User talk:The stuart

The stuart, It's my pleasure to award you this barnstar for your efforts in thoroughly researching the Dogpatch USA article, and in placing this article in the Wikipedia community. As I understand it, it has been regarded by many readers as a unique example of Wikipedia's finest. On behalf of Wikipedia, I thank you, and I thank you for having me as your associate. --RogerK 21:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to leave The stuart any comments, suggestions, complaints, inquiries, concerns, friendly or other on this page. Also please include a signiture and time stamp for archival purposes. --The_stuart 18:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ATTENTION ANYONE LEAVING ME A MESSAGE ABOUT AN IMAGE I UPLOADED: When I was new to Wikipedia, I uploaded pictures a lot without bothering to find a source or anything. I don't do that any more. If you have a question about an image I uploaded, just delete it, don't clog up this page with image inquiries, cause I probably have no idea where the image came from. I don't care if you delete any image I've uploaded. --The_stuart 14:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- I've moved your archive from The stuart/archive 2 to User talk:The stuart/archive 2. You need to have your archive pages in userspace, not mainspace. Thanks, NawlinWiki 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GBStv AFD

I've nominated a page you have editted for Deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GBStv_(second_nomination) --Quirex 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's longest lasting lightbulb on DYK

On 19 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article World's longest lasting lightbulb, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— ERcheck (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened that the article was featured on DYK? I gave up on it because I thought that it was too old. It was a fascinating topic, and I would have continued sourcing and researching it had I known it was eligible. Royalbroil^T : C 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the current name, as I did the move. I was wondering about the elgibility. I looked through the history of DYK suggestions, and no more comments appeared on the article. I guess the admin who loaded the suggestions either felt it was worthy anyhow, or missed my comment. Cheers! Royalbroil^T : C 14:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article appears on DYK for around 8 hours only. There are too many nominations for it to appear longer. I wish I had the time to help this fascinating article, but I'm helping form WikiProject Motorsports right now, and I was proposing another (WikiProject North American Motorsports or WikiProject American Motorsports) as you left the message. I do have the article on my watchlist, so I may get inspired later to help. One thing that would need to be changed is that the list of other lightbulbs needs to go, as it is off topic. I might be best to move the list by creating a list article, say "list of the world's longest burning lightbulbs". Cheers, and happy editing! Royalbroil^T : C 15:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Back to the future time line1.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Back to the future time line1.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 02:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

About the GWB term articles

I just wanted to drop you a note to say I hope you understand where I am coming from with the suggestion and concern; and know that I totally respect the work and writing you did on those pages. In other words, its nothing personal. Perhaps I have a different view of Wikipedia. In any case, know that I am not planning any drastic edits there of my own, would not do so without notice, and on something so big am just trying to get people thinking to get to consensus before any changes are made. Ultimately, I would not want to waste all the work you did but would think the best/different stuff would be merged into the main article and a lot of your detail would be merged into one of the other many GWB articles (see the list of some of the other daughter articles I put on the talk page). Be well.-JLSWiki 20:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas

The thing is, every state will eventually need its own page, these are almost lists that might never end. I did some research on Texas ghost towns and know for a fact that the Texas list will get extraordinarily long. However, if you like it better not giving Texas a list that's fine too, but it will eventually get a list no matter how much you may or may not hate Texas and some or all of its residents.A mcmurray 16:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realized it was out of good faith, I was merely explaining my rationale along with trying to insert some wry political humor, I didn't mean to imply that you actually hated Texas or Texans.A mcmurray 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hokpkins Nixon 3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hokpkins Nixon 3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Character raelogo.gif)

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

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of What is black and white and red all over?

I've nominated What is black and white and red all over?, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that What is black and white and red all over? satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What is black and white and red all over? and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of What is black and white and red all over? during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Mistretta v. US

A tag has been placed on Mistretta v. US, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey

dear the stuart

wazz up is all i gotta say but how about you post a comment on my page 
        ok
   Kataraisdabest 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)kataraisdabest 3/13/07[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Eddie1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eddie1.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. 07:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some rare information about grigori rasputin...

I have some missing pieces of history that you won't be able to find anywhere else about Rasputin. You can email me @ yahoo.com under spirallibra if you want some secrets.

                                 ~Murky

class notes

Your subpages of "Class notes" on various topics are an impermissible use of User space on WP. WP is not a web host. You can ask to have them deleted at WP:CSD. DGG 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpatch USA

I just read through your user page after responding to your current FAC and I came upon this article. While a good article, it seems the quality standards have risen since it was promoted. I was wondering if you could look into properly formatting the references, adding more of them, and citing them properly in the article. It's a good article and I just wanted to give you a heads up. JHMM13 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask away! I should get back to you within the next 24 hours. JHMM13 13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the other person said on my talk page, there are various citation templates for different kinds of sources. Use the ref system, you can repeat the use of a source. Try to model whatever you do on what the standard is. Since I can't think of any other off the top of my head, my FA was just promoted several days ago. Domenico Selvo is the article and if you scroll down to the bottom, you can see how I handled the referencing. Also notice the spacing of inline citations within the article. For that article, that is just about the right amount of spacing for refs (nobody commented on the amount of references in the FAC). The more controversial/current your article gets, the more likely you'll need more sources and more citations because they are easier to come by. The person in your FAC mentioned you need "70-80 inline citations," but I hope that now after explaining this to you you realize it's a bit odd to put specific quotas on the amount of inline citations. JHMM13 17:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

long time

Hey stu! nice to see you again; hope everything is good with you :). I don't come here anymore, haven't been here for about a year. Last article I worked on (Loung Ung) I had a long argument with a professor who thought his words were God's words, and I said "fuck this". And there's an argument among peers about everything and the rules are forever changing; I don't have time for this nonsense (crap is a better word). Because you didn't respond to my last few attempts at communication, I gave up on you. Figured I was just bothering you. Talked to you a lot over a long period of time, and expected more than just silence from you. Sorry bud, but I don't care to waste my time. But thanks for finally sayin' "hi".--RogerK 21:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA

The article achieved FA status because some people who had the authority to do so decided it was worthy at the time. It was well written, informative and accurate. Who the hell cares if it loses FA status? Do you think that those who research the article care about its status? Everything in it at the time of its FA rating was true, and could be verified through the references. I won't bother to address any new issues; I'm satisfied with what was, and the way it was presented. --RogerK 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Arkansasrazorback2.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Arkansasrazorback2.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Unspecified source for Image:Arkansasrazorback2.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Arkansasrazorback2.PNG. 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, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

License tagging for Image:Count guy.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Count guy.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:

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. 17:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Proud to be your friend

Hey Stu :)) I guess you're about to end your second year now at the U. Seems that the year has made a difference in your life :). Don't know how it happened, but reading you now is a pleasure. Guess college is workin' for you, and that's really grand. Big smile on my face. If I can help, I will. But, as usual, I don't have a lotta time available. Love you bud.-RogerK 01:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]