User talk:Nyttend: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:28, 22 November 2011

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Re: Illustrations of Pennsylvania municipalities

Nope. Not me. You must be thinking of someone else. Dismas|^(talk) 02:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WP NRHP in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is scheduled to be published October 17, so we have a couple weeks. It looks like this will be an exciting interview. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#View by User:Nyttend

Hi Nyttend. Please reconsider your comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#View by User:Nyttend: "Why aren't there any "View by ___" sections for actual users?" There was a "View by User:Example" below your added view. See your edit, in which you edited the "View by User:Example" section. Please strike out the incorrect sentence in your statement. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

PA municipality pictures

I do not know of a formal list, but Gerry D may (formerly Dincher). Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also check with User:Smallbones Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a long term and maybe impossible goal, but there is no list that I know of. Gerry D (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk That Talk

I don't know if you are aware, but i created the article for Rihanna's new album about 2 weeks ago. It was nominated for deletion, and the long awaited outcome was Incubate. I nominated the current one for Speedy Deletion per the Incubate of the one I created. I worked hard on that article about 25 people was involved with the Afd. By having this one open (which has considerably less info than the one in the incubator i created at the moment) completely undoes all that happened on the AfD for the one I created and would have wasted everyones time. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I nominated it when it only had a one sentence long lead. There was NO background info. And I haven't edited in the sense of improving, all I did was two reverts to restore the deletion tag. I'm sorry, but I want the one in the incubator to be the article used, otherwise it undermines everything that people got involved for in order to result in being incubated. Plus, this article is smaller than the one in the incubator, so someone would nominate to be deleted within the next few hours. An IP user, who clearly doesn't know what he or she is talking about, removed the tag. I am perfectly justified in those two reverts for the tag to stay there. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

it's not showing off my own work, it's undermining the thoughts and opinions of 25 other editors who came to a consensus that the article I created be incubated, which it is! The one i created is a lot more information than this one, so what makes you think this is one is worthy of remaining? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 18:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

request completed

Hello, Nyttend. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Gauravjuvekar (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Inland lighthouses

We've actually got another in Nebraska: Lake Minatare Lighthouse in Scotts Bluff County. Unfortunately, it was cloudy and gloomy the day I was there, so no photos. Ammodramus (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Victor Pascall

On 8 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Victor Pascall, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Victor Pascall of Trinidad was considered the best left-arm spinner in West Indies cricket during his career? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Victor Pascall. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First United

Well, a big red rectangular building, with a bell tower that looks like an observation tower old firehouses used to have... And yes, with a real fire station in the same street for comparison, one could not help wondering if the church builders were inspired by the best examples of the firehouse architecture :-)

I should stop by the B-ton Museum & Archives some day... --

Vmenkov (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2011

Paul Shoup House

Thanks for your comments on this page. The addition of the page to Wiki is my first contribution. My grandfather was a general contractor at the turn of the century (over a 100 years ago, hard to believe !), and he has several buildings he built on the NRHP. The Paul Shoup House is a home in my community, so I started with what I know. I may be interested in doing more for the wikiprojects you mention, currently I'm researching Paul Shoup's son, Carl Sumner Shoup - that will likely be my next Bio on Wiki. Wjenning (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding one more comment - the wiki article Paul Shoup House needs review, as it's a new article, and I'm new to this process. Can you suggest how I can get this done? thanks again, Bill Wjenning (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

Thanks for all the help on the Paul Shoup House - I am learning about the proper style, tense, formatting, etc. : wanted to get this one in Wiki, as it's the first house in the city for the listing. thanks again, Bill Wjenning (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've sorted out what happened just right - I miaread what the infobox meant, and undid it once I researched why it looked wrong when I typed it in. There is a lot to this wikipedia stuff... thank goodness the community is understanding and supportive. Wjenning (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I noticed later today that the "Criteria B" reference was deleted on the house by another editor. I don't know the proper etiquette about this : should I let the edit go, contact the editor that deleted it, or what? You're recommending that we include it (and I thought it made sense: as the key part about the houses NRHP application was about Paul Shoup, not the architecture: especially since all I can not yet confirm who the original architect was on the house). Your advice appreciated. Wjenning (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice to keep the intro short, and indicate the reason for the National Register application later. Feels like this info belongs in the Infobox: IE, the criteria for the nomination. I can only imagine that adding a field to an Infobox would be long and tedious as it impacts so many pages... Wjenning (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

NRHP photo contest

I loved the fish cabins comment. I posted a draft of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest. I'd love to see any comments about that page, just to make sure that it is easily understandable, and that the contest would be workable. Any more help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The Kansas and Dakotas comment was just off the top of my head, nothing serious. The AR "rule" is just to keep any side-issue controversies at a minimum, if you want to sponsor a challenge that includes AR sites, please go ahead. The timing of this is about the only thing related to the Signpost - if it can get some free publicity, why not? BTW, it looks like the article will run next Monday. My major concern is whether I'll get stuck counting 4,000 diffs, or in general will the contest work well as written. All the best, Smallbones (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Policy bot

The bot task to look for new policies only runs once a day. If someone makes a change that is promptly reverted, the bot is unlikely to notice it, which is OK because the situation would already be resolved. The goal of the messages is for pages that are marked and stay that way without anyone noticing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The code for this particular task is not very bright. It just compares the pages that are marked when it runs with the pages that were marked last time it ran. The goal is just to make sure that if a page does stay marked until the next bot run, it gets announced, so people know to look into it. For that purpose it doesn't matter whether the page was marked 5 minutes or 5 hours before the bot ran. If there were an overwhelming number of notices I would try to find a way to reduce them, but at the moment I think they are not too common. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Scipione

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Insulting

This edit contains some rather offensive material, and is nothing but disruptive; may qualify for removal. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Calabe1992's talk page.
Message added 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Moapa, Nevada

Hi, if you would follow the link to Unincorporated towns in Nevada, you would see that towns like Moapa are actually defined entities, not "my opinion of what a community is". The fact is that Moapa is both an unincorporated town and a census-designated place, but the fact that it is an unincorporated town actually has something to do with the how the town is defined and governed, unlike the CDP designation which is purely for statistical purposes. So I think it's more appropriate to refer to it as a town in the lead, rather than a CDP.

Also, if you look at secondary sources like Google News Archives, you'll see that the town is referred to as "Moapa" not "Moapa Town". So regardless of whether "we write about CDPs", WP:COMMONNAME clearly indicates that the article should be at Moapa, Nevada. Toohool (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Prairie Creek Site

Note that "Prairie Creek D" is a common term. Nyttend backup (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Shoresh disambiguation deletion

Hey there, how come you deleted the disambiguation page as unnecessary? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Tishrei 5772 01:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, guess I see that. I suppose I could put one of those did you mean x things at the top of Shoresh that has a link to semitic root (a much more common use than that tiny moshav). Errr... Do you know the template for that by chance? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Tishrei 5772 01:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya, one of those. Thanks. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Tishrei 5772 02:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

THanks

I was just getting to that (as noted on TZ master's page). They were simple copy/pastes I tagged - no additional content at time I was tagging until I kept reiterating they were exact duplicates other than the starting couple words. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Though I do have to ask... shouldnt the numerous dupes be redirects instead? That was the whole reason of the A10 tag. They are (the ones I tagged) exact dupes. Or perhaps you can advise TZ to use the underconstruction or inuse or major tags? Or do one at a time? A dozen dupes at a time? While creating more? I think the goal of expansion and individual articles is great... a dozen+ dupes, not so much. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake

1 Wrong tag — Status {^talk_contribs 13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For some reason Twinkle is tagging it with the wrong one. :/ Weird. — Status {^talk_contribs 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting images without preserving history

Hi. I noticed you deleted File:Pulpandbroach.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I also notice it was inexpertly transferred to Commons by the uploader there and didn't show any of the file history. While sometimes you can get away with this, it may cause one of the following problems:

It doesn't properly preserve the history of some contributions, which may cause licensing problems of our own (in this case, User:The Pink Oboe made an upload that is now completely unattributed; had this been marked GFDL or CC, it would be a copyright violation).
No preservation of the history may cause problems even where it looks like it might not. An example is a public domain painting: some countries (e.g., France) allow for an entity that makes even a slavish reproduction of the image to hold a copyright on it; this information is important for users in France who wish to reuse content from Wikipedia. I recently had precisely this type of issue brought up on my talk page: User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 16#Uploader information (although I was innocent of the claimed mistake!). Another example could be where an uploader gives the website where s/he originally got the image, but may have made edits before uploading to Wikipedia.
It doesn't preserve any of the dates of upload, which may be useful for dating third party images like text logos or US armed forces files.
It doesn't preserve the upload date, which will matter some day for when the item falls into the public domain by means of age
Depending on the situation, it makes it more difficult to track its usage on Wikipedia (and thus, to give the image a proper context, or - occasionally - track featured picture information).
If there are copyright question, it may make it difficult to track down the original uploader for an explanation.

As such, I'll ask that, in the future, you could make sure to either copy the original upload log (e.g., with CommonsHelper) to the new file before deleting, or that you make a proximate attempt (e.g., copying the file name, upload date and uploader history in your browser and pasting it in <nowiki> tags). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what you've said; however, there's no legal requirement to preserve the upload history or Commons requirement, since the GFDL/CC licenses don't require upload histories (and this is PD-self, so no legal requirement to do anything), and as such, the only legal requirement is that the author(s) be credited. I'm aware that it's common practice to give the upload history, so I never remove it from where it's already present (unless the image is a modification of something that I'd uploaded, since I'm free to waive anything of my rights), but there's no huge issue here. We have author credit and source statement, which fulfills Commons policies for all types of images and would fulfill the legal requirements of GFDL/CC licenses, and the original image said nothing about the date. By the way, you're wrong about The Pink Oboe being ignored; check the two upload summaries for the image, and you'll see that s/he was credited as the creator of the modified version. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well anyway, I just spent like 2 minutes writing a bot to do it anyway. It's here: [1]. It's quicker than CommonsHelper, and hopefully more reliable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
Message added 04:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

nableezy - 04:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Nyttend! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Comparison of types of hang gliders

Hi. I see that you have removed my speedy deletion request from Template:Comparison of types of hang gliders on the grounds that it isn't a redirect from main article space. I think that while maybe technically correct it was a bit hasty. I say technically correct because the only explanation I can think of for this is the fact that there is no article that references this template yet. Is this your thinking?

My reason for the deletion request was that although it isn't used in a main space article yet, it was clearly intended to be so used. The creator has just been banned from all further editing on this topic (WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joefaust) so even if it doesn't merit deletion for the reason I gave it should still be deleted as part of a tidy up from this.

Perhaps you could reconsider, or if not then please take/suggest a further course of action to get the template removed.

Thanks Jontyla (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume that the reason that one may not redirect main pages to user pages is because the rules for editing user pages are rather different from those for the main pages. However, if instead of having a main page M redirecting to a user page U (forbidden) you have M containing a template T which is redirected to U then surely you achieve roughly the same effect? I assumed that this was what the creator was intending and that this was also was forbidden, hence the tag.

There are existing templates that redirect to user space, but the ones I looked at are designed for use in user pages and thus don't have this problem.

If I'm not wrong about this then the articles about this speedy delete case may need updating to clarify things. Jontyla (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Flickr image

Same "koavf" Here you go: http://www.flickr.com/photos/koavf/4134278233/in/photostream There's nothing really special in addition (except a fraudulent copyright claim.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Interface Designer

Good day, From: User: Interface Designer By education I am a philologist. I worked as an editor for several years, speak several languages. I am the author of many scientific works and think I would be useful for the wikipedia. Now I need you urgent help, please. Some of my articles are marked as speedy deletion by the user who is not an administrator, has a very bad reputation in WIKIPEDIA (see his history) talk and is acting as a Vandal. He does not appear on the wiki for years, then begins to remove all that he see on his way. That is called: Vandalism Take a look please at his history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Luthorsteele http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Andyjsmith&limit=500&action=history

This is my articles which he deleted without any talk with me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hosting_Provider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Marketplace

Please help me and block this user as he is acting as a Vandal My article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hosting_Provider was delited by you. Please let me know what I need to change in it?

Thank you very much for your help. Interface Designer (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Interface Designer

Good afternoon, let me add few words in response to your strange accusations and group comments about me and some of my articles.

About the company

Before you put on the deletion it would be not bad to see what you are removing, and have a look in some original sources.

I will not enumerate all, but merely point out three things only:

[Spam redacted by Nyttend]

About the article World Marketplace

In principle, it can be removed, if you want to do it. I do not care about that.

Just one thing I would ask you to do: please make removement as soon as possible.

It is very desirable to look at this page now. Since the terrible inscription "This article is being considered for deletion ..." can not decorate such respectable System like Wikipedia.

It's not just my opinion. If you decide to leave this article, by adding a few lines, I think, the World will be very grateful to you.

About me

I wrote a few words about myself. Something will have to be repeated. I'm not a young boy. And Wikipedia is not for money (I have enough money, thank God), and not because I need a career (I've been once working as an editor of a prominent journal, but it's long past time ago. I do not think to move back to this stage).

In fact now I have, unlike many people, free time and I can afford to publish some of my useful life ideas. I think they can bring tangible benefits to mankind in various fields: from micro to macro space, from small to large businesses, from microbiology to medicine. This is one reason why I'm in Wikipedia.

The second reason: I'm more and more attracted by all positive, constructive and, at the same time, disinterested things. In all this lies a gigantic power. At the biggining Wikipedia was also disinterested.

General opinion

I'm just 24 days in Wikipedia. In that short time I have seen here a lot of interesting ideas and met nice people.

I can not say about everyone, but about some patrols can say this: behind the mask of an instantaneous speedy removals of articles with unselfish in words, lies hidden vandalism and as always happens in such cases: someone's serious interests, visible by the naked eye.

People here tend to operate in pairs user (User talk:Andyjsmith) + user's administrator who help him (User talk:Nyttend), and sometimes catching up friends (User talk:Yunshui) to solve some of there questions.

It's not a secret that all around and even inside Wikipedia industry is making money, but to the outside observer it looks quite good and free. If a person works for free there are only two choices: he is a complete idiot, or he has enough money to afford it.

With your permission, I can put on the Wikipedia a couple of dozen different sources as well as where you can earn money in Wikipedia and on Wikipedia with whom and how. Although I think this is not interesting, because everybody knows it. I would not want to be like those comrades who misrepresented me and my first articles in the Wikipedia, but I want them to read this lastly. User User:Andyjsmith + his administrator User:Nyttend + there fried User:Yunshui

All those who destroy, remove, and does not create, support or help people - is causing harm to himself a thousand times bigger than that which they have caused to the person offended or insulted by their destructive actions. This is an energy law. And it works everywhere 100%. The more you'll destroy the worse it will be to you on all levels, that's for sure and certain. One of your friends, by whom I was attacked User:Nyttend, is engaged in Aikido and he knows all these laws.

So he did the right thing to resolve the conflict immediately. He is a very good person I think.

An interesting point: if a man or a destroyer in your case the vandal (this is the one who destroys without thinking about the consequences and doing it without any warning) - if the vandal will learn over time to reflect negative energy attacks, destroying all his life (health, life, strength, brains, and so etc.), it is completely unknown why all negative energy somehow spreads to his relatives.

A very strange fact. A sad example: physicians surgeons. Look at them and their families. 90% of unhappy people - although they do seem quite good things. My advice: until you have at least some chance to get away from vandal way - get out and start helping people, do not try to kill them!

Have a nice day! And good luck!

Interface Designer (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Interface Designer

Thanks

Thanks for the info on the speedy deletion. Honestly, I just clicked speedy deletion at the top of the page and didn't realize I warned myself! ;-) $The Haz talk$ 16:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note

Hi Nyttend, thank you for the effort of alerting us. I've nominated World Marketplace for deletion and tagged another one for speedy deletion. Having him on watch. Thanks again. Best regards. Ben.MQ (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

NRHP table format

Just checking that you are aware of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012, concerning changing the format of the NRHP county tables. The underlying format may change, but the output in the county lists looks the same! In any case, your input could be useful.

PS - I'm looking forward to your participation in the photo contest. Smallbones (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just thought the timing would give other folks a chance :-P Actually, I thought that the signpost article might give it a jump start. Smallbones (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Buon giorno

	Some puttanesca
	To go along with your "pasta stubs". :) ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 16:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Renegade

I have answered you on the Renegade talk page. Coltsfan (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Interface Designer

I've never been part of an evil conspiracy before... Incidentally I think his bizarre comments about aikido and karmic energy were directed at me, rather than yourself. Thank you for doing the necessary and taking it to ANI - I tried to point him in the right direction, but removing the wrong end of the stick from his grasp proved a lot harder than expected. Yunshui 雲水 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Minneapolis - St Paul Beltway

That is a duplication of both Interstate 494 and Interstate 694. Created by an IP as a talk page because IPs can't create pages. There is no information there to be mined, so I re-tagged it as a G8. BTW, there is WT:MNSH for the Minnesota Highways subproject. Imzadi 1979 → 22:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; I've deleted it. I know that some states have highway projects, but I didn't know whether Minnesota did or not. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

MFD

Sorry to be ignorant, but I was following the World Marketplace AfD after I "voted" for delete, and I was wondering if you could explain what the term MFD means or point me to the relevant page. It's obviously something unpleasant that happens to naughty users. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What language is this?

I am sorry for the error. My intention was to copy the template and edit/translate it at Waray-Waray Wikipedia. Thank you for your kind consideration. --JinJian (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Andover, Kansas

Please provide two or more sources of CURRENT proof that Andover is part of Sedgwick County. I have provided multiple sources of proof that Andover is NOT part of Sedgwick County at Talk:Andover, Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked multiple times since last Winter and found ZERO evidence outside of the U.S. Census to support the OLD census mistake. There is nothing to de-annex because Andover was never in Sedgwick County. The city and county and GNIS knows the boundaries of the city and all maps that I have found never shows any part of Andover in Sedgwick County. Unless you can provide current proof, then all articles should reflect my point that Andover only exists in Butler County. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll dig deeper to see if something has changed since January 2010, which was 22 months ago. Give me a couple days to contact local officials to learn what the heck is going on with that 2006/2007 info that you provided me. Maybe they can point me to something newer. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The link http://www.census.gov/geo/www/bndrychanges/changenotedisplay.php doesn't have any details on Talk:Andover, Kansas. Try it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I found 2010 Census Bureau maps for Andover. It doesn't show the boundary going into Sedgwick County. I can't explain the change notes that you found. See Talk:Andover, Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi there, I noticed your comment about regimes and legal systems being very different on my edit on this page. I too see these as being very different things and felt that I was misrepresenting WIPO etc. as legal systems. Do you have some thoughts on this? New to Wikipedia so I apologize if this is not the way the place where we should be having this discussion. Thanks for the input. Nas Khan (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hiya. It looks like the entire section I added text (and you commented on)has been deleted. Thanks for checking back with me. I appreciate your desire to help.Nas Khan (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

This is not a comment on what an excellent/horrible editor you are, but when you leave helpful technical notes on people's talk pages, there is no need to preface them with remarks of this kind. Chrisrus (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for help at Template:Gcb

Thanks for your help at {{gcb}}. The template and its documentation are now at the correct addresses. So are the two talk pages. --P64 (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dissertation

No, my dissertation is in hard copy only. If you are interested, I could make a copy and send it by snail mail.Bill Pollard (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

legal ownership claims - from AN

Hi, to respond to your question, I answered a part of it in the thread and just to add a bit more here in a further attempt to explain my position on "pictures that have good faith disputed ownership and rights claims.

"I thought claim of ownership was more related to evidence of permission than assume good faith, at least that should be the case imo after the copyright ownership is disputed."

If the unloaders legal ownership of the copyrights is in good faith disputed then imo the responsible err on the side of caution position then sits with the disputer and the responsibility to provide verification is on the shoulders of the uploader and the status of the picture is unclear and should imo be removed from our article until verification is received. Claim of copyright ownership is a legal claim which if false is detrimental to the true legal owner of the rights to the picture. As a responsible editor, if you have a doubt as to the legal ownership of the rights to a picture, its removal from publication in a en wkipedia articles until verification of ownership is received seems to me to be the cautious position. Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow — I badly misunderstood you before. Now that I understand what you mean, I'm much more in favor of it than I had been. Thanks for the clarification! Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah cool - mental note to self to be a bit clearer in what I say rather than have to explain vague ramblings - I also have an issue with repeated corrections of my comments resulting in edit conflict problems. I am currently taking a step back and primarily taking a break (I need to do better at that) and looking for a new entry point in the manner of a fresh start. Best regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

- Hi - I was just looking back at the discussion and wondering, is there a place to continue the discussion or shall we let it rest for a while till it comes up again? Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Paper townships

Why is "how we write" articles on Ohio townships based on fictitious boundaries? I've added citation needed templates to the statements in question, as the articles contain no verification that the cities "occupy" any parts of the townships as they exist. --Ibagli (Talk) 02:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The Census map does not show what you say it does in your edit notes. Newark, Heath, and Pataskala are depicted with solid lines separating them from the townships, instead of the dashed lines used to draw the other municipalities. --Ibagli (Talk) 03:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that this is the current location of the map you wished to link to. Note that the bottom says the "map is intended to show the majority of townships that currently exist or have existed in the past." I don't dispute that the townships in question used to include the territory mentioned, but difficulty isn't a reason to include verifiably untrue statements (such as "a small part of the city of Heath occupies the northwestern corner of Franklin Township"; it can't occupy a corner of the township, as the territory has been removed from the township, which the Census maps you were eager to cite demonstrate).--Ibagli (Talk) 03:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Are the articles about the townships as they exist as legal entities (or at least as minor civil divisions as defined by the Census bureau), or are they about the territory inside the "complete boundaries"? If it's the former, then the populations and other statistics are correct but the statements about the municipalities "occupying" parts of them are not. If it's the latter, then the demographic statistics are given for the wrong area. The Census statistics for Madison Township, to give an example, do not include people in the "portions of Madison Township" that are "occupied" by Newark and Heath. It only includes the people living within the area on this map bounded by pentagon-shaped symbols. If Madison Township includes parts of the cities of Heath and Newark (as it would have to for those cities to "occupy...portions of Madison Township"), then the article should not use the demographic information for a different entity with different boundaries. On the other hand, if the statistics are correct, then the statements declaring that the cities contain portions of the current township must be incorrect. The two sets of facts are contradictory, and there's no indication to the reader that some statements (the demographics) are based on the minor civil division, but some are based on the "complete boundaries" of the township.--Ibagli (Talk) 04:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Ryulong's talk page.
Message added 22:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 22:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 22:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Cyberpower

Could you do a bit of cleanup on the stuff he copied from my userspace when I intended for him to merely use my subpages for the matter? The pages should be User:Cyberpower678/Clock, User talk:Cyberpower678/Clock, and User talk:Cyberpower678/Penguin (I've made them into redirects).—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patients. I got the barrier and the speedy deletion template to work for my account.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 11:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bates-Young constant

Hi,

I am sorry, but either I have gone crazy (which is possible of course), or both Bates-Young Constant and Bates-Young Paradox are patent nonsense. Could you please explain why have you erased the speedy deletion tag?

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy tags you added to both articles. G1 is only for articles containing gibberish. The above articles are comprehensible. Upon some research, I've seen that those topics seem to be made-up, so you may wish to tag them for speedy deletion as G3. Goodvac (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen Goodvac's note on my talk page, which was posted in your response to mine? He makes a couple of comments; one of them is a reminder that G1 is only for gibberish. Regardless of whether it's real or a hoax, a page doesn't qualify for G1 speedy deletion if the words themselves make sense; G1 is for pages such as

gonudfbgduongoduotuedbguodtubggfb fnouersn rnournodbugnorubg

Conversely, he suggests a Db-g3 tag, to have the page speedy deleted as a blatant hoax. This is not a blatant hoax, because a blatant hoax is one that anyone can see is false — I see no reason that this has to be false, so it shouldn't be tagged for G3 speedy deletion. Unless you have another speedy deletion criterion that's applicable (and I can't imagine one), you'll have to pursue a different deletion strategy: you could tag it with the PROD process, simply saying that this is made up, or you could go with a full AFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Goodvac and Nyttend,

thanks for correcting me. I see the pages have been already deleted, so there is not much to discuss. But I do think it was a blatant hoax. A number is always equal to itself, as we have all learned in elementary school, so anyone who knows what a number is can see it's nonsense. Anyone who knows the other words that appeared in the article (such as Heisenberg principle) can see that the rest is no better.

Best, Sasha (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 13:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 13:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Note for later

Lexington, Indiana 129.79.34.222 (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking me?

I haven't read what you said in my talk page until today. You know it doesn't matter anymore, everything is over now. In all the admins, you seem to be the most reasonable one. Well you're right, the only right i have is to vanish away. Yep but why don't change it to make it better?? I know i'm considered by many people as a radical but let look back in history radical ideas sometimes are actually the things that change and make things better but were not being accepted by majority but it's different. Anyway i already lose interest in editing anything in English Wikipedia. As i strongly believe, one day in the future "freedom of speech" will prevail everywhere regardless where it is. In 1 year, 10 years, 100 years... Who knows. Anyway the main reason why i'm here is i want to tell you that you made the wrong conclusion. You said this as a reason to confirm my blocking. "You've been blocked for repeated actions against consensus (regarding the deletion/merging issue)". I added the deleted info once and the admin reverted it and then i revert his edit and then he reverted my edit and bring it into admin noticeboard. I tried to argue with him at the admin notice board and the discussion page and then he blocked me. So see? I stopped adding info into the article since i got the warning. All i did is discuss and got blocked for that. Is that right? Is that repeated? This violate the most important fundamental human right i can think of. You got blind by other admins. And yes, admins can easily tricked someone into block by provoking them first or making some traps and wait for the victims to fall in. How? Simply enough, they have more power. This is ABSOLUTELY admin abusive. I'm kind of feel sad too that the founder is careless about abusive on Wikipedia. He doesn't even say me a word nor did he explain anything. All i can say is i totally disagree with the entire system. And yet Vietnam is a communist country and no freedom of speech but here at the Vietnamese Wikipedia. I can tell you we have better right than English Wikipedia and more justice community. No abusive admin. Americans have proudly say to the world we have the best justice system with freedom of speech and the bill of rights but look at what kind of system Wikipedia is developing? This is probably the last discussion i will ever make on here at English Wikipedia. I will vanish away until i saw some major change has been done or perhaps i may not live that long to see it. (my little note for you: since you look like the most trusted admin that i have encountered, hope you can somehow fight for justice and help people who have no power and a lot more helpless than me like new members as an example. Do it when you have chance). Peace man!Trongphu (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak enforcer

Hi there. This is User:Basalisk editing as an IP, because like a true bonehead, I've managed to lock myself out of my account until the 15th, because I misconfigured the wikibreak enforcer on my java page. I understand a sysop can help me out. So...help? Please? 46.64.86.194 (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged. I'm off to find the tiniest of tiny fishes to slap myself with. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hello Nyttend! When you get a chance, I would appreciate any comments you can provide at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Interstate Center (Missoula), which includes three other building articles from the same city. We need additional opinions since only one other person has commented besides me and we're on totally opposite pages. I've listed it in 2 relevant discussion boards, but still no one else has commented either way. Thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. Just FYI, the Record-Courier covers Portage County, which has a population of over 160,000 within its readership area. The Missoula Metro Area has a population of around 109,000. The R-C just seems much smaller because it is within the Cleveland-Akron Media Market and the much larger Beacon Journal and Plain Dealer readership areas overlap it. Considering that the Missoulian apparently also covers western Montana, it's circulation rate (just over 26,000) isn't significantly more than the R-C's (over 17,000) despite the Missoulian being basically uncontested and the prominent printed news source in its home market. The R-C is definitely not as prominent within its home market as the Missoulian is within its, but they're not much different in terms of their overall reach when population numbers are taken into account. I still disagree that one article or even a few in a local outlet fulfills "significant" coverage as far as Wikipedia is concerned (I'd feel the same if this were a building in New York City too), but I'll obviously go along with consensus. Guess I can start getting some Kent building articles written... --JonRidinger (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Theophosostic

Re. [2]

I'm not sure why you declined deletion of Talk:Theophosostic counseling/Archive 1 - your edit summary gave the reason that the target existed. However, that isn't the G8 criteria; it's Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page [...] Examples include talk pages with no corresponding subject page; subpages with no parent page.

As far as I can see, there's never been an article called Theophosostic counseling - it's a mis-spelling; the article is Theophostic counseling.

Nothing links to the redirect. I can't see it serves any purpose at all. Chzz ► 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(Copying back your reply from my talk [3] to below, so this thread is readable Chzz ► 17:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

In this case, it's a redirect to an existing page; the existence or nonexistence of a corresponding article isn't relevant for redirects in the talk namespace. The page is dependent on Talk:Theophostic counseling/Archive 1, and that's why the existence of the target is the relevant question. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I really think you're missing something here, or we have a misunderstanding. It's simply a typo. It has no parent page, it has no subject page, it has no dependency whatsoever; it fits G8 - as far as I can see. "Dependency" refers to any kind of linkage to the redir, or use for it - nothing links to it... this all seems very pointless. Chzz ► 17:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I think it was my typo in creating the archive with a misspelling and I moved it - I can't see much of a reason not to delete .. this redirect - others may also misspell it whilst searching I suppose. I have no objection at all to its deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(Copying back your reply from my talk [4] to below, so this thread is readable Chzz ► 18:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC))

The existence or nonexistence of links to a redirect is completely irrelevant. I know that it's a typo: however, it is a redirect to a page that currently exists, and as such it does not qualify for deletion as a dependent page of a nonexistent page. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is all rather a waste of time; I think you are either misunderstanding G8, or just being overly bureaucratic about it. A redirect-discussion for this would be utterly pointless. Can you just delete it as G6 "Uncontroversial maintenance" or G7 "Author requests deletion" (per above) or just...well, just delete it? So we can all get on with something more productive? Cheers, Chzz ► 18:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted it as G8, which it clearly is. older ≠ wiser 18:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

- sorry to have created this waste of time - I will remember this next time I miss-spell a redirect or archive and blank them and request deletion myself - regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Local pages for Commons images

Hi, Nyttend - I saw your action on File:Clerid beetle04.jpg and wanted to clarify (more to ensure that I am not doing something wrong more than anything else). My understanding was that the "Assessments" template on Commons superseded the local "Featured Picture" templates, and that the local template could be deleted as redundant. (There is not, however, a Commons template for en Wikipedia Pictures of the Day or DYK images so I have been leaving those alone.) Also, I don't believe it's standard practice to add local categories to Commons images, as the categorization system is much more robust and precise there. If I'm off base please let me know - thanks! Kelly ^hi! 03:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - apparently there's not a standard practice...been working with images for several years, and you're the first admin who retains the local {{Featured picture}} template in addition to the Commons template (not saying you're the only one, just the first I've seen). I've asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures#Is local "Featured Picture" template redundant to Commons "Assessments" template?. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 05:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Western view

Thanks for getting this photo - now all the missing PA NHLs are within a day-trip for me, so I can aim for completing them. I think the western view shows the architecture better. It's easy to make out the octagonal tower. Smallbones (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pike County is 2.5 hours one-way. I did it before sharing the driving with my wife, but that was the problem. Minisink appears to be off in the woods, across the swamp, and over the river, so she didn't want to bother. Maybe we could get Mikey (or Ammodramus) to do it. Schaeffer House was added in July to the NRHP list but was omitted from the NHL list. Perhaps it had something to do with the address being given as the same as another NRHP, but the coords are different. My pet peeve on the NJ NHL list is Washington's crossing, with the famous pic of Washington crossing the Delaware. The painting has nothing to do with reality. But my previous pix of the spot look like nothing. Smallbones (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical markers

Hey Nyttend,

The only GPS coordinates are the ones that came from the PHMC database, but that plaque was apparently added before coordinates were. However, this website about Brashear's house suggests your photo is not the same structure. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't understand at first. It's been a while since I created those lists. So, way back when they were first starting a historical designation program, before the modern incarnation of the PHMC, they used plaques instead of the highway markers that are familiar to everyone today. That means that an old plaque is probably affixed on the same grounds that is also marked by the more modern street sign. In other words, its a duplicate designation as it is actually marked twice, and thus appears in the PHMC database twice. I would use your Brashear House.jpg to illustrate it unless you have an alternative angle. CrazyPaco (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not familiar with the area, not as familiar as you are. My guess it is the same house, and some of the earlier entries in the PHMC database are not precise. If you are in doubt, just leave the image blank. Your call. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ashworth Archaeological Site

On 14 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ashworth Archaeological Site, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that excavation at the Ashworth Archaeological Site in Indiana was halted because of the owner's religious beliefs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ashworth Archaeological Site.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

RFPP

First, thanks for your work at WP:RFPP. But, could you use the template {{RFPP}} when answering requests? (There are instructions at the top of the page) This allows the script to move them to the "done" section. There is also a handy user-script for RFPP located here. Cheers, —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. No problem. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Gold rush

Please see my follow up on a case you declined. A second IP joined the fray, so I went ahead and applied the semiprotection. Feel free to adjust this if you think it is excessive. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Having too many admins handling cases at RFPP almost never occurs. Wish that it was a more frequent occurrence. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Goofy (Disney) films

Is there a way to nominate this category to be moved to Category:Goofy films? And the same with Category:Goofy (Disney) short films? I was essentially just trying to move it so the name is more simple, but there isn't this option for a category page that I can see. Pigby (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Pigby (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting my useless pages (just that)

As section title f g 04:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Marine isotope stage

Length ok now Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cyrrhus

OK, so where's the discussion about moving Cyrrhus, Syria? The RM was about moving the article back from Cyrrhus, Turkey, and Cyrrhus was a dab page. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the CSD notice said it was uncontroversial; I'd have thought someone asking "what's going on" would suggest it wasn't as uncontroversial as all that. Anyway, I've opened a discussion here. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I was pretty hacked off about finding that this had been moved, without so much as a by-your-leave; I’m also annoyed that when I queried it, that was ignored too, and the page moved anyway.

So you can read more about it here. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, anyway. As for your comment on where I think the talk page should be, my beef with you was what I've said here; if you think that's the right way to act on CSD's there's probably not much more to be said. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You’ve missed my point, again. Try this, again. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Then there’s nothing more to be said. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks, Nyttend; see this discussion. --Shirt58 (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Anchovies

Restored per your request. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club

Hey there! Hope you are having a great Tuesday :) You semi-protected The Bad Girls Club (season 8) yesterday, however, User:Junebea1 moved it to Bad Girls Club (season 8) and vandalized it (currently an AN/I discussion) and he's not the only one. I was wondering if you can protect the article again? Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

3 left

See List of National Historic Landmarks in Pennsylvania Smallbones (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I do occasionally try to replace B&W photos, or in general, lower quality photos on the lists. With HABS photos however I rarely think I can get a better one, even if I can do the current scene in color. A possible exception A vs. B. I'd asked about the Philly lists (NHL as well as NRHP) if only because all B&W lists can look pretty drab. One editor asked me to go slow on it. It's pretty hard to judge my own photos, so I generally only replace when I'm absolutely sure I have the better pic.

But in short I can see 5-6 PA NHLs that might be worth a shot over the next 2-3 months. Smallbones (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch had the answer. For pre-March 1 1989 PHMC markers, they are out of copyright, there's an OTRS ticket, and there needs to be a trademark template because of the shape of the sign. Sometimes, I'm just in awe ... Smallbones (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: [Jerusalem Prayer Team]

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Rjmains's talk page.
Message added 09:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New York cities

Could you please move Batavia (city), New York back to Batavia, New York? There are many instances of New York municipalities that use the same name (e.g., a city within a town of the same name). Common practice is that when there are only two entities involved, to only disambiguate the lesser entity (e.g., Poughkeepsie, Kingston, Gardiner). I left a notice on WT:NY a while back about how a small fraction of the New York cities articles need to be renamed to eliminate any inconsistencies. Could you please perform these moves? --Gyrobo (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Photo request - Little Thetford Flesh-Hook

You asked that this object be photographed. In fact it is on the British Museum Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.64.111 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but that image appears to be all-rights-reserved; the reason I was requesting a photograph was so that one might be available for our article, and such an image would either need to be free from copyright or copyrighted but released under a free license. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

...

Big words, mate. We will see what the community thinks. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Libbey House

We lucked out re. Edward D. Libbey House. After I'd shot the Marie Webster House in Marion, IN, I had to decide whether to go northeast to Toledo or southeast to Kettering. The coin came up heads, so to Toledo I went. If you've got Kettering, I won't try to hit it on my way back westward. Ammodramus (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)|}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {| id="toc" style="margin: 0 2em 0 2em;"
 ! align="left" style="background-color: #ffd700;" width="100%" | "You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.
-|}
 {{User:Nyttend/Archive box}}
@@ Line 519: / Line 519: @@
-We lucked out re. [[Edward D. Libbey House]].  After I'd shot the [[Marie Webster House]] in Marion, IN, I had to decide whether to go northeast to Toledo or southeast to Kettering.  The coin came up heads, so to Toledo I went.  If you've got Kettering, I won't try to hit it on my way back westward.  [[User:Ammodramus|Ammodramus]] ([[User talk:Ammodramus|talk]]) 11:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+We lucked out re. [[Edward D. Libbey House]].  After I'd shot the [[Marie Webster House]] in Marion, IN, I had to decide whether to go northeast to Toledo or southeast to Kettering.  The coin came up heads, so to Toledo I went.  If you've got Kettering, I won't try to hit it on my way back westward.  [[User:Ammodramus|Ammodramus]] ([[User talk:Ammodramus|talk]]) 11:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)|}