User talk:Loodog/archive3

metrorail houston

my appologizes on that. i was going by metrorails site, and totally forgot to confirm it with the APTA report. i don't know when (or if) the new figures of will 45,000 effect the report numbers; i am propose changeing the numbers on metrorails page back to the APTA report. cheers! IAH777 (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a good wikibreak

I feel your pain. I've basically stopped editing anything controversial at all, and if someone reverts my changes, I take that page off my watchlist and go find something else to improve. There's just too much wrestling with morons around here to get myself hyped up over WP articles. Hope you come back soon and continue to improve articles the way you have been — otherwise Wikipedia is losing another good editor, and the good ones are outnumbered enough as it is. Take care. —Cleared as filed. 00:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto!--Tom 12:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Lechmereviaduct.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lechmereviaduct.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. 13:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving the project

I came by to reply to your message and saw your userpage note. I don't know what it's in regard to, but I understand how frustrating editing can be. Articles about cities generate strong emotions. Thanks for your many contributions to city articles. Take a break if you need to. Wikipedia is a long term project and there's time to get it right. As for the Detroit travel article, I agree with your statement. At least the material isn't in the main article. There's Wikipedia:Article review. Wikipedia:Good article is another review process. If you're sticking around to deal with it I may be able to help. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Waterplacetower.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Waterplacetower.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 ensure 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 non-free media 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. Rettetast 11:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Waterplacecondos.JPG

I have tagged Image:Waterplacecondos.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rettetast 11:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Waterfire.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Waterfire.jpg. I noticed 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 {{di-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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 11:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Westinres.JPG

I have tagged Image:Westinres.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rettetast 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Discontent with sourcing of the Explosion sculpture

You said on my UserTalk page, "I'm not certain what you want on the Metcalf Science Center for Science and Engineering article in terms of a citation. The fact that there is a sculpture there that says "Explosion" on it, is Common Knowledge, since it's a plain sight observation that can be made from public property. Was there something more specific you were objecting to?"

The way you said it in the article read as a deduction of what the sculpture represented and cried out for a citation to a publication that gave that information. The way you said it above is much better. Instead of implying a deduction, you have simply said that it has a title plaque on it giving the title as "Explosion." Then the information is provided in a way that is clearly not a personal deduction or information from an unreferenced source. Pzavon 00:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis (drug)

Hi Loodog. I see you deleted a whole section of an article on the grounds that it was "probably redundant in some other article anyway" and that you justified yourself on the talk page. While I agree this section may be too big for the general article, and may be trimmed to have the full version of an article of its own, simply deleting perfectly good information with no consensus whatsoever is probably not the good way to go. The US have a huge weight in the world debate on cannabis, and any change in policy there is sure to affect Europe, and then the rest of the world. I am restoring the section. SidiLemine 10:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)---

Then, by your judgement, where does it belong?

I think that this is the perfect place for it. (Maybe here, and in the Wikipedia article on Rome).

George Pelly-Bosela http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GPelly-Bosela gpelly.bosela@gmail.com GPelly-Bosela 07:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that latitude and altitude are important facts that tell us about the nature of life in a place. Not trivia.

But your comment that this article should be included in the Wikipedia article on the “Gulf Stream”, is well taken. And I may put it there myself. Or if do not do this, then feel free to do it yourself. After all Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative venture. Hopefully when I visit the Wikipedia page on the “Gulf Stream”, I will find that you have already done this.

Also, two people who deleted my article from different places on Wikipedia, (users called Redvers, and Shoeofdeath), have called it original research. Maybe you can help me find sources for the facts I communicate, that they like better than the ones I have used. This would be another example of Wikipedia being a collaborative venture. We may not be able to find a source that that explicitly states the facts that I communicate. But If a source publishes the coordinates of any cities, then by implication, I believe that, that source also publishes the differences between these coordinates, and publishes comparisons of these differences. Some people might say that I did original research when I did these things, but I would suspect that those people were trying to flatter me.

George Pelly-Bosela

gpelly.bosela@gmail.com GPelly-Bosela 03:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC) (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, far West Africa, and nearby island, time)

Go ahead and edit Gulf Stream. I have no preference for this content being included or not. So go ahead, Be Bold! No one will ever fault you for making edits in good faith.

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, but the burden of evidence lies on the person adding the information. If no one else feels like researching somebody else's claim, they'll flag it with a tag, and if no sources are presented, delete it. If you're trying to find out what a good source is, see WP:RS. It's basically anything that isn't somebody's personal blog or webpage that has a publisher.

If you look up that the average temperature of place A is 72 degrees and of place B is 68 degrees, it's not Original research to say there is a 4 degree difference since anyone can look at the sources and do the same thing. Original research is something like the "Museum of Modern Art is busier on Mondays" based on personal observation. Anything you can directly provide a good source for isn't original research.

Happy editing!--Loodog 04:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my error

For years everybody told me that Ann Meara never converted. According to the Meara article, it was done six years after she got married, but that is still before Ben Stiller was born. Great wiki-work! Sposer 12:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta article overdeletion

While the previous editor had added too much material, I do believe you should have left a reference to the Center for Puppetry Arts. If that's not a cultural activity for children, what is?Ryoung122 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CCRIseal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CCRIseal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Merkin POTD

In view of your many contributions to the Physical attractiveness article that includes Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, you may wish to participate in the discussion on Image:Michele Merkin 1.jpg at the admin noticeboard. -- Jreferee 21:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Surfacecurl.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Curl.JPG. The copy called Image:Curl.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 00:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

2D curl

Thanks to your "Ad hominem refutation[s] of sound arguments ..." (citation from your user page) to my dimensionality remark on curl. Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.253.140 (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments aren't sound.--Loodog 13:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats not the point here. However, I have reformulated/clarified my statement on talk:curl and erased yours. Kevin134.245.253.140 18:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't erase other users' comments. It's terribly counterproductive as well as rude.--Loodog 20:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish American scientists

Hello Loodog. I removed Category:Jewish American scientists and added Category:American Jews. Is there anything wrong with that? Look, I am still a new user. I don't understand all the rules. Regards, Masterpiece2000 12:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have recategorized all the pages with the category Category:Jewish American scientists and changed my vote to 'Neutral' on CfD. Regards, Masterpiece2000 09:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirk Van Houten

Kirk Van Houten went to Gudger college, not Goucher. Rewatch this episode (or read the transcript) http://www.snpp.com/episodes/4F04.html Rm999 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Skyscrapers

Hey Loodog, I thought that based on your involvement with creating and maintaining Providence skyscraper pages and your recent comments on this WikiProject's talk page, you may be interested in joining the Skyscraper WikiProject. If you are not, sorry to have disturbed you. Thanks and cheers, Rai-me 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)