User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel/Archive 14

User:BanyanTree/ArchivesBox

If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond there.
If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here.
I regularly clean out my watchlist, so if there has been a lull in a conversation, please restart it here.

Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual bullies, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)[reply]

Fuzzy Wuzzy cont.

I honestly don't remember if I saw your work before doing mine or not, but I never claimed that the research was mine, because it was not. It was from the Kipling Society, which I link to from Wikisource. I loved their work but hated the design of the website and having to flip between windows to read the poem or check if there were notes on a particular line. (The frames weren't working right for me then, although they seem fine with my current set-up.) That was what drove me to take on the project at Wikisource. Considering my links match their info much more closely than yours (Pathan vs. 2nd Afghan War), I feel rather confident in my memory of being inspired from that website. But I never claim in the interview to have done anything special in tracking down what the references were about. I am happy to admit I got it pre-packaged. My main contribution is simply figuring out where Wikipedia had the info (i.e. 2nd Afgan War doesn't have it's own article) and making editorial decisions about what was too common knowledge or not covered well enough to link to.--BirgitteSB 05:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In any case, it's a small matter compared to you getting the mop. Congratulations! - Banyan Tree 06:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!--BirgitteSB 06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BanyanTree at Wikimedia Commons

If you are one and the same as BanyanTree at Wikimedia Commons, then I think you will understand that a sock puppet of Grawp has been causing problems [1] over at Wikimedia Commons. Do you think the user account in question (Gavin.collins over at Wikimedia Commons) could be reassigned to me? --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed the same user. I have to admit that I am not nearly as familiar with Commons precedent and procedures as I should be. (My cleanup yesterday was the first time I'd used my Commons mop in three months or so.) I recommend repeating your question to Herbythyme, who is a pillar of the Commons community, is already familiar with the situation (having investigated several related sleeper accounts yesterday) and is so good-natured he makes me feel inadequate as an admin. Feel free to say that I recommend him to you. Also, it would be worth registering your name on at least the top 10 Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects (Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc) until single-user login becomes generally available. Good luck, Banyan Tree 22:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M4+2 engine

The reasons for deletion given by nominator no longer exist. At least 4 out of 5 references are valid sources according to WP:N, and after they were added there were no more votes. So I don't understand your ruling. I was sure the AfD procedure is not a majority vote, otherwise any attempt to improve the article during that would be just pure waste of time. Please reconsider relisting it one more time. greg park avenue (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was confusing. That may be the last time I use the provided delete link in an AFD header, as I couldn't tell that the page had been moved and couldn't figure out why the article still existed.

To your point, later AFD participants had a chance to evaluate the journal article, which appears to be the strongest support for notability, and still thought it merited deletion. I looked over the web-based articles and none appeared to have the weight of a journal article. (The cosmetic changes obviously don't establish notability, neither does the patent link as nobody is disputing that it exists.) I am satisfied that this is an accurate reading of the consensus, though would understand if you want to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks, Banyan Tree 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding and for kindly supplying the advise. You sound as an expert in this particular field, so I gather I might just follow it. greg park avenue (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for M4+2 engine

An editor has asked for a deletion review of M4+2 engine. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. greg park avenue (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my reasoning above. Thanks, Banyan Tree 22:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of lifebaka, I have userfied the article's content and history to User:Greg park avenue/M4+2 engine, so that Greg park avenue can have a few weeks/months to try to improve it. I thought I ought to let you know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the note. - Banyan Tree 02:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sinebot stuff

Yep. The API can pop out a user's 'x' amount of contribs, including on a given page (e.g., SineBot's last 5 on the Rosa Parks talk page). You just have to prettyify the output so that it displays at the top of your watchlist. I bet there's something hiding on the toolserver for at least prettyifying the api result, but I'm not sure if there's a user-friendly drop in for the watchlist, possibly due to the added ease with which one would be able to wikistalk non-bots. :P --slakr^\ talk / 07:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, but this seems a little beyond my non-techie skills. I was hoping that there was a Monobook script that someone with a similar issue had come up with. The simplest course appears to continue looking for the "reverted to Sinebot" messages when patrolling my watchlist. Cheers, Banyan Tree 08:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edits on "History of Darfur Page"

I'm not sure who edited the history of Darfur page; however, I know the rules of Wikipedia and have no reason to insert random letters into an article. 74.161.9.175 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to avoid getting messages that don't apply to you, I recommend creating an account. Thanks, Banyan Tree 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Aboke Girls De Temmerman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aboke Girls De Temmerman.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Alice Auma Lakwena Behrend.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you lovely little bot. - Banyan Tree 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MalePenis picture

Hi, thanks for approving the picture so it can be posted in the article. However a user removed it for being "unencyclopedic". Is can you confirm that the image is encyclopedic? Thanks again. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As an administrator on the bad image list, I evaluate requests purely on if they are intended to cause vandalism/disruption. A picture of penis on the penis page is not vandalism obviously, but the question of which image best helps illustrates the article is a content dispute that is beyond my activities on the bad image list. You will have to discuss the matter with editors at Talk:Penis, as with any other content dispute. Thanks, Banyan Tree 23:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN candidate page mockup

Thanks for getting started on this, and setting up the timer. After much trial and error, I think I've managed a method to transclude everything automatically, using a fancy template and the talk pages of the current events pages.--Pharos (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that's clever. I wouldn't have thought of using the current events' talk pages. I'll drop a note into the ITN reform discussion so people can check it out. Thanks, Banyan Tree 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have I been too WP:BOLD? Maybe, but I'm hopeful.--Pharos (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone was either going to make a move or nothing was going to happen. There are far too many people who think that the template stagnation is a result of uninterested admins or lack of will, rather than a structural problem.

I don't quite understand Random89's objection. The proposal page to reform ITN is clearly the appropriate forum, and the discussion was well advertised. He can make a case that there is never going to be a clear consensus and therefore nothing should be done, but to state that consensus must be reached in two separate forums is not supported by any precedent I can think of. - Banyan Tree 10:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it would be great if you could back me up at Template talk:In the news.--Pharos (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial run on ITN reform proposal

I have now proposed a one-week trial run for the ITN reform proposal at Template talk:In the news#Change in ITN/c format. Please comment there. Also, I'm going to be away from the computer for the next few days, and will not return till the time the trial run starts (and it's possible I might be a couple of hours late); it would be great if you could keep an eye on things. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial period has started. I hope you can help[ me in administering it. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd like to change Template:ITN-Update to update every 24 hours, not 12. This would be more conservative, and is the way most people (mis)interpreted it anyway. Actually, my idea was originally that we would have two items added at a time every 24 hours or so, not updates every 12 hours. It would be good if you could help me fix the template, which I can't get to work with 24 hours. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I made a quick adjustment for 24 hours. The intermediate color will eventually have to be chosen separately, as right now it goes straight from beige to red. - Banyan Tree 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character

What specific part of that page have I violated? It should be obvious from context that the characters are fictional. An encyclopedia would never refer to a real person as a character.

When I see that so and so is a "fictional character in so and so series", I assume that he/she is a fictional character within the universe of that show, a la Itchy and Scratchy in The Simpsons. The phrase only properly applies to a handful of articles. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'm not defending the MOS. I'm informing you of it. Check out the articles linked from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#List of exemplary articles. - Banyan Tree 07:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll take my argument there. Thanks. Awbizkomeydownstar (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Good work on the CCM article, by the way. A definite candidate for Did you know. Polemarchus (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be except that new articles that are put into ITN are disqualified from DYK for being attention hogs. :( Cheers, Banyan Tree 02:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess ITN's even better :-) Polemarchus (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current Revolution at ITN

Moved barnstar to User:BanyanTree. 02:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm glad someone likes it. We'll see what manages to stick around once the trial ends. - Banyan Tree 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page comment issue...

Huh?

I use Firefox 2 and WP:TWINKLE, so would reasonably have expected it to save longs pages. I hope the 'loss' of comments, was reverted quickly, if not that page needs an inteligent rollback ASAP.

Would also be appreciated if someone raised the issue with TWINKLE developers.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like, I said, I don't know if that the cause, but it certainly looks like something I've seen before. It has nothing to do with TWINKLE, as it's purely an issue with the browser of the user. If it's not that, I have no idea. In any case, I reverted the mass blanking. - Banyan Tree 11:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocks

Hi. Just thought I'd leave a quick note about this. In cases where it appears that a user has been unblocked, but they still cannot edit, it is likely an autoblock on the account. To unblock these, we need more information, which can be asked for by using {{autoblock}}. Re-blocking and unblocking won't do anything. Anyhow, I've taken care of this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I don't know how it's possible to be an admin for several years without knowing that, but that really was the first time I've ever seen that. Cheers, Banyan Tree 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN trial

I am really upset about how this ITN trial has been rammed through the system by people who don't actually participate in ITN or ITN/C regularly. I am also disappointed in Pharos's attitude towards people who are trying to point out the shortcomings of the trial process, which is much more dismissive than would serve all of our purposes. I think I've noted all of that on the template talk page, but I appreciate you making me aware of the rules and trying to unblock me before. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN Zimbabwe

Is that really a big enough story to post, seems rather trivial in the day to day dealings of that part of the world? --Step hen 02:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the front page of BBC News and The Washington Post when I posted it to ITN. Zimbabwe is currently one of the big kerfuffles, even in that part of the world, with African Union members beginning to finally question things and South Africa's Mbeki coming under some major flack for his wait and see policy. This also links into the recent South Africa anti-immigrant riots, as many of the migrants are Zimbabweans fleeing the country. Given that Tsvangirai may have actually won the first round outright, this is generally considered another marker pointing to a total bloodbath in the near future. Also I don't do relative regional comparisons - to do so would lead to morally abhorrent practices like figuring out what fraction of a 'real person' an African is worth. - Banyan Tree 05:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Moved to User:BanyanTree. Banyan Tree 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Not at all. I've done that myself and sat around wondering, "Where did half of my article go to?" Cheers, Banyan Tree 06:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

changin referenced text

Thanks for the tip. I can assure you it is not my intention to alter the information under reference in any way that might be seen to mislead anyone. I try to improve syntax and phraseology, as well as elaborate, and equivocate, the article as far as may be appropriate. If this turns out not to be appropriate, I will not argue. Both elaboration and equivocation are potentially controversial, I admit. I say again though, my only intention is to improve any article's readability by the balance and harmoniseation of the arguments within. If you ask me this improves the encyplopedicness of a text. I ultimately do not alter tha facts. I am also - as far as the Rwandan Genocide is of concern, entirely objective; being from the U.K, with a critical, rather than cynical attitude.

WikieWikieWikie (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I haven't actually identified an actual problem from my brief scan of your edits. I felt there was a potential concern there, especially given how contentious the topic can be. Cheers, Banyan Tree 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, (asking you as it seems you are the main editor)

Why do we not have two different articles on the LRA ind LRA insurgency, like all other conflicts?

Cheers, --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I came across a stub for Second Ugandan Civil War once that seemed to be an attempt to break out the conflict and recommended a merge it into the LRA article. (That seems to be a term used entirely by some activists.) I suppose that it's largely a function that the conflict is peculiarly configured by the idiosyncrasies of the LRA and I can't think of the conflict without thinking of the LRA, in particularly Kony. It seems to me that a conflict article would seem nonsensical without a thorough understanding of the wackiness of the LRA, so it makes sense that they are one article. I'm not against separate articles, but I'm not sure what the value added is to taking that step. What do you think? - Banyan Tree 01:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that Uganda, Congo and S.Sudan are preparing an offensive against the LRA. Since I'm going probably to work on it I will be against naming it Lord's Resistance Army (2008-present) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. Do you just want to add to the Lord's Resistance Army#Developments since 2005 section or do you want a separate article to play with? If you want, I could move Lord's Resistance Army (2002-2005) to Lord's Resistance Army (2002-2007) and merge the info from Developments since 2005 in, leaving you the LRA article to yourself for the most recent events. I've gotten worn down by the slow motion edit warring over if the LRA is "Christian" or not, which is apparently the only thing most editors find interesting, so don't give that article nearly the attention I should, and would be OK with any solution you feel warranted. Thanks, Banyan Tree 09:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Talk:Lord's Resistance Army for continued conversation. - Banyan Tree 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006–2008 Juba talks

Should the intro be updated before we put this up? Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for reminding me. Give me a moment. - Banyan Tree 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that should do it. - Banyan Tree 23:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found poetry

I'm recruiting a bunch of people to edit or watchlist found poetry...so, uhm, yeah, I'm recruiting you. --Justpassin (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm happy to watchlist. - Banyan Tree 01:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, help me please

I humbly beg your indulgence to share your thoughts in our User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling before conclusion, considering that your page stated that: "I have administrator privileges both here on English Wikipedia and at Commons. Feel free to bring any needed moppage to my attention." With all due respect and regards. I respectfully submitted your message to me as evidence ITN[2] in our User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling. Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. - Banyan Tree 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture question

Some days ago, you helped answer my question at WP:VP/A about cropping a picture and uploading it to Commons. I've uploaded the picture (Image:RPTS Class of 1887.jpg); would you be willing/able to crop it properly to focus on H. W. Temple? I don't have any editing software except for Microsoft Paint: it's good for drawing nice straight lines, but anything else it really can't do. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just have the basic photo editing software that came with my computer, but I gave it a shot at Image:H.W. Temple -RPTS Class of 1887.jpg. Let me know if you want a redo; I had to make it slightly askew because of the other fellow's elbow. - Banyan Tree 23:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it's not the best, but I don't think it could be done better with such a photo, as long as we don't have Mr Patton in the picture at all. Do you think I should post somewhere, asking help from someone with more impressive photo editing software, so it could (perhaps) like make it nice and circular or ovaloid, and fading out on the edges (if you know what I mean)? Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am easily satisfied with images, but you can certainly ask at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve, where all manner of editors with fancy imaging toys hang out. - Banyan Tree 03:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that came out wrongly; are you okay with my asking? Nyttend backup (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Users should take their editing as far as they feel is necessary to build the encylopedia. - Banyan Tree 11:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just wanted to made sure that I'd not offended at all :-) Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User CB

Hi, can you please change the border color of the userbox Template:User CB from white to black? I cannot understand how to do it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template was in an older format and needed to be entirely switched to the new version. I have added a black line. Please see Template:Userbox for how to make other modifications. - Banyan Tree 07:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global deleted image review

I am afraid your link lead to an empty page, where is this page? I would be happy to comment. Secondly, I responded at Template_talk:Watchlist-notice#global_sysops_message. Prodego ^talk 02:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. - Banyan Tree 02:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I replied over at meta:Talk:Global_deleted_image_review#View_image_history_only Prodego ^talk 02:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it. Thanks for your thoughts. - Banyan Tree 02:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.WHTour.org/4 WHTour.org at L'Anse aux Meadows— World Heritage sites in panographies - 360 degree imaging

I looked at this to see if it seemed ok, and I thought it was legit -- did you read their introduction? [3]. I'm usually pretty ruthless with external links, what don't you like about this one?--Doug Weller (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even get as far as looking at the site. I saw "tour" in the domain name, checked the contribs to see mass placement of external links to the same site, and immediately went to rollback, based entirely on the 'remove spam as a rule'-rule. If you feel that this merits an exception, I'm happy to concede. I've rolled my rollbacks back. - Banyan Tree 13:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was my initial reaction also. But yesterday I wasted quite a bit of time on Middle Ages trying to clean out some perceived copyvio only to find out that the book I thought it was copied from was by a publisher who publishes Wikipedia articles as books -- $9.99 gets you a copy of an old Wikipedia article! So, having made that big mistake, this time I checked the url to see what it was. Doug Weller (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of WHTour.org, a non-profit organization documenting the WH in 360. What can I do to avoid the "tour" misunderstanding when creating external links in Wiki ? Thank you for advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.75.176 (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. You currently write "WHTour.org in Damascus — World Heritage sites in panographies - 360 degree imaging". The frontloading of the domain name in the linked text and odd syntax is very spam-my, and will raise the hackles of many editors who try to maintain articles. I would recommend something along the lines of "Panographies of World Heritage sites in Damascus by world-heritage-tour.org", so information about what is found at the end of the link comes first. it appears that WHTour.org redirects to world-heritage-tour.org, which is less ambiguous and thus more reassuring to editors reviewing your contributions. - Banyan Tree 13:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and paste move

Hi BT,

Hope you are well. I've just noticed during the course of traversing around WP that the article New Hall, Cambridge was moved to Murray Edwards College, Cambridge by copy and paste on the 18th June. I initially thought of undoing it, but probably there's an easier way, such as merging the histories, which you may be able to do?

Cheers — SteveRwanda (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, merging the histories isn't easier, since it requires a bunch of button clicking and text merging, but it does preserve the attribution and thus the GFDL-compliance. That should do it. - Banyan Tree 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. SteveRwanda (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements needed to keep Rosa Parks as a Featured Article

As with most articles promoted so long ago, this article does not currently meet the Featured article criteria. Since you have been a major contributor to the article, I would appreciate your help to bring this article up to the current standards. Please don't take this as an insult to the article, as it is well-written and there shouldn't be a lot of work necessary.

I have listed my concerns on the article's talk page. I would like to get this up to the current standards without going through a Featured Article review, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack images

2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.3890633/

ir clearly states regarding the images and multimedia on their site: "Please use these freely, and if possible indicate to us whenever you use any of these materials by contacting one of the following persons" elio@theisraelproject.org

Lsdjfhkjsb Lsdjfhkjsb 05:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. That is not CC-BY 3.0, as they make no mention of Creative Commons. That seems to be Template:Copyrighted free use provided that, with their optional specifications, or possibly Template:Attribution, if one is being generous. In any case, I'm convinced that the licensing problems are not such that they require immediate deletion. Thanks, Banyan Tree 04:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonuk Mikko

When I create his page I am going to refer to him as Billy Bowlegs IV. Because something that you said. You asked who Billy Bowlegs II was? Well the person we were actually discussing (Holato Mikko) is Billy Bowlegs II his father was the original Billy Bowlegs. I personally think once Billy Bowlegs IV is created that the title of III and IV should be switched. But that is something for another day.Swampfire (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for that? You can't move Billy Bowlegs III because that is his name, according to Google, regardless of if he's actually the fourth Billy Bowlegs. Why not just create the article at Sonuk Mikko and avoid worrying about the name? - Banyan Tree 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt going to create it as Billy Bowlegs IV, I was going to create it as Sonuk Mikko and mention him as Billy Bowlegs IV, but I guess the IV can be left off and just talk about how he took over the name. The thing is Billy Bowlegs III wasn't refered to as Billy Bowlegs III when he was alive. He was just refered to as Billy Bowlegs because he took the name as well. Heck he wasn't even the third But I'm guessing media of the time dubbed the I, II, III as to when they became notable. But that is just a guess.Swampfire (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

opinion

Do you think you could possibly check out this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Notable Native Americans of the United States and possibly and give you opinon, or close the discussion. There are 9 people that say keep, one that asks the question of merge, because he didn't understand the difference between native americans and native americans of the united states. And only one delete and the discussion hasn't really been that active for a few days. The page List of Notable Native Americans of the United States is undergoing constant improvements. I work on it everyday.Swampfire (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I hope that justice would be served in the genocide case.--Florentino floro (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

A bit belated I know, but thanks for this. Also a bigger thanks for the reforms on ITN. I think the inclusionist attitude has helped make the template a lot more interesting, and ITN/C has been, in my opinion, a lot more harmonious of late. So well done. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's pretty much what I hoped would happen by backing Pharos' idea and it's nice to hear that at least one person thinks it's going alright. Cheers, Banyan Tree 00:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add me in. ITN has been going along a lot faster, though we can't be too inclusionist if articles are not/insufficiently updated. Great job, btw. Cheers, Spencer^T♦^C 01:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Can you remove the item about the Belgium government...the article needs more updates, and the item itself could use more wording anyway. Spencer^T♦^C 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also possibly add the Battle of Wanat item. Spencer^T♦^C 01:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Banyan Tree 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]