User talk:83d40m

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Master E. S.

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Israhel van Meckenem

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Bull Stone House

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Ancient Egypt#Article ancient Egypt under section 20, Article ancient Egypt

Moved a discussion about a photograph of Alice Prin that went missing on September 10 from her article - to user_Talk:TheParanoidOne

Copied a discussion re article Dinosaur concerning popularity of Jim Gary 1990 Smithsonian exhibit to User talk:Firsfron

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Deity

Moved a discussion here about Alexander the great to the user talk page, Enric Naval and to the article

Moved a discussion here about Nearchus Map inserted into Alexander the great to discussion at Alexander the Great

Moved a discussion here about images and edits for Karl Benz to that page

moved a discussion here begun about a nickname for Sarasota to its talk page

moved a discussion here begun about Chandos portrait and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust site to the article discussion page, Talk:Chandos portrait

Moved a discussion begun here about Alfred Lee Loomis to the discussion page for the article Talk:Alfred Lee Loomis

user:70.28.166.197

I've removed this user's edit to [{Engraving]]. I agree with you its clearly WP:POV and not sourced from reliable sources. That edit was made nearly two months ago. I will keep an eye on the user and any further infractions will be met with a block. In general its perfectly permissable to remove an edit like that one, and invite the user to discuss matters on the article's talk page. Good luck, Gwernol 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Trail

Thanks for the excellent additions to the Great Trail article. You did, however, include info that doesn't belong in this particular article and I will have to cut it back accordingly. House of Scandal 04:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note about your edit at Great Trail, have noticed a word left out that I will replace. I'll also take up a little further discussion at Great Trail under "discussion", Talk:Great Trail so it is available at the article. See you there... 83d40m 16:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth, virgin queen, goddess, etc., etc., etc.

Goddess Elizabeth, invincible virgin, always (forever) queen, also (even more) Caesar(ess) of England and France, and powerful Empress of Spain, strongest fighter in defense of the Christian faith, wisest patron of all scholarship*, most fortunate* victor* of the immense (wide) oceans, founder of the College of Jesus (Christ College?) at Oxon.

* Literarum should be Litterarum; Faelicissima s/b Felicissima; triumphatrix is not classical Latin (oh well)

Hope this helps!. Jim62sch 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to referencing

Click on "show" to open contents.

Thank you. 83d40m 14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenogenesis

We already have an article concerning Virgin Birth. Parthenogenesis is not the place for it. —Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article ancient Egypt

Thanks for your efforts cleaning up ancient Egypt. I removed an image you put on the article because it is really low quality and does not really reflect wiki's best work. I would like to include images in the article that exemplify more than a single idea at once. For the art section, I was thinking of having an image of Hatshepsut, which would show the distorted 2-D perspective and the use of art for a political purpose all at once. I am hoping we can find a really good quality image on the commons for this purpose. This same logic should hold true for other images on the article, but we don't want to end up with too many, or it will seem crowded.

I appreciate your efforts, and don't hesitate to ask questions or to discuss content. Jeff Dahl 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you have been doing some work on the religion section of ancient Egypt. Do you have any books we can cite for this section? Thanks, Jeff Dahl 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion of content to the article talk page, Talk:Ancient Egypt#Article ancient Egypt 83d40m 15:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Prin photographs

Hello there. It's been quite a while since I've looked at Wikipedia, let alone edited it, so you'll have to refresh my memory. Exactly which image/article are you refering to? Looking at the revision history of the Alice Prin articles, I've never made an edit to it. Please elaborate and I will see what I can do.

(Despite your request, I'm responding here as it seems unlikely that you will still have my talk page watched more than a month after your comment there). --TheParanoidOne 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am moving the discussion back to your page User_Talk:TheParanoidOne to keep it all together.--83d40m 13:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Howardduck-b.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Howardduck-b.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I need help with these two images -- I have read the instructions and thought I was following the directions for fair use since the article into which I was placing them is about the film. I interpreted the instructions to be that this was a fair use. I made a statement in the summary to that effect. Will pursue the help pages. 83d40m (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see whether the fair use statement for the two images is adequate. I have inserted a statement for each image, the image description page and the image description page, and removed the tag that had been placed on -b alone.

Thanks for the help 83d40m (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur re popularity of Jim Gary exhibit at Smithsonian 1990

Hi 83,

Thank you for your contributions to Dinosaur. Your input into the content of this article is appreciated. However, I did again revert your changes to this article. It reads like an ad: "The director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., Larry O'Reilly, stated that the clever and appealing dinosaurs created by sculptor Jim Gary, put on exhibition by the museum for four months during 1990, attracted the largest attendance on record for the museum." and is supported by this reference, which does not say anything about four months, or (more importantly) the statement that "the exhibit attracted the largest attendance on record for the museum." That part is not cited, and since it's probably the only part that could be used in a section discussing the popularity of dinosaurs, I have removed it.

Dinosaur is a Featured Article, meaning it represents the best of Wikipedia's articles, with good citations from reliable sources. The sources need to confirm what we say in the article. The obituary you used does not do that. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I felt that it was extremely germane to the article because of the indication of popularity and was rather dumbfounded by the reason for removal. I must have used the wrong reference for this aspect because one of the sources I had found quoted the director about the draw. Perhaps it was in the Smithsonian magazine article published in 1990. I'll track that down and come back to the article when I can provide a reference for that evaluation of the exhibit. Will copy this to your page also. 83d40m (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 83,

Thanks for your understanding. I look forward to your further contributions on dinosaur-related articles. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome -- I think we are here to help one another create the best articles we can for our readers -- nice to have someone take the time to explain a terse comment that could be misunderstood, positive reinforcement and all that...! -- 83d40m (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. That's a great attitude, 83. :) Sorry for the terse comment. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nat geographic world premier edition cover.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Nat geographic world premier edition cover.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 (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I have inserted the rationale at the image and hope that I have fulfilled the required information correctly. 83d40m (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boa Island

Hi, thanks for your excellent work on Boa Island. If you have a lot of information about the Janus figure, you might want to create a new article specifically about it. All the best, Bláthnaid 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliment. I would like to avoid the "Janis" implication and stress that it is the Boa Island figure... in order to let this unusual statue have its own recognition as a Celtic figure and I will pursue it as time allows when I have more details gathered about it and the similar stone carvings of its period. There are other two faced statues in other cultures and it is a shame to relate this to the Roman one just because a poet was familiar with that one... I'll let you know when I tackle it and am copying this discussion to the page itself for future reference. 83d40m (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reading the article. :) Bláthnaid 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of monotheism

Some of the text you introduced to Deity:

"Tantalizing images of what may be tens of thousands of years of worship of deities who seem to have been unchallenged and essentially unchanged, therefore easily suggesting that perhaps, humans believed in a single deity initially"

This seems very non-neutral ("tantalizing"?), and feels like original research. Can you cite it? Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving this discussion to the page Talk:Deity to keep it related to the topic.83d40m (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Two Ladies, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply posted on Carabinieri user page: Thanks for the heads-up about Two Ladies being chosen for an entry in DYK. I looked at the column for today, but did not see the entry, will it be posted later, or did I miss it? That is a nice reward for the work putting the article together. 83d40m (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

106 Famous Women

Have worked heavily lately on editing De mulieribus claris. Also added many new biographies of the list that were previously red links (they are all blue now). Found the main picture in the right corner of the article and added it. Also put in all the pictures on the right next to the names of the biographies. Also did a lot of work on De Casibus Virorum Illustrium. Lately one of my articles also was featured on DYK of Westinghouse Time Capsules. --Doug ^talk 16:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LionChaseZebra-cropped.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LionChaseZebra-cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Kla’quot talk page and at the discussion about it and two other images tagged for deletion at Lion. Agreed with the proposal to delete them. 83d40m (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Briggs Cunningham Time magazine cover April 26.1954.JPG)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Briggs Cunningham Time magazine cover April 26.1954.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zginder^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Karl Benz and Bertha Benz gravestone - vdetail2.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Karl Benz and Bertha Benz gravestone - vdetail2.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inserted and tag removed - thanks - 83d40m (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chatham, Chatham Township, and The Chathams

I've done a lot of work on virtually every article for each of New Jersey's 566 municipalities. Most articles are straightforward in terms of title and content. But there are a few oddballs, and it's not just their existence but their solution that is problematic. Should "Township" be included in titles of municipalities that rarely use the term in common use, as I just saw suggested for Springfield Township, Union County, New Jersey, which does not commonly use "Township", whereas Springfield Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. There are many borough/township pairs (plus a few non-boroughs), and the question of how to distinguish between the two individual municipalities is often a challenge. For a mythical place called "Foo", we often have pairs of "Foo, New Jersey" and "Foo Township, New Jersey", sometimes supplemented by "The Foos, New Jersey". There are multiple pairs of "Foo Borough, New Jersey" / "Foo Township, New Jersey". The question being what does "Foo, New Jersey" refer to, the borough or the collective. For example, there is Borough of Princeton, New Jersey / Princeton Township, New Jersey for the two municipalities, with Princeton, New Jersey covering the collective. Often, sources are unclear as whether a person or place is from/in the borough or the township, which makes the "Princeton, New Jersey" article useful. In the case of Chatham, clearly the Township stays unchanged (as it almost always should). I agree on moving Chatham, New Jersey to The Chathams or The Chathams, New Jersey (joining The Amboys, The Brunswicks, The Caldwells, The Oranges, The Plainfields, The Ridgefields and The Wildwoods). The fit isn't perfect, but "The Chathams" is a term in use, as in the title of the school district. So what to do with the borough? I have been baffled and I think other people become confused by the absence of the "borough" as to whether the usually small municipality at the center of the pair is being referenced or the combined borough/township pair. Even the borough's web site refers to itself alternatively as "Borough of Chatham" (in several places in the title), "Chatham Borough" (in the opening words of the first paragraph) and as "Chatham" (perhaps referring to the pair). As the site states, "Chatham Borough and Chatham Township share a common heritage and both are often referred to by their shared name, Chatham." I understand your efforts, and I hope that we can reach out to other members and participants of WP:NJ to reach a conclusion. Thanks for reaching out. Alansohn (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

moved Chatham discussion to talk to continue in one place 83d40m (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chandos portrait and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust

Hi,

I reverted your edit to Chandos portrait where you removed the link to the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust's page on “What did Shakespeare look like?” with the edit comment “rmv link identified as an attack site - until proven otherwise -”. I have no idea what an “attack site” is, but I'd judge it has negative connotations; and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust — the foundation charged with maintaining the various Shakespeare related buildings in Stratford — could hardly be more unassuming.

Could you perhaps elaborate on that edit summary? --Xover (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis, Bok, etc

I noticed you making some good contributions to these articles. It would be helpful if you could add references to the sources you are using for the information. ike9898 (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. I'm interested in many of these same subjects. I'm waiting for some books I ordered to use as reference material. Do you have any interest in George Lorimer/Saturday Evening Post? These subjects are also intertwined with Curtis and Bok. ike9898 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overreliance on Tuxedo Park in Alfred Lee Loomis

You've made a number of contributions to this biography, in the process apparently taking Tuxedo Park as the last word on Loomis (and possibly violating publisher's copyright and WP:FURG with the use of the cover image.) In fact, this book seems to incorporate a number of inaccuracies, as you might see from carefully reading the review at American Scientist [1]. Several of these inaccuracies are in the direction of exaggerating Loomis' career and contributions. The book is also criticized in that review for its relative paucity of source notes.

Wikipedia biographies, like all Wikipedia articles, are founded on source-based research. Some sources will, of course, exaggerate, or contain falsehoods. It appears that the author of Tuxedo Park was sometimes making things up, perhaps for the sake of a good story. I suppose if you take the book to heart, Loomis could actually start seeming a little like Bruce Wayne after all.

Still, Tuxedo Park seems to be a useful source, if you take it with the appropriate grain of salt. I suggest that, from here on out, if you plan to work further on this biography, that you quote directly from Tuxedo Park (with clear attribution, including page numbers) rather than simply rephrase statements from Tuxedo Park as if they were fact. This makes it clear that the statement quoted is one author's view, and not the last word on Loomis. Quoting has another advantage over paraphrase: you're less likely to get the author's meaning wrong, regardless of whether what the author means is accurate or not. Yakushima (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Al Loomis on Tuxedo Park cover 83d40m p2croped.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Al Loomis on Tuxedo Park cover 83d40m p2croped.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice -- a check of the file indicates that it has been restored to the article and I will follow the direction at the image ---- 83d40m (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain why it's fair use, and in conformance with Wikipedia policies on images. Haven't seen that. Reverting to group photo. 60.42.122.78 (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]