User talk:Appraiser: Difference between revisions

Hi, Appraiser. Your wikilinking on this article will be helpful as I or other contributors expand the lists of historical officholders in the state. Would you, though, happen to know or know where to find the historical party composition numbers for the state legislature? I haven't had much luck. Thanks for your help!

It would take some work, but the information is here: [[1]]. --Appraiser (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!

35,600 edits on 22,000 pages!! How do you have time to be a father with all you do? Very impressive. You are an inspiration to us Wikinubies. MikeWeiner476 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP is now my main hobby and sometimes vocation. The number of edits is high because so many of them are trivial and repetitive. Like today, I'm adding Category:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places to articles, which goes pretty quick. Happy editing!--Appraiser (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian (Amtrak station)‎

I noticed you added Category:Railroad-related Registered Historic Places to this article. Is it an NRHP? It doesn't show up in the List of Registered Historic Places in Mississippi.... or did you add it because it's in Union Station Historic District? Like as a contributing property.. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's just a contributing property.--Appraiser (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP Photos

Just wanted to let you know that I got out today, the first day I've had time and taken some photos and will hopefully be able to do more tomorrow. Will upload ASAP. Calebrw (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Calebrw (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice!--Appraiser (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know when they will be added? — Calebrw (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you meant by "added." I just started a new list using them at List of Registered Historic Places in Rice County, Minnesota. Feel free to work on it or to create articles where there are red links.--Appraiser (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I have a number of pictures from Faribault and some from Northfield from last November. I never got around to uploading all of them, though. I'll see if I can finish uploading those photos, but at the moment I'm also pretty busy working on an entry for the Masquerade at this year's CONvergence (convention). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of octagon houses

Yay! the DYK finally went through, and the DYK hook, with no picture though, is on the Wikipedia main page right now. Tho it is the middle of the night in the U.S. The DYK administrator saw fit to directly award the DYK plaque to Lvklock, not to Clariosophic or to me, oh well. But, indirectly then, passing the award on...

On 22 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of octagon houses, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The hook that appears now is, Did You Know:

... that zooming in from satellite view, one can see the outlines of Wilcox Octagon House and most of the 82 octagon houses listed on the U.S. National Register?

Thanks Appraiser for helping out with good quality edits. I liked your late add of a good statement and good reference to Robert V. Kline's site and the other site, i think, in the article, and appreciate your thoughtful comments in the Talk page. It was fun getting the list out, at least! doncram (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homework and Aerial Lift Bridge

Your need to do homework on the Aerial Lift Bridge doesn't imply an obligation of Wikipedia editors to provide the content you want. They would need sources, and possibly the same sources you would otherwise use in your assignment. In fact, why don't you combine doing your school work with improving the article yourself? SlowJog (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlowJog, I think you're replying to a comment that Appraiser moved from the article to the talk page nearly six months ago. In fact, that request was posted by an anonymous IP address. I'm having a little bit of trouble trying to figure out exactly what the user was asking for. (How far drivers are hauled? "Nowhere" would be the answer, because they get all the cars off the bridge before they raise it for ships.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I failed to carefully read the note and signature information. (And to think, I teased the poster about poor proofreading.) Maybe the original poster wanted to know how far away from the bridge the drivers had to stop. SlowJog (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location maps for smaller civil sub-divisions

Is there a method/process for creating location maps for smaller civil sub-divisions within a state (city/county/town/township/village...)? I understand the (sub-)templates, editing the corners/edges, but would like to see a "cookbook" recipe for creating the graphic background. LeheckaG (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created county maps such as Image:ScottCounty.png, Image:Ramsey.png, Image:Hennepin.png, and Image:Dakotacounty2.png. I first go to [2], then click on MAPS, Reference Maps, enter the state, click GO. Click on Boundaries and Features. Uncheck everything except 2006 county boundary. Zoom into the area of interest. Then "printscreen" to the copy buffer. Then I open my copy of CorelDraw (other drawing programs would work too). "Paste" to new image. Recolor and annotate as desired.--Appraiser (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomington, IL, tower

Is this your photo? Is this the tall tower that's in the downtown area? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. It's right downtown in Bloomington, Illinois. I don't know which media use it - probably several stations. Do you know anything about it?--Appraiser (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it's used for cellphones, or at least that was its original purpose when it was built maybe 15 years go. WJBC, for example, has their tower out in the southwest of the town somewhere. I don't think any radio stations broadcast from downtown. But my info could be out of date. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I posed the original question the way I did, wondering if you would answer it with a quote from Chico Marx in Horse Feathers. Groucho (referring to a pinup that Harpo had hung on the classroom wall): "Is this your picture?" Chico: "I don't think so. It doesn't look like me!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol. The white vertical bars are cell transponders. I believe the circular antennas at the top are for TV though. I'm actually talking out my derriere - I have no idea. It's a cool-looking tower though.--Appraiser (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That it is. The funny thing is, they built it at the lowest point in the downtown, hence they had to make it all the higher. But building it on the hill occupied by courthouse square wasn't really an option. And I'm trying to figure out which cell company first put it up, which is somewhat red-faced as I actually once had a cellphone with them, not that it matters since they've probably changed hands about 20 times in the interim. It's not likely for TV, since Bloomington doesn't really have any local TV stations, they're pretty much all out of Peoria. I'll see what I can find. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a company called TeleCourier, apparently a local company as I'm not finding it in wikipedia itself. [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth of July, or bust, Thanks!

		The Fourth of July, or bust, Barnstar
		I award you this Barnstar for your solid, witty, creative, supportive, learned, timely, cheerful, eloquent, and/or otherwise generally great contributions on U. S. National Historic Landmarks' articles. Yippee o yay, we pretty much met our goal of a well-started article for each of 2,442 NHLs by today! Thanks, and have a great Fourth of July! -- Doncram, 4 July 2008

Thank you for your tireless development of all the NHL articles. I am sure you have edited more than anyone. They look great! By the way, given today's deadline of sorts, I was terribly alarmed late yesterday to find one Indiana red-link (for what is now Miller House (Columbus, Indiana) that you had created (appropriately) in your cleanup of that state's list. Thank you for your attention to detail, everywhere. Cheers, doncram (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:CONvergence guests

Category:CONvergence guests, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/{{{2}}}#Category:CONvergence guests|the category's entry]] on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I noticed another editor putting in those wikidates. Why are they significant? .:davumaya:. 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates formated like [[July 9]], [[2008]] will display for each reader based on his preferences (see "my preferences" at the top right of the page). Unfortunately the syntax looks exactly like wikilinks, but that is not the purpose in the case of dates.--Appraiser (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Standings

Do you support liberal causes? Please post response here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.211.27 (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of Wikipedia, I am politically neutral.--Appraiser (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this person referring to? He's also from Eagan, maybe it's Pawlenty! .:davumaya:. 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue what he's asking about, but I strongly doubt if the Gov. cares what causes I support.--Appraiser (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks in Maryland

Sorry to put you through adding the "National Historic Landmark" category to all those Maryland articles - I should have done so at the creation! Acroterion _(talk) 20:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgiven. (I was thinking the same thing :)) Thanks for creating them.--Appraiser (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure all of us history geeks would like to see your work. If you add your new articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/New articles as you go, I'd like to see them. It also gives you the benefit of more immediate feedback - in case there's a global "improvement" that someone else notices. Thanks.--Appraiser (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, and thanks for the categories. I've finished every National Register property in Jefferson County, West Virginia, land of my ancestors, so there's at least a stub there - there are 73, I think, of which I did 70. I'll add them to the list. Jefferson County is where all of the lesser offspring of the Washington family went to seed and squandered their fortunes on mansions. Acroterion _(talk) 22:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

73 articles? OMG. We have some reading to do. Great job!--Appraiser (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green River Shell Middens Archeological District

I see you changed the infobox for this article. I see (as I did before when I chose the former infobox) that the reference numbers match, but I'm not so sure that's the right infobox. The whole system of Kentury NRHPs confuses me, but I think that all of the different archaeological sites are present within this district.. like as contributing properties. Each individual site is an NRHP, but the district as a whole is an NHL. It appears to me that the district is listed as an NHL but not as an NRHP. Strange, I know, but I can't find any data relating to the district (although I can find individual sites) on the NRHP, yet the district is present on NHLs. Is it possible for a district to be an NHL but not an NRHP? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always heard that the only NHL that is not a NRHP is the White House. But these archaeological sites are confusing. I plugged 85003182 (from [4]) into Elkman's infobox generator, and then copied the result into the article. I then changed the type to nhl, which should have been there automatically. The result may not be right, and I'm open to alternative ways of looking at this. Feel free to revert my change if you think it's wrong.--Appraiser (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha yea used Elkman's tool for the refnum too when I found that page.. but then I searched the NRIS data for Green River Shell Middens, giving no results, while a search for "Annis Mound" did give me a result. Annis Mound is the NRHP with refnum 85003182, but Green River Shell Middens apparently doesn't have a refnum..... but it's listed as an NHL. The article already said the site was Late Archaic period (wasn't referenced though), so I chose the only district in Butler County, Kentucky that had a Late Archaic period.

In my opinion, and this is purely speculation, Green River Shell Middens District is the combination of all the archaeological sites in the area. Each site is individually listed as an NRHP, and the district (combination of the sites) is listed as an NHL but not an NRHP itself. That would explain the lack of a reference number. The NHL guys apparently didn't want to declare all sites as NHLs and thought it would be easier to declare them all at once by making them into a district. They didn't want to go through the NRHP nomination (too much work?) process, so they just skipped ahead to NHL because it's easier to "upgrade" to an NHL than to start out at the bottom and work your way up. It appears to me they just picked the refnum of the first site listed in the new district to write on the NHL declaration because they needed a refnum. They simply skipped over the NRHP nomination by making it an NHL using an incorrect NRHP refnum, and no one caught the error before the declaration was complete.

If the above paragraph is true, then neither my nor your infobox is correct. Honestly, I don't know how to handle the situation. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds plausible. Maybe we need someone over at the NPS to straighten it out.--Appraiser (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how would we do that? Haha --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steptoe Butte

Hello, I need help. I created a talk page for Steptoe Butte and added a template tag, but the template code isn't showing up properly and now I can't seem to edit my mistake. (Boy, do I feel stupid.) Could you help me? Evening Scribe (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now, what did I do wrong to cause that problem? (I forgot to ask that originally.) Evening Scribe (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I just re-typed it. There must have been a hidden character.--Appraiser (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 26 DYK

On 26 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frogtown, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 07:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling lol

I noticed that but I was using dialup and each page took about 3-4 minutes to load so I couldn't fix fix it. Thanks. Calebrw (talk) 02:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. I'm not super familiar with St. Paul (I mean Saint Paul ;)). Calebrw (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Appraiser (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul GA Preperation

(Not that you don't already know, but I thought I'd cc this to you.)

Hello,

The Saint Paul, Minnesota article is being prepared for GA Nomination ahead of the 2008 RNC and the attention the article will be receiving (and in some cases already has).

Other editors and myself have been working on the article lately and we would like to you to help. If you have additions, comments, concerns, questions or other feed back, it is all appreciated. There is a peer review already set up and detailed checklist of issues that need to be fixed is on the talk page. These items can be crossed off when completed. Feel free to add to the list and sign your username, so that we know who added it.

Any help is appreciated. Also, if you would like to work on other articles directly related to Saint Paul, especially those that link off the Saint Paul article, that would be great too.

Thanks and have a great day, Calebrw (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Category in NM

No, I don't know why I did that. Consider it gone! Thanks! Einbierbitte (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Appraiser (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of Minnesota map

That map has serious problems, and I have revised the article that contained the map, and it no longer corresponds to what the article says, so I have removed the map from the page. "Iron range" is not a generic name for northeastern Minnesota. It is a specific area in northeastern Minnesota where iron is mined. It is no more correct to say that Grand Rapids, Grand Marais, and Duluth are part of "iron range" than to say that all of northern California is "bay area." You make the opposite error with your definition of Red River Valley, which certainly includes the eastern portion of some counties that you cut off on your map. As a cultural region, RRV includes all of the Fargo-Grand Forks media market (not to mention southern Manitoba). As a practical matter of geography, RRV means "Red River basin," which certainly includes more of Minnesota than your map shows. Your map shows central Minnesota as barely encompassing St. Cloud, when in fact St. Cloud and Stearns County are the major center of Central Minn.

Furthermore, the map suffers from color balance problems. Some of the colors are much hotter than others and thus regions do not catch the reader's eye equally.

Anyway, I hope you take into account my suggestions here and in the revisions I have made to the article and make a new map.Bellczar (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK with me that you deleted the "regions" map. I made it merely to conform with what the individual region articles already said about boundaries. You have changed several of the definitions in ways that may or may not be better, but they no longer agree with the definitions used in the individual articles, and none of what you have done is cited to a published source. Also, you need to proofread. e.g "Southwestern Minnesota includes the Buffalo Ridge is the eastern portion..." Buffalo Ridge is a specific geographic region defined by elevation that can clearly be seen on a topographical map or satellite photo. "Southwestern Minnesota" has no defined meaning other than it being a vague area in the southwestern part of the state. The Red River Valley region is defined in its article as an area obtained via a specific treaty. If you would prefer that it include the entire RR watershed area, that's OK, but you need to define it that way throughout Wikipedia and cite a source. Same with "Central Minnesota." It was defined as being bounded by certain features. You have changed it to a vague area, unsourced and mostly undefined. I won't be making another regions map, but feel free to make one if you can.--Appraiser (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Hill Reference Library

Appraiser -- I'm a "rookie" with Wikipedia. On the Hill Library page, all of the information I added this morning is factual and backed up via citations. It's also very important to the story as the Hill Library has literraly transformed itself from a physicaly library to one of the more used online libraries in the nation. All of this was done under the former leadership of our incredible president. I'm more than happy to re-write per standards. Could you please guide me as to what I should do? Thanks. Michaeledmonton (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming proposals

Hi. Regarding the NRHP renaming proposal discussion, I appreciate your eagerness to get the bridges and tunnels proposal resolved sooner instead of later, but all of the changes will need to be consistent. That particular rename could still change as a result of the conclusions of the other discussions. It would be a poor use of an administrator's time to make the change in the category name and arrange to change the categorization of the articles included in that category, if a different new name gets selected a few days hence. Additionally, the CfD process would be more efficient for everyone if the category rename requests could be submitted as a group with a reference to the concluded discussion on the Wikiproject talk page.

As for the analogy to the Canadian Register of Historic Places, that is the official name of Canada's list. The complete official name of the U.S. list is just National Register of Historic Places. --Orlady (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little help please?

Guess I got a little too eager with this one, oops! I think everything should be set back to 1998 Comfrey–St. Peter tornado outbreak for now. [5] thanks, WxGopher (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone else go to it first; it looks right to me. Is it OK?--Appraiser (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. looks like it's good now. WxGopher (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need a ruling

I'm using some articles for references from the Star Tribune archives that I got off of highbeam.com. 1. Is this legitimate to do this? I don't see how it wouldn't be since they are real news articles. But 2. Should I provide a URL to the article? If someone who does not have access to high beam clicks on it, they won't see it. 3. If I should not link the URL's, do I need an access date (using cite-news template)? 4. What I've done for now is put the URL's in, but commented them out in case I need to go back and reveal them. Thanks! WxGopher (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination would be to cite the paper version of the Star Tribune. You may not get all of the information from highbeam.com, but I presume it gives you the date, title, and author, which could point someone to a micro-film version (do they still do that?) in a library. Leaving the <commented> link to highbeam wouldn't hurt. But I agree with you, that you don't really want a link to a subscription service in the References section. I've done similar things with Google Books; I try to get enough information to cite the real book. Just my .02--Appraiser (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do have enough information for a full cite, so I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a problem w/o the URL in there. I'll stick with this method then, thanks. WxGopher (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adsit Log Cabin

Thanks for your help. I left Daniel Case a message earlier since NRHP infoboxes befuddle me. TravellingCari 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh WOW! Thanks for the link, I wasn't aware of it. Given my bad habit of putting in what I know/can figure out and leaving the rest for others, I'm surprised no one linked me to it/thwapped me with it before. TravellingCari 03:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - writing to let you know about the plight of the Bardwell-Ferrant house at 2500 Portland Ave So in Minneapolis. It's vacant, in foreclosure, and has been invaded by thieves who ripped out fireplace mantles, broke stained glass windows and tried to strip out all the copper pipes. MLS 3582456.

Please spread the word to fellow preservationists.

Mdougla (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Phallic Building again

This has been nominated again despite a clear keep only a very short time ago. As such I am informing those who last voted for it to get this AfD kicked off. The reasons all seem to consist of invalid arguments like "silly smut" and "don't like it".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Most_Phallic_Building_contest_(2nd_nomination)#Most_Phallic_Building_contest JJJ999 (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing properties

Here's the problem: not all of the HCRH is a NHL. Some of it is only a RHP, and some of it was not even listed. --NE2 03:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stay civil

Stay civil. Articles should be in both categories, that's the rule here and you should know it. Sportspeople who competed at the Olympic Games competed also at other events, that's why we do not subcategorize in this case. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivil is assertion of my mis-use. The practice which is now in use is broadly used and accepted per general precedence there by the whole community in all sports. As I said before, normal subcategorizing doesn't apply there as the Olympics is just one of the events in which sportspeople compete. Honestly I don't care if a certain category has 20,000 articles. We have templates like {{categoryTOC}} to solve that. Or maybe we should make subcategories to cats like Category:1965 births. How about "American actors born in November 1965"? - Darwinek (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the discussion where a consensus was reached to double-categorize athletes?--Appraiser (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No and you have no right to change the policy which is currently in use, unless you change yourself thousands of articles, which would be the violation of our consensus habits. I repeat to you, it is a silent consensus - a precedential use. Half of consensuses there on EN WP are silent, without proper discussion. And you perfectly know that, I assume. Can I point you to the policy permitting the use of diacritics in article names? No. Why? Because no such policy exists, and there are more than 100,000 articles which use diacritics in article names. So, if you want to start a discussion about this and change the general precedential use of both categories, do it at involved WikiProjects to get strong feedback. I would like to point out that I am not the one who invented this policy. It was there long before me and will be long after me. When I started editing sport articles about three years ago, it was already there and is in use to date. - Darwinek (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

Hi, Appraiser. Pardon a note out of the blue. Saw your note elsewhere about this panel and may have some additions if you'd like them, in part from researching an article about Wikipedia recently. If this is for the 2009 conference let me know your focus and if would like suggestions. I sent you some email on another topic. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to have your input. The purpose of the outline is to show the programming committee that the topic would be of interest to a wide range of attendees and to help the panelist organize our thoughts (currently in the brainstorming phase) for the panel itself, which will be in July, 09.--Appraiser (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Done for now. Added history and Stallman, Google's effect, number of users who contribute, and two nice books (and pardon because these are a little more detailed than what was there, ok to edit). Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate your help. I received your email and should be able to respond tonight; this week is crazy.--Appraiser (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio; images versus articles

Hi. I note that you tagged Image:Tim pawlenty.jpg with a {{copyvio}} tag and just wanted to alert you that this tag is specifically for articles. At one time, images were tagged with {{Imagevio}}, but that tag has itself been deprecated. Currently, blatant image infringements are tagged with {{Db-i9}}. Otherwise, suspected image violations should be tagged with {{Pui}}. They are listed at WP:PUI for investigation. I have removing the listing of this image from WP:CP and moved it to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 August 25 for further examination. Thanks for detecting the potential problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info and for fixing it.--Appraiser (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Brougham96 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin

I hope that my response here will be adequate. Additionally, it seems like the instructions for image deletion require you to mention your request at the image page, so that people will know about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin image

Why do you think this image is unfree as seen here? rootology (C)(T) 16:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken from this web site. In order to be Public Domain, it would have had to be produced by a U.S. govt. employee in the course of his duties. User:SEWilco inquired about who the photographer was. See his note at Talk:2008 Republican National Convention#Photo of Palin. It is not Public Domain and has not been adequately released. I have asked for it to be deleted from Commons, but that has not occurred yet. In the meantime, we shouldn't be publishing it.--Appraiser (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where on commons was this requested? My understanding is that photos on house.gov sites are assumed to be the property/copyright of the agency/rep's office in question. rootology (C)(T) 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two versions and two requests here. The response from User:SEWilco's inquiry leads me to believe that the photographer was not a govt. employee. Being the property of a congressman is not the same as it being a work of the U.S. government, which is what would be required to be PD. I frequently work with National Historic Landmarks where non-free photographs are often hosted on government websites. We can't assume that a photo is PD without the attribution of a photographer.--Appraiser (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia General Notability Guideline and Sarah Palin

Could you weigh in on the deletion discussion pages of Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church?

A controversy related to certain entities related to Sarah Palin has arisen in the Wikipedia community. This includes articles involving Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church. Discussions are heated because of the political environment, and allegations of censorship.

I argue as follows for inclusion of articles on some of her former teachers, pastors, churches, and schools, but not inclusion of others.

The Wikipedia:Notability policy allows for articles on persons or entities known only because they are related to major historical figures in some circumstances.

The teachers of historical figures, thinkers, mathematicians, painters, scientists, etc., are all notable for their relation to the ideas or actions of the historical figure. This is especially true if the teacher made controversial statements, and the same kind of controversial statements are what made the historical figure notable.

For example, suppose writings of the philosophy teacher of Socrates were discovered. The teacher would be known only for their relation to Socrates. But no one would argue that verifiable information about “the philosophy teacher of Socrates” would be of intense intellectual interest, and if anything, would be valid for a Wikipedia article. In fact, if you noticed the link for philosophy teacher of Socrates, you likely would want to see who it is and what their ideas are.

If Sarah Palin had a meteorology teacher who teaches the controversial idea that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Since Palin is notable for her controversial position on global warming, that teacher and their ideas would become notable.

But Palin’s high school astronomy teacher, even if he or she had controversial views, would not be noteworthy, as Palin is not known for her astronomy policy.

Arguments for The Alaska Pipeline put forth by Governor Palin, and for the War in Iraq by Vice Presidential Candidate Palin, explicitly included both being God’s Will. The former is consistent with the ideas of Larry Kroon. The later are explicitly the stated controversial ideas of her teacher in this area, Ed Kalnins. Ed Kalnins thereby becomes notable by his relationship to the controversial ideas of Palin, not just by his relation to Palin. This makes Kalnins notable in itself, while a former pastor of Palin who did not teach this would not be notable.

All of the teachers, schools, churches, or theories that teach controversial ideas, if they are the same as controversial ideas by which Palin has become notable, are thus notable.

They are notable for their relationship, not just to Palin, but to the policies and ideas by which Palin has become noteworthy.

Churches and pastors of Palin that are not linked to controversial policies of Palin are not notable.

Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church have been the subject of controversy in The Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, New Jersey Times of Trenton, ABC News, MSNBC, and other news sources. But suppose they were not. 76.167.163.164 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]