better (like a list of years followed by unit count and total sales). I'll add a link to WP:FASHION on the front page with the other related WikiProjects. It is WP:DEADMALLS (now known as WP:SHOP) that have been maintaining these lists, although I don't know where they get their information from. WP:V might be a valid argument, but I don't think WP:NOT is, because of that one sentence in WP:ORG. Cheers, Tuxide 04:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for bothering you with my ignorance, but what is Chuck Cunningham Syndrome? Looks like it has to do with a Happy Days character, but I can't figure it out. If you could, would you mind the others who voted keep? I don't think many of them are out of high school (or even middle school) yet; thus they might not be able to fully appreciate the history of retailing, or even the diversity of Wikipedia as much as us. It seems most featured articles on Wikipedia are about things or events, and many featured lists and tables are about sports events or discography or tv show episodes. I'll put WP:FASHION on my list of things to add to my next newsletter (another really long list), but it's dead week for me now and I'm busy finishing up my bachelors degree. Regards, Tuxide 06:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah...thanks :-) I left a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Retailing#WikiProject Fashion if you want to read it. Tuxide 02:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 6

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 6	21 April 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: Project news Canada highway WikiProjects deleted Deletion debates Featured member From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reassess fashion article please

I tagged Pleat as start-class yesterday but I have considerably expanded it today - could you take a look and determine if we can move it up a class? Might also be good fodder for DYK but I don't know how to do that. Thanks so much. - PKM 20:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MacKenzieHeartsu.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MacKenzieHeartsu.jpg. 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.

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 fair use images 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. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:USERFY

Hi Daniel. Regarding your lists up for AfD, you may want to read WP:USERFY which explains how to request copies of material that is/will be deleted. -- Jreferee 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"lingerie navbox"

I know it's serious but I couldn't help laughing. -Will Beback · † · 05:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In the old days people organized their sock drawers. Now we install hosiery navbox templates. Anyway, thatnks for taking on that project. -Will Beback · † · 06:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Uploading to the Commons

Could you please upload your pics to the Commons? These pictures are great, and can be used on any Wikimedia wiki when needed, including the Chinese Wikipedia. V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3} 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fashion Project

Okay that's no problem. I wasn't sure which articles should be tagged, but it's better to tag than leave orphaned. I have however tagges some really important fashion articles, so I am doing some good! Many thanks, keep up the good fashion work :). Eagle Owl 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

South Blooming Grove

Well, gee, since you're the expert, why don't you just create the page yourself? (And for someone who's supposedly a devotee of WP:BITE, you forgot the part written in boldface: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism.)

Food for thought. RMc 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no hostility or elitism intended in my response (and you've been here long enough to no longer be considered a newcomer in any event).

Amazing...the man is hostile and elitist while insisting he's not hostile and elitist.

I was trying to help you avoid getting in trouble for edit warring (I see you've done it before, though [1][2]) by proposing a solution.

If you're referring to the Philadelphia TV station hassle, that was a case of a user defending his precious Wiki page against all interlopers, and having his admin buddies back him up. I've since learned you can't fight Wiki Hall.

I would refer you again to WP:CIV, but again it seems you've had problems with this before, to the point of having been bloagain without hesitation, and given that record you could easily be blocked again, this time for longer (Keep handling disputes this way and one of these days someone will take you to a Request For Comment, and you won't look good. Just a word to the wise).

Spare me the threats, OK, pal? (And what the hell does "bloagain" mean?)

To return to the matter at hand: what was VerruckteDan supposed to go by in accepting the change. Your say-so in an edit summary? You know, or should know at this point, that we don't do things that way.

I'm only too aware how Wiki does things. Look, do whatever you want to the template. I'm sick of these petty disputes with self-important nerds. RMc 09:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear you can't and don't want to get along with anyone here.

Oh, come on. The only person I didn't get along with was Rollosmokes, and if you read his discussion page, you'll see I'm far from the only one.

And I get completely unprovoked personal attacks in response

I'm attacking you? Too funny. Look up the word "projection" next time you get a chance, OK, Danny?

But do me a favor and leave me alone

Done. RMc 13:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just noticed your edit on WT:RETAIL. It's finals week for me, and I might have time to do something going into the summer. Some of us are also members of WP:BIZE; it may be appropriate to tag talk pages of public companies (such as Talk:Gap (clothing)) with both templates. Regards, Tuxide 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Probably when it becomes as big as Target Corporation—whose main retailing subsidiary is called Target Stores, Inc. I'm not aware of what all subsidiaries Gap has. The article needs cleaning up and expanding anyways. Tuxide 06:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Or rather this is a more interesting list :-) Tuxide 06:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 7

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 7	5 May 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news April 27 IRC meeting California Deletion debates MacArthur Maze Fire Illinois Featured member Circular route shields Pennsylvania From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me

Title tells all. RMc 15:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Child (magazine), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dedicated Follower Of Fashion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill

DSLR shot

Thanks for the good words, Daniel. I'm trying to update many of the New York shots I took last summer/fall - I have a DSLR now that takes some pretty great shots. I like your subway shot - great colors! As you probably know, the XYZ buildings are difficult to shoot. I'd like to get a good vantage point like I did with the GE Building, but they are too encased by other towers, few (if any) with public access. --David Shankbone 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Kramer

I'd prefer you didn't crop the one with Tiger (his dog) because it's his favorite. A better idea may be for your to review the shots here (don't use the older ones that I took with my non-DSLR, which are obvious with their fuzziness) and put the Tiger photo under the "Relationship with Brother" section. Here's a link to the Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Larry_Kramer --David Shankbone 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I understand people can do what they want, as can you. That's why I said "prefer" - all my images are there to be used how people see fit, cropped, etc. I fully understand I've relinquished control; more so, I think there are better images on the Commons to crop than the one with the dog (as I'm sure you'll agree). I personally wouldn't have cropped my Tobey Maguire, but whattaamigonnado? Have fun. --David Shankbone 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Anglican primates

[2] made me grin. Som people would suggest that the hunt for Anglican vertebrates would not be satisfied by meeting Rowan Williams. ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I came here just to tell you how funny that was too... I bet the Anglican arthropods are cute in their little multi-legged vestments. :) Pinball22 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wintour

I don't personally think that such quotes are always bad, but too many of them make the article confusing. For example instead of saying: "Anna is a liberal," says Amiel. "She endorsed Al Gore in his presidential bid". You might say: Anna is known to be a liberal and endorsed Al Gore's presidential bid. It's more smooth, and you have a source without saying who it is and confusing the reader. Once the prose is fixed though, I will switly pass the article, as it fulfills all the other criteria of a Good Article. Zeus1234 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a few more suggestions to the talk page on how to shorten & and clarify the article. Zeus1234 20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks much better now. There is just one last thing that should be done before the article is passed. The new Devil Wears Prada section has no context. You should move the sentance that describes the book as a roman a clef from the other criticism section into the new Devil dection so as to provide an introduction and context. After that is done, I will pass the article. Zeus1234 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I passed the article. Congratulations, and good work. Zeus1234 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Block booking

Great comments. Thanks. I created the article because the term was popping up in a lot of larger pieces I and others were writing, and I wanted people to understand what the term meant and the basics of its history. When I (or anyone else) gets around to fleshing it out, your comments will provide an excellent guideline. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Snickelways of York

Thanks for reviewing this article. I know it isn't perfect, but I was hoping that by nominating it for GA status, it would prompt other editors to improve it. As it is, I'm the only significant editor. I've done what I can, but without additional reference material there's not a lot more I can do. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a wikiproject that's specific enough. WP:CITY is the only one, and that seems to be too broad, and America-centric anyway. Ho hum. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Snowshoer with perching bird.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Snowshoer with perching bird.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Not a dog 23:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Kramer clean-up

Oh, Daniel, if you had seen some of the late-night edits I'd made, you would have recommended me for blocking long, long ago. Your minor "wrong pet name" was nothing. --David Shankbone 23:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Metro-North station.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Salisbury Mills-Cornwall Metro-North station.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

From Turtlepace

(moved from top of page)

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for your comment on my snowshoe Flickr Photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/turtlepace/88279365/ Sorry, I globally changed all my licenses to "all rights reserved" as a great many of my photos ended up at a commercial stock photographer and I just didn't want to take any chances, see my photos take n without my permission. Obviously, I have found that you had used the photo and I was fine with that. I changed the license for the photo in question to Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License I hope this is what you need to make the use legal.

Cheers

Turtlepace

Prada as LGBT

Thanks for the heads-up; I was just doing some menial tagging for the Project from an automated list of LGBT articles without the Project tag. As far as I know, if it's tagged LGBT in some way it should be part of the Project. But as there seems to have been some discussion about this particular article, I'm going to bring it up on the Project Talk page. Feel free to remove the tag if you wish, it can always be re-added or removed once any discussion conclude. thanks again. TAnthony 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wintour A-Class

Oh, I hadn't noticed that either. But we've set up an A-Class Review department since then, because a study revealed that 80% of all Biography articles rated A-Class were really no better than B-Class or even Start-Class. I quick-failed the articles with copyright problems, no references or no images and we're now in the process of reevaluating every A-Class Biography article on content.

I check the logs of the Bioproject to see what articles got removed or got upgraded to A-Class. I took a quick look at the article and couldn't find any obvious reason why it should fail A-Class, so it now needs a content review to be confirmed for A-Class. And I hope this will be successful, because we've already had a 50% drop in the number of A-Class articles, and we've only done the core biographies so far (1 approved; 5 failed; 1 pending) and a couple of requests (3 approved; 7 failed). Errabee 13:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Burnham Park GA on hold

I believe we have done what we can. I can not find the prior name of the park at this time. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I was confused on what part of the article he had corrected for tense and did not check those parts after briefly scanning the composite diff. I think I have corrected the rest of what was a problem. As far as the citation goes I have now taken one paragraph with one citation and turned it into 3 paragraphs with 4 citation, which I thought was approximately what was instructed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 8

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 8	19 May 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news USRD members assist Canada project California Deletion debates Two debates at USRD Illinois Featured member A new GA Oklahoma From the editors Pennsylvania From the editors Washington
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —VshBot (t • c) 19:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You're invited!

Great work on "The Miracle at the Meadowlands" btw. Quadzilla99 14:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your adding your comment to the discussion of Image talk:Lastking1.jpg. I am rather frustrated. I just got GA status for the Forest Whitaker article (my first!) and the only comment the reviewer made was that it would be better to have a screenshot than the poster art for the film. He did not suggest that using the poster was a fair use violation. A couple of days later, someone came along and deleted the poster image for that very reason. So I found a screenshot (or a publicity shot, depending on who you ask), and now I am getting jerked around about it. So, again, I really appreciate your weighing in and supporting my position on the matter.--Vbd (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Alexander Thompson House.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Alexander Thompson House.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Alexander Thompson House.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Alexander Thompson House.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Adirondack Park Areas

Thanks for your help and useful feedback. I'm looking forward to fleshing out these articles and contributing more over time. The Long Path article is indeed excellent. Ari 11:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to rename the Adirondack State Park to Adirondack Park and Catskill Park to Catskill Park as you suggested. The request for this to be done has been on the Adirondack Park talk page for a month now. Ari Epstein 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cannon operation

Thanks for reviewing the article. I have addressed a lot of the concerns, although obviously there is much more to do. Would you mind commenting on the article's present state? --Grimhelm 14:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: LE Scope

Dont worry about it, easy mistake to make!

Regards and happy editing!

Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Royal_Canadian_Air_Cadets

FYI: Flying section updated. Sancho 22:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any advice for improving this to becoming a featured article? Sancho 09:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found some nice advice pages. I can read those. Sancho 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status

From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Masha Allen

Seeing as lawyers are involved at this point, a deletion review would be inappropriate. Take the case directly to the Foundation or arbcom at this point please. Phil Sandifer 22:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please trust me that the article was removed in good faith, and out of concern for the subject, and the arbcom has been kept appraised throughout. Especially now that lawyers are involved, this is not something that should go through DRV. I promise, my interest in this is entirely concern for Ms. Allen and concern for what happens when you Google her name, since the Wikipedia article is the first hit. I have no doubt that the situation can be resolved satisfactorily, but it should be done through the Foundation or Arbcom so as to make sure that happens. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could believe you, but looking through the mailing list archives and your archived user pages it seems like you and policy have a difficult relationship and some other admins don't seem to think you should have the mop. I tend to agree with them so far. If you want it to go through the ArbCom it will, though I can only speak for myself.

And who are we to talk about privacy when we published the name of Michael Jackson's accuser (since it was already freely used in foreign newspapers? Also, I seem to recall that article mainly discussed the public aspects of Masha's life, not anything really private other than details of her life with Mancuso that have already been made public?

And since Mr. Mancuso's lawyers aren't involved, I imagine that article can be discussed at deletion review. Daniel Case 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Donatella Versace

As one of the members of the FashionWiki Project I thought I'd come to you. I was recently looking at Donatella Versace and noticed that the article had become increasingly shorter since the last time I viewed the page. I then realised that it lots of information had been deleted for no apparant reason so I reverted to the last version I could find that wasn't vandalised and had all of the information. I think I've done the right thing but I just thought I'd inform you, incase you'd like to check. Hope the project is going well. Regards. Eagle Owl 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Albany Times-Union.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Albany Times-Union.jpg. 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.

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 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 19:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AT&T Corporate Center GA

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Site A is the current Chicago COTW You were a contributing editor to AT&T Corporate Center during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
Editorial contributors: ChicagoPimp, TonyTheTiger, (Daniel Case, Korg, Madman2001, MisfitToys)
	Good Article

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Karmichael Hunt

Could you peer review Karmichael Hunt. That would be much appreciated.

Article:Karmichael Hunt
Peer Review:Wikipedia:Peer review/Karmichael Hunt

Thanks

SpecialWindler 07:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crowley Foods logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Crowley Foods logo.png. 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 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 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 23:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sergio_Zyman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sergio_Zyman.jpg. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

landmark vs historic place

thanks for double checking the batch of edits I did yesterday. Sorry I got some of them backwards (eg: claremont stables) dm 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kaaterskill Falls novel cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kaaterskill Falls novel cover.jpg. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 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 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 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kaaterskill Falls cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kaaterskill Falls cover.jpg. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 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 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 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NYCDEP logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:NYCDEP logo.png. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 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 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 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:NY Waterway logo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:NY Waterway logo.gif. 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. 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 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 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lauren Weisberger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lauren Weisberger.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. ShadowHalo 06:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hunter Mountain logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hunter Mountain logo.png. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 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 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 03:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Pajamas Media logo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Pajamas Media logo.gif. 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. 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 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 05:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ordinary People cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ordinary People cover.jpg. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 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 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 05:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Orange County Choppers logo.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Orange County Choppers logo.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. 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 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 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Times Herald Record cover 2005-10-03.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Times Herald Record cover 2005-10-03.jpg. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 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 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 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:ShopRiteLogo.JPG

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ShopRiteLogo.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. 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 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 11:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

Dear Daniel Case,

You have either attended or expressed interested in the previous NYC Meetup. I would like to invite you to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)