User talk:GearedBull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please click here to leave me a message.

Contents

Typeface categorization[edit]

Thanks for catching my error with Korinna. I'm not sure why I did that. There are so many articles to deal with I don't remember exactly why I put that one there. If I did it by mistake, I apologize. Looking at it now, it clearly isn't modern. However, it doesn't strike me as a slab either. As for Bell, it shares some features of transitionals, so I felt it was ok (plus there was a source, maybe not a good source, but a source that states the face is less severe than the French models and is now classified as Transitional[1]). The beauty of categories is we don't have to make a typeface fit into a single category. Anyway, any help and input on categorizing typeface articles is great. Thanks very much for contacting me. So, do you think organizing typefaces by foundry is a bad idea? I was thinking that having a category for designer if notable, (say a Matthew Carter or Eric Gill or Hermann Zapf), a category or two for style, a category for date, if applicable, and a foundry or two would be a very solid categorization scheme. I understand that foundry can get real messy, but if we keep a strict hold on things, just focusing on for who the typeface was originally created (or revived), I believe categorizing by foundry can be helpful. However, do you think I should stop and we should delete all those by foundry cats? I think it is of particular interest to list say all the Emigre typefaces together, but as I said, it can get messier with older faces.-Andrew c 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More typeface stuff[edit]

I guess we should have coordinated our classification efforts a little better on the the typeface font. I realized this after I created Category:Incised typefaces and then, only after the fact, realized you had previously created Category:Glyphic serif typefaces. I thought that this grouping could contain serif and sans-serif faces (for example, Trajan vs. Lithos), and because we didn't have an over abundance of incised typefaces, that we could just group them together. So which category should we keep? I'd be happy to speedy delete mine if you feel that is best. If that happened, would we also create Category:IGlyphic sans-serif typefaces? I personally feel we should just group the two together, but also put them in the general serif or sans-serif category as well. Next, I noticed you added two classification of sans-serif faces. Good work with that. The names scheme are different from mine, so do you think we should CfD rename the serif categories so that they all contain the word "serif" in the category? For example Category:Old style typefaces would become Category:Old style serif typefaces. I really am torn on this, because it seems redundant to my ears that an old style face would be serif. However, it may be easier for someone unfamiliar with type classifications if we mention whether the sub cat is serif or san serif (of course, we wouldn't have to rename slab-serif). Anyway, just my thoughts. Do you have any further ideas or concerns with the categorization project we have begun to undertake?

Finally, would could you mind please speedy tagging Category:Humanist sans-serif? Thanks for your good work!-Andrew c 15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the classification, as noted above, I have asked to rename the cats I created. I made a mistake and did not remember the exact name of the glyphic/incised category that you created, mentioned above. As for the 3rd category of sans-serif, the one listed in a few of my sources is Grotesque, so we can have Category:Grotesque sans-serif typefaces to house Helvetica, Univers, Arial, Akzidenz Grotesk, etc. I'll get on that now and start going through the sans-serifs to add classification and foundries. -Andrew c 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Folio thanks + Barnstar[edit]

Thanks for adding an image to Folio. I was going to do it later this weekend, but you beat me to it;) Also thanks for expanding the info. My intention was to go through the Meggs/Carter book and make sure we had an article on all 25 'great' typefaces, and Folio was the first one I came upon. Any word on the multiple specimen image issue? Thanks again for all your great work.-Andrew c 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GDBarnstar1.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your excellent work in creating typeface articles and type specimen images. Andrew c 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the reply. As my user page states, I have a BFA from VCU :) I studied under some great people. Too bad I'm not a 'professional' graphic designer (yet?).-Andrew c 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Maple Syrup Curtain[edit]

Thanks. After Chester Arthur and Calvin Coolidge, I am afraid that there will never again be a Vermont running mate for any presidential candidate. That's why Cato closed each speech with "Vermont delenda est" Mandsford 17:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

SPQV[edit]

Ah, and don't forget the German rallying cry, "Grünberg, Grünberg, über alles".Mandsford 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Type specimen template?[edit]

I really like your type specimens. There are a couple of faces that don't have them yet, and I'd be happy to do them myself, but I'd want them to be Exactly Like Yours. So do you have a template for them sitting somewhere where it's downloadable? And do you have any guidelines/rationale for picking certain colors and certain example words for each face?

Thanks for humoring my anality. SFT | Talk 12:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Confound it, I'm an InDesign user. :) Ah well, I can do them in from scratch in Illustrator. (I've had bad experiences exporting to EPS from my version of InDesign.)
But yeah, I'll take those guidelines if they exist. :) SFT | Talk 12:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. — Yep, it's a Music Man reference (or at least a 76 Trombones reference, as I've never actually seen The Music Man). I'm next-to-last chair in the big parade. XD SFT | Talk 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do use Quark, and I'd be grateful if you could send me the template. There are actually MANY typefaces that don't have specimens yet. I'd like to help with that. -- Evertype· 11:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Flag of the Confederate State of Vermont.gif This user thinks this would make an appropriate flag for the so-called Second Vermont Republic.
Hi, I'm a CS3 Master Collection user. I have both InDesign and Illustrator. I too would really appreciate such a template. Thanks, Rbpolsen♦ 18:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ranging figures @ Architype Renner[edit]

You undid my edit, saying “they are different name for the same thing.” I was very careful to check the definitions before I made my edit: ranging is synonymous with lining, according to (1) Bringhurst, § 3.2.1, and (2) the first paragraph at Text figures. Also, although the image at Architype Renner shows only the text figures, both sets of figures are indeed included. The only small assumption I made in my edit was that both sets were actually designed by Renner, which was the whole purpose of the font package. Please undo your edit unless you have evidence to the contrary. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark R Johnson (talkcontribs) 05:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I’m a noob to User talk. Is it usual to leave replies at each other’s talk page, where the thread can’t be read all in one place? I replied to your reply on my talk page. Cheers. MJ (tc) 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello? I replied to you 2 days ago, and when I didn’t hear anything yesterday returned here to alert you. I see you’re busily working on other pages today. Am I supposed to start yet another section on this page just to get your attention? If I get no response today I will revert your edit. Please let me know the normal protocol, thanks. MJ (tc) 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I got tired of waiting. I reworded the sentence to be inclusive again, this time avoiding the term. MJ (tc) 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


DidYKnow nomination[edit]

OK? Victuallers 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 9 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White House Chief Floral Designer, 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.

Cheers, Daniel 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review of Ralph Flanders[edit]

Dear GearedBull, I invite you and anyone that you feel would be a constructive reviewer in a peer review of Ralph Flanders at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ralph Flanders. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review for instructions. Sincerely, HopsonRoad 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nast porcelain[edit]

Many thanks GearedBull for the images uploaded in common. Thus the french WP looks as good as the english one ! Very nice to alert me, I appreciate. Take care.--LPLT (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I heard about this book but thanks for that link. It seems like an interesting topic. Who knows? Maybe it can help with some of the White House article's you've been working hard on? haha thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You know GearedBull, I've been looking over some of your recent edits and additions and I have been learning a lot from them. I had no idea there was a White House Chief Calligrapher but have always wondered how the invitations were made. And I see the Chief Florist has been around a while as well. The White House is a very interesting topic. Anyway I'd just like to express my thanks for your hard work and dedication.
Also, my daughter gave me the Entertaining at the White House with Nancy Reagan book for Christmas. I've been reading a little bit of it, and you'll like to know that it does not only discuss the White House during the Reagan years, as I originally thought. Rather, it starts back with John Adams and goes through different periods of specific aspects of the White House, mostly highlighting state dinners and formal events hosted by the Reagans. It's very interesting and if I find anything notable about state dinners or parts of the White House I'll be sure to let you know. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Nice work on Font[edit]

Good work, GearedBull. You're right, a short squib with some links is much better than a simple redirect to either Typeface or Computer font. -- TJRC (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Vermont Seal[edit]

Sorry about that - I didn't realize that the seal had no official color version. Thanks for the fix. -DevinCook (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for my late response, but I am not very active Wikipedian any more. Regarding the image of the seal - I don't have a clue who is the original author - I merely transferred the image from the site noted down in the description page. Feel free to remove it, if you find it misleading in any way. Regards, --Matijap (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Grand Staircase (White House)[edit]

Updated DYK query On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grand Staircase (White House), 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.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey great staricase article! Just wondering, is the Truman administration pic before of after the 1948 renovation? If it is you might want to state that in the caption. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hey, it's nice to know somebody has noticed the changes on that Vermont portal! I'm working on getting it up to Featured Portal stats, if you want to help out, go ahead! And don't forget, there is now a collaborators page if you want to help out. Good luck, and once again, thanks! Soxred93 | talk count bot 20:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Vermont coppers[edit]

Hi. I've nominated Vermont coppers, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on January 31, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, PFHLai (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, CApitol3. Thank you for adding in the footnotes. Happy editing! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 5 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vermont coppers, 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.

- P.K.Niyogi (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Vermont republic[edit]

Hello - I'm the editor (69.230.120.39) who added some citation requests to the Vermont Republic article, though I'm under a new address now. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but I do not share your view that asking for some citation on two important points is "neither helpful or assuming good faith". If it can't be supported, then that's a major problem, isn't it? You've added some references in response to my edits. You don't believe that that sets the article on a firmer basis?

My chief concern about this article is how anachronistic it seems. When I asked why Wikipedia is calling this the Vermont Republic even though it wasn't called that at the time, I didn't mean "Was this ever called the Vermont Republic prior to the internet?" I meant, "Why call it the Vermont Republic when the state itself never called it that at the time in question?" I'm not especially impressed that some writers generations removed from the period have published books claiming it as a republic. Some writers have attempted to revise Bacon's Rebellion into the "First War of American Independence". Doesn't make it so. Fred Van de Water, for example, was just a novelist who wrote history on the side, and I'd consider him hardly qualified to make such a judgment, if he did. Maybe the article should have a section on the historiography of the 1777-91 era, explaining how such judgments developed.

That the article makes enough admissions to allow me to ask such questions is a strength, to which I probably owe you credit. But I can't tell you I find its thrust wholly believable. I'd feel much more confidence in the POV if it cited prestige historians of American republicanism during that period like Bernard Bailyn or Gordon S. Wood, rather than amateur and local historians. 69.237.198.102 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello unregistered user at IP address 69.237.198.102. Thank you for your comments. Your points are well taken. I am not sure that the period of Vermont's independance has been written about by many beyond what you will describe as local historians. The subject is chiefly of concern to the continuingly small number of people who live or have lived at some point in the state or region. A fairly substantial number of twentieth century and contemporary writers, including Bill Doyle, John Duffy, Jan Albers, and a handful of contributors to the Vermont Historical Society's publications, most of them professors at the University of Vermont or the Vermont State Colleges, can be added to Orton and Van DeWater, as examples of writers using the term "Vermont Republic." None of these are misty-eyed mythologists or jokesters. No, they are not ivy leaguers, not all are primarily historians, but their common usage of the term Vermont Republic, to describe the state of Vermont between 1777 and 1791 seems to have emerged as a convention, and I do not see an attempt by any of them to suggest Vermont was ever more than an independant republic by default. In 1777, the United States as a federal union was a good dozen of years away. And, the Continental Congress included representatives of the two states Vermont had torn itself out of. Add to that, the preoccupation with American independance, and it seems easy to understand why Vermont was not hastily ushered in as a new member state. Under the Articles of Confederation, the national government was concerned with issues of debt, interstate tarrifs, national security, and the question of federalism, seemingly preoccupied, and constitutionally unclear what Vermont would be.
I mentioned before, that I had on the main Vermont page's discussion page raised the possibility of renaming the article Vermont (independant state), but feared I might be adding to the confusion, particularly with the Second Vermont Republic folks, and creating on Wikipedia something akin to new research. You question "why Wikipedia is calling this the Vermont Republic..." and I feel compelled to point out your participation might be what turn the article in another direction. I observe your issues are first nomenclature, and then citation, v. new research, mythology, or conjecture. I am curious whether, and how, Bailyn and Wood describe Vermont's status in those years.
I became interested in this article when I felt that it was being preened by editors with an agenda supporting the Second Vermont Republic as a sort of mythological nation with no intention of joining the Union. Vermont is my homestate, my family has farmed there since the late 18th century. While Vermonter's might pride themselves on being contrarians, and my older relatives might identify themselves as Vermonters first, they are not in any way seperatists. Most can't imagine a United States without Vermont, and many fancy their state as an important part of their country's history and a common sense check on its behavior. CApitol3 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
CApitol3 I suppose I can weigh in a bit here now that I've been reading Van de Water's Reluctant Republic. I was able to locate a first edition which gives a clear representation of what was first published. First, about Van de Water; he was a early 20th century journalist who retired early to Vermont, knew Kipling's estranged brother-in-law(? - not sure of the relation), wrote books on Kipling, Custer, Vermont. He did a great deal of research for the Reluctant Republic, using original source documents, but the book reeks of the journalistic style of the period. By that I mean, where no clear fact occurs Van de Water relies on conjecture to fill in the blanks. I'm not done with it yet but am well past the point of the creation of the independent State of Vermont. The is no reference to a republic other than Van de Water's own view of the matter. It is clear that inferences concerning the Haldiman Negotiations may have something to do with later thoughts that Vermont must surely have been a republic. These negotiations will need inclusion into the Vermont article since they clarify the balancing act that was going on regarding New York, the Western Union (that area west of today's border between VT & NY and the Glens Falls area) and the Eastern Union (the NH communities briefly admitted to Vermont, the independent state, before Congress indicated to Ira Allen that it would authorize an invasion of Vermont to settle the matter. I've found that the NY legislature had voted to recognize VT as early as 1781 but that was blocked by NY's then extremely powerful executive, Gov. Clinton, for the next ten years.
Missing from most of the pro-republic assertions is the fact that in June of 1775, Ethan Allen and Seth Warner, in Philadelpia, sought permission from the Continental Congress to create a ranger regiment for the Continental Army in the NH Grants called the Green Mountain Continental Rangers. The GMCR were recruited primarily from the existing elements of the Green Mountain Boys, and it was this organization that was created by Congress which also directed that Allen and Warner obtain funding from NY's Congress. The NY Congress authorized funding on July 4, 1775 for the regiment in the NH Grants. When Warner and Allen returned to Bennington they learned of Warner's election as colonel of the regiment. Allen received no position and was later attached to NY Gen. Philip Schuyler's staff. This material may be found in the Vermont Encyclopedia, some of which is online at Google Books. The pertinent section is found in the hard copy.
There seems to be some effort underway to create an impression of some greater separation between Vermont and the then Confederacy of States that pre-dated the US that there is little or no evidence for.
I'd raise a question over in the Vermont article last week and it now seems to be even more relevant as I learn more. Essentially it has to do with the name of the Vermont republic article itself. Is there some manner by which the more accurate title may by used while still protecting accessiblity to users looking up a modern colloquialism for the independent State of Vermont? Since the 2VTRep people appear to have specific political objectives that would benefit from some obfuscation of the true status of Vermont at that time, the confusion regarding the 2VTRepublic seems to be secondary to the encyclopedic requirements involved here. PeterInVT (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi PeterInVT. Your weigh-in was welcome. Are you the same person who had previously left me messages under IP addresses? I am not against there being an organization calling for separation having some voice, but the fact is that Second Vermont Republic is at most 5-10 people, with an axe to grind and near to zero public support. We have an interesting question as to what to call this period. As I see use of the term Vermont Republic (or republic) it is an attempt to identify that period under a name a bit separate from the State of Vermont which clearly evokes a U.S. state, which Vermont wasn't in 1777-'91. That period of independence, first chosen out of a desire not to answer to masters in NY and NH, and continuing independently because the Continental Convention did not immediately invite them in, remains an important part of the state's history and still independent and contrary culture.
Nearly all factions of the men forming Vermont sought, or supported others seeking, union with the other states. It's been better than 5 years since I have read the Reluctant Republic completely in consecutive order. I understand it to be a product of its time, and though not of first caliber largely accurate and not much wreckless conjecture. I didn't find it an enjoyable book so much as interesting. Jim CApitol3 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. No, I haven't participated in Wikipedia before, although it's been one of those things I've meant to do. I'd found an entry about an artist I know of and he seemed to be getting dragged into the 2VTRepublic thing against his will. I've tried to add some things that I could help with but I'd like to avoid that controversy, if possible. I quickly became aware that there are some contributors that appear to be advancing interests of the 2VTR group and are aggressive in doing so. My background is in research, but not the historic sort.

The matter did spark my curiosity. I even had one of those Vermont Republic plates issued by the VT DMV for the bicentennial, myself. While I could immediately find many references to a Vermont Republic, I didn't find what I would call compelling evidence for it as an official entity.

There is, however, much evidence concerning Vermont's early, continuing attempts to join the Confederacy of States, the chief obstacle for which appears to have been NY's Governor George Clinton. When I look at the machinations of the Arlington Junto, the Allen brothers and the subsequent secret negotiations with British commander-in-chief in Canada, Gen Frederick Haldiman, architect of the Arnold betrayal, it seems that this may be the genesis of Clinton's animus toward the Vermonters, but it would need a lot more work to find if it is a true factor.

The Reluctant Republic is bit of a slog. I probably shouldn't have started there but that seemed to be where the whole republic thing took off from so I thought I'd orient from that point.

It seems premature to make a change but it's looking more to me that the title for the article, Vermont Republic, should be changed to something that approximates the reality of that time, that of a state seeking admission to the Confederacy that had a military unit created by Congress, paid for by NY and comprised of Vermonters, in service to the Continental Army. If the military force had been hired, I could see maintaining the republic idea, but that wasn't what occurred. It was the Congress authorized Green Mountain Continental Rangers that fought at Hubbarton, Bennington and Saratoga, and, frankly, that was news to me. I'd always thought that it was the Vermont militia known as the Green Mountain Boys. It's why I'm inclined to think that something like the "independent State of Vermont" is a more accurate title, as well as being less involved in the present controversy and political effort.

I'm awaiting another text that should have more on this, probably early next week. If you have any suggestions regarding texts on the matter, I'd appreciate hearing them. Pete PeterInVT (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

VTcoppObverse.jpg
Hi Pete, this sounds good, I will think about what other texts you might consider reading. Have you read the catalog to the "Freedom and Unity" exhibition at the Vermont Historical Society's museum in the Pavilion in Montpelier? Another interesting text, though strange at times is Ira Allen's History of the State of Vermont which never uses the word republic! On that subject I would give weight to contemporary writers about Vermont, like John Duffy and William Doyle. Duffy uses the term Vermont Rpublic in his book Vermont an Illustrated History, and has a section titled "A Revolution, A Republic, and Statehood." I believe William Doyle's Vermont Political Tradition does too but I have loaned it out so can't verify just now. So here i guess my point is that it may be a de facto title based on contemporary usage, and could be explained as it presently is. Probably the closest we will find of the time using the word "Republic" is the obverse of the 1785 Vermont copper coins using the passage " VERMONTS. RES. PUBLICA.." Talk more later. Jim CApitol3 (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jim. I'm expecting the Allen history this weekend and have spoken to the VHS on a number of items. I'll look into the others. I'd also looked at res republica and that too doesn't seem to be quite the slam dunk that the name would suggest. Again, we seem to be dealing with a contemporary reading that does not allow for the true facts. It's loosely like using the 20ish year old license plate in my barn as evidence because it says "Republic."
My point about considering the title change is to not get into the contemporary argument but, rather, be neutral in a fact driven way. That would also seem to be a simpler method that doesn't contribute to an ongoing confusion, laced with political undertones, as it presently does.
I'd like to locate more on the Green Mountain Continental Rangers aspect before adding it to the article. I'm arranging a meeting with the curator at the VT National Guard exhibit at Fort Johnson but that won't likely be until late April but that has more to do with the flag history. I did get the '85 Crampton's Concise Encyclopedia of Flags & Coats of Arms cited in the flag of the Vermont Republic article and there is no such flag in it. In fact, there are no state flags at all.

Thanks for the suggestions. Pete PeterInVT (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, got my William Doyle (and a couple other) books back this morning. Doyle also uses the term Republic, and has a section called "The Republic Grows in Strength." (page 51) describing an interlude of peace and relative prosperity (mid 1780s). No question in my mind that they did not call it that in their time, and that from almost day one petitioned for admission to the United States under articles of confederation. Of course, the Roman Republic was not the official name of Rome in the republican period, but is how it is referred to, or Germany's period called the Weimar Republic, or Frances Second Republic, all describe a period not an official name of a nation. Weimar took its name from the small city where the constitution was written and ratified. Perhaps if Vermont's government had stayed put in Windsor it might have been called the Windsor Republic.
I agree that Res Publica is not a silver bullet of proof, where I have cited it I have mentioned that it could be rendered as commonwealth too. CApitol3 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Meeting House Article[edit]

Dear GerardBull --

I have an interest in creating an article on Colonial Meeting Houses, a subject I have been researching now for several years. In searching Wikipedia I found your article on Meeting Houses -- well done! I have more information that I've gathered, and was wondering if you had a preference whether I add to your article, or create my own under "Colonial Meeting House" and we can link to each other's articles. I'm a brand new contributor, so it may take me a while to figure out how to do either of these two alternatives. Paul wainwright photography (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC) (if I could figure out how to change this user name, I would) Altairisfar]]talk 23:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

TWW[edit]

Thanks for correcting the article name here. I had a total blind spot for "man"/"son", twice! –Outriggr § 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

And for adding links, etc. If you have sufficient interest in this area maybe you'd like to clear out the some of the writing that is unnecessarily detailed or hagiographic. –Outriggr § 23:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Meeting house article[edit]

Thanks. I have prepared a draft of what I had in mind and placed it here (a sub page of my user page):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paul_wainwright_photography/cmh

When I place it in the Wiki for public viewing (not sure how to do that yet), I will probably call it: Colonial meeting houses of New England . More photos will be added. Your thoughts are welcome.

And yes, I did visit the Colonial meeting house in Bellows Falls, VT, and there are photos of it on my web site.

Paul wainwright photography (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

North Lawn (White House), South Lawn (White House)[edit]

Updated DYK query On 16 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles North Lawn (White House), and South Lawn (White House), 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bluflogo.gif)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Bluflogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Further information: Wikipedia:Picture tutorial

The following general guidelines should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise.

  • Start an article with a right-aligned image.
  • Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (Example: Timpani).
  • Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
  • Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. (Example: Race (classification of human beings)).

**Exception: Portraits with the head looking to the reader's right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) Rotational (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Interested in White House stereographs[edit]

Hello, GearedBull. You seem to have a good source for (or perhaps you are the source for) early stereographs about the White House. I'd like to discuss at your convenience. Thanks.

Jim jimgATSIGNcockeyedcreations.com Cockeyed (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:AlduSpec.svg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:AlduSpec.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:AlduSpec.svg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kelly hi! 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

White House stereograph views.[edit]

Hello, Jim.

Thanks for your response...wherever it is. I am new to the contributor areas of Wikipedia, and find it very confusing. I don't know how to find "the discussion page" to which you refer. There are two links in your post here, but neither of them take me to anything about White House stereographs.

Today, while visiting Wikipedia, I found a link to a message from you. In its entirety, it reads: "Hi Jim, I am responding to your question about White House stereograph views." This is, technically, a response, but isn't very helpful. I suspect that somewhere else you have posted a fuller response. I just don't know how to find it.

--Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockeyed (talkcontribs) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

White House Stereographs[edit]

Hello, Jim-- Thanks for your response on my "talk" page giving details about your collection. I have a collection myself. I also make modern stereographs, and publish sets of stereoviews (both vintage and modern). Check out www.cockeyedcreations.com.

I am working on a set of vintage White House views. I have, or have found access to, several good ones, and am waiting to hear from my client about what they have in their archives. In the meantime I am looking around to see what is out there. We are looking in particular for shots that include people, events--something of a story, as opposed to just a shot of an empty room. Also, perhaps, early views that show differences between how it looked then and now.

If you have unusual views of this nature, would you be willing to scan them for inclusion in such a work?

Cheers, --Jim Cockeyed (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding learning more about the Club of Odd Volumes[edit]

Greetings!

My name is John O'Brien. I came across your user account when viewing the discussion pages for the Club of Odd Volumes entry on Wikipedia.

As a member of the publishing Industry here in Boston, I would love to learn more about the Club of Odd Volumes. I have an interest in letter press and am something of a bibliophile, and would be keen to meet others with similar interests.

My email address is john.obrien@gmail.com. Would it be possible for me to ask you a few questions about the Club of Odd Volumes?

Regards,

John O'Brien


Johnobrien10 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

White House[edit]

Thank you for reverting my edits. I had noticed that the image's license was invalid after I had already placed it in the article, and nevertheless, I was tired and forced myself to go to bed. I didn't have time this morning to revert.... I just wanted to let you know I was aware that they were the magazine's credits and not that of the federal government. Thanks again. United Statesman (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Input request on typographic topic[edit]

There is a discussion going on at Template talk:Typography terms, and I've seen you editing typographic articles in the past and would request more opinions there. The topic is related to type classifications, and specifically Gaelic script. If you could take the time to review the discussion and add your thoughts, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:SyntaxAIB.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SyntaxAIB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. JaGatalk 20:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: White House Template[edit]

Thank you for the kind words. I was surprised to see that no one beat me to it. It always seems someone already completes my ideas first:). Do you think it needs anything or has too much stuff? I kinda shot from the hip. But thanks anyways, PGPirate 00:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Victorian Gothic[edit]

Hi. I landed on Victorian Gothic recently from All Saints, Margaret Street, and was wondering how you might envision the article progressing? The Gothic Revival is quite established now and Victorian Gothic has just under 100 links whereas Gothic Revival has over 500. Do you think that a merge with Gothic Revival might be appropriate (I notice it was originally a redirect, but you added content - hence my post)? I'm a little confused about the content of the article, which you might be able to help me with. On the one hand we are told Victorian Gothic is an anglocentric term for Gothic Revival - I'm not sure about that, in the UK, Gothic Revival is used in most academic texts - although modern parlance probably does reference Victorian Gothic admittedly. Also, the first sentence tells us the movement was from the middle to the end of the 19th century, but the next sentence tells us the term is anglocentric because the style was used both before and after her reign - that seems like a non-sequitur - how does the inaccuracy of the term's dating make the term anglocentric? Do you mean there are examples of Gothic Revival architecture found before and after her reign (certainly true viz Strawberry Hill, Pugin, Liverpool Cathedral etc.) or do you mean there are examples in other countries found before and after her reign? Cheers. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Type specimen template (again)[edit]

Your type specimen templates are very nice indeed. I see from your note above that the files are in Quark; could you send me a copy so I could do up a few additional templates? Cheers, -- Evertype· 09:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Image permission problem with Image:GGCchristy.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:GGCchristy.jpg, which you've sourced to the White House, but this is a commissioned work by the Executive Office, not a work OF a member of the Executive Office. The artist retains the copyright and there is no evidence that those rights were terminated. Furthermore, there are many other free pictures from the White House that were created by Executive Office officials/employees. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — BQZip01 — talk 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Newovaloffice.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Newovaloffice.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:EntranceHall02.jpg[edit]

File:EntranceHall02.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Piano in Entrance Hall.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Piano in Entrance Hall.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

File:EntranceHallTRmmw.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Entrance Hall 1904.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
File:TrumanRcnstrctn71-277.jpg is now available as Commons:File:White-house-1950-interior-shell.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:WHgrandstair'46.jpg is now available as Commons:File:WHgrandstair'46.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:VermeilRoom 0861.jpg is now available as Commons:File:VermeilRoom 0861.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

File:CheltenhamSp.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:CheltenhamSp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

White House stereographs[edit]

Hi. There are a number of these, and they all say "stereograph" in the caption. But when you click on the image, you get taken to a single image and the link "stereograph" just goes to an article about stereographs. Unless people can get an actual stereo version of the image, then the stereograph reference should be removed from all the captions as it's confusing. Are there any stereo pairs uploaded somewhere? It would be neat to have a look at them. 219.89.98.127 (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Replying to the message you sent me: I get what you mean and I'm saying it seems pointless to mention it unless it has some value in the context it's in. I can't see any point in mentioning that the image is from a stereograph unless you are actually going to let them have access to one. Details of the White House may have some historical value, but any details of every image showing the White House seems too trivial. And in this case it is probably only of value to photographers, not people who are interested in the White House. Don't get me wrong, the images should stay, I'm just saying that any reference to them being a stereograph should be removed 219.89.98.127 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and what I'm saying is that the term doesn't add value. It's not relevant in this case as I don't think the information that it's a stereograph is something most people are interested in, just like most of images on this site with EXIF data don't mention any of that data in the caption, unless it happens to be some kind of photography related article. It would be a different case if the image did link to a stereograph, because then the link to the stereograph article would let people know what it was they were looking at if they didn't know what a stereograph was. But without an actual stereograph, in an article that isn't about stereographs, I don't see how it's relevant enough, not according to the guidelines. 219.89.98.127 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SMlogo.png)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:SMlogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

File:GreenMtBoys.jpg[edit]

The permissions attached to File:GreenMtBoys.jpg, which you uploaded to Commons, are being questioned in the featured article review of Capture of Fort Ticonderoga, where the image is used. If you could please comment on the review page, I'd appreciate it. (I'd hate to have to pull the image over copyright issues from this and other pages.) Thanks. Magic♪piano 14:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:MiddTownHall.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:MiddTownHall.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:MiddlesexTH.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:MiddlesexTH.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:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:ClintonMapRoom.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:ClintonMapRoom.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

White House floor plan images[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GearedBull. You have new messages at Sushiflinger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GearedBull. You have new messages at Sushiflinger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

notify[edit]

File:GGCchristy.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:GGCchristy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. — BQZip01 — talk 14:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:AwOc/WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia[edit]

Hi AwOc/WikiProject Check Wikipedia, when checking links on an article I recently began, John William Hill, I noticed a link to your page. I'm not very technical, I wonder if you can explain why the link? Thanks. Jim CApitol3 (talk)

actually it is the other way round: User_talk:AwOc/WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia is linking to John William Hill. that is because the WikiProject Check Wikipedia found an wrong ISBN checksum - actually i can't tell you which ISBN it is, because output has been limited to 50 errors on main project page and for all other pages there is only the name given--AwOc 14:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

SUL[edit]

you are able to create a SUL-account easily. just go to Special:MergeAccount, then you can edit signed in on every wikimedia-project --AwOc 00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of Cape Cod Modern House Trust[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Cape Cod Modern House Trust has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable organization, Google News search provides no returns, all ref in article are from a single issue of the New York Times

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RP459 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Invitation for the typeface collaboration[edit]

Crystal xedit.png
Requesting editors' help

There is currently an oppened collaboration which aims in improving articles related to typefaces and font categorization. If you´re interested in this subject, please visit the collaboration page, add your self and see how you can help.

I hope you can contribute in this section. Happy editings! - Damërung . -- 21:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:WHNorthPortico.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on File:WHNorthPortico.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 talk 22:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello GearedBull! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently 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 1,517 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Pat Blair - Find sources: "Pat Blair" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:AGspecimenAIB.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AGspecimenAIB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

I have proposed merging Vermont English, a page you have worked on in the past, with New England English and Boston accent. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at the merger discussion. Cnilep (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, GearedBull. You recently changed a discussion at Talk:New England English, altering comments added and signed by IP 216.15.127.217, and placing those comments within a closed discussion section. If indeed you made those comments while not signed in, it's fine to indicate so, but obviously if you did not make those comments you shouldn't change them.
Moreover, please notice that the merger discussion is closed. There was insufficient support for the change, so the pages were not merged. As the note above and below the closed discussion indicates, subsequent comments should be made in a new section, without adding to or changing the closed section. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:WhiteHouseComplex.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:WhiteHouseComplex.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GearedBull. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 20:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free image File:VshChittenden.JPG[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VshChittenden.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:GillSpecimen3.svg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GillSpecimen3.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Interstate89.svg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Interstate89.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:AkzidenzGrotesk1specimenAIB.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AkzidenzGrotesk1specimenAIB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sreejith K (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:AkzidenzGroteskSpecimen1.svg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AkzidenzGroteskSpecimen1.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sreejith K (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:HelveticaSpecimenAIB.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HelveticaSpecimenAIB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:VSHSenate14.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:VSHSenate14.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:WHLibraryChristmas.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:WHLibraryChristmas.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:AldusSp.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AldusSp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Cloudbound (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Vermont State House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barre, Vermont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SenatorobamaCapitol.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:SenatorobamaCapitol.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cloudbound (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Vislangbib.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Vislangbib.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:StateWelcomeCeremony.jpg[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

File:WHdevice.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

inappropriate link[edit]

Greetings! and thanks for taking the time to read this. The following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Touro-highpoint_1.png

contains a thumbnail and link to a youtube page with sexual content. I thought you should know. again, thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.43.105 (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Senatus Populus Que Vermont.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Senatus Populus Que Vermont.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 00:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:AkzidenzGroteskT.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:BernhardModernSpec.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:BGwt.svg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:BraggadocioSP.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:CheltenhamSp.svg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)