User talk:Arctic.gnome/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of discussions from January to June, 2007. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4


Contents

Timeline of Canadian elections

Many thanks for your considerable input into the Timeline of Canadian elections list, which has now made Featured List status :-) By the way, what was your source for PEI having 25 elections prior to joining the Confederation? It would be nice to get them listed at General elections in Prince Edward Island (pre-Confederation) or similar. (Although listing pre-Confed elections seperately causes problems of its own... see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Brunswick general elections...).

Anyway, thanks once again for your contributions. Tompw (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FT color

Hi, I was using the table at the top of Wikipedia talk:Colours. I'll mention at WP:FC now. :) —Quiddity 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Edmund James Flynn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Edmund James Flynn.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you!

Many thanks for your award of The Society Barnstar - it's nice to know ones work is appreciated. (Though it's only ten featured lists and one failure rather than fourteen). Thank-you once again :-) Tompw (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing article

This article: Scouting in Prince Edward Island you put two tags on with ratings does not exist?????? Rlevse 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather backwards way of doing things. You should at least create an article stub. We have an article request list on our project. Until there's at least a stub, I'm taking off the Scouting tag.Rlevse 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Saffron image

Whoops... mistake on my part, now fixed. Tompw (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

redirecting you

Sorry for redirecting your Monarchy article; I checked out the other provinces' articles and now see where you are going. Good luck! Cmprince 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sterling Lyon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sterling Lyon.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan electoral history

I found fairly comprehensive information here in the Saskatchewan Archives website, They also have old electoral maps at the archive itself, but not online for early Northwest Territories elections from 1881 to 1905 and for Saskatchewan, at some point I would like to bring the district maps online. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloveious (talkcontribs) 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

List of Quebec Premiers

Great Job of updating the list!!! You scooped me! hihihi :)

If I Had $1000000

I have reverted your edit to Barenaked Ladies as, while I agree that the song has had numerous names in text, the name of the article that is being linked to is If I Had $1000000, and it's silly to link to a redirect when one is knowledgable of the article's proper name. Thanks for being bold, though. JPG-GR 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

iTunes Originals has no standing in officiality. The titles of the tracks are written by iTunes, as songs like In The Drink are mistitled. Just like the etown recording (also on itunes) which calls Old Apartment "Where we used to live" or something. this copy of the yellow tape does not have an "a" in the title of the song. Nevertheless, this yellow tape, Gordon, and the singles for the song should be the most official titles. TheHYPO 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Davidpeterson-head.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

Think you can help us save this article? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada. Thanks! -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, they put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada on AfD as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lengths of PMs time in office

I think we might be adding them up differently. Feb 5, 2007 was his 365th day in office, but that is still not a complete year. There are 365 days in a year, but when it his 366 days, then it is a complate year, starting a new year. Feb 6, 2007 was Harper's one year in office, Feb 7 was Harper's 1 year and one day. SFrank85 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The dates for the prime ministers' terms in office now don't agree: the date in the information boxes vs. the date in the articles. Examples are Trudeau (June 29 vs June 30) and Mackenzie King (Nov. 14 vs Nov. 15). If you change one date in each prime minister's article, should you not change all the dates for each article ... for consistency? Que-Can 05:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Arctic.gnome. I think we can agree that the page is now correct. SFrank85 21:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I still think the days for Harper is wrong (not total days). There are 365 days in one year. Once you hit 365 days in a year, it is now a new year, but the last day of the first year. February 6 is Harper's first year, but according to this, his first year anniversary was on February 5, which is wrong. SFrank85 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for claering it up with me. We shall use your system. SFrank85 17:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1914

Re the article you created called Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1914, the first Ontario Conservative leadership convention did not occur until 1920. Please see Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership conventions. Sixth Estate 07:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note there were also no leadership conventions in 1930 or 1948. Please see Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership conventions. Sixth Estate 07:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And also there were no Liberal Party of Ontario leadership conventions prior to 1919, nor was there one in 1942. See Ontario Liberal leadership conventions. Sixth Estate 23:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minsters of Canada, departure dates

I've fixed the dates (Mackenzie to Martin), when these PM resigned & their successor's were sworn in. My source? Prime Minsters of Canada by Jim Lotz (c.1986). As for Campbell, Chretien & Martin, CBC News made it quite known, when these respective PM's resigned and their successor were sworn in (the resignation & swearing in occured on the same date; give or take a few hours). This notion that a defeated or retiring PM resigned a day before his/her successor was sworn in, is the wrong notion (the only execption were the 19th & early 20th century PM's). GoodDay 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added 2 more external links to List of Prime Ministers of Canada to back my edits. Furthermore, I have a 'Funk & Wagnalls' Encyclopedia set that backs my edits. Also, in 1984, 1993, 2003 & 2006, while watching CBC news (Canada's leading News channel), they distinctively announced the outgoing PM's resignation occuring earlier on the same day as the incoming PM's being sworn in. Finnaly, I think Jim Lotz did research, before he wrote his book.GoodDay 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed one of the External Links (which I added, earlier), it was inconsistant (it actually had Campbell leaving office Oct 25, 1993 -Election Day). I'm signing out for the night. As we have conflicting sources, I suggest we have a Rfc for all PM of Canada pages & the List article. An 'Edit war' wouldn't be good. GoodDay 00:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Artic.gnome, I've just signed in. Do you think we should have an Rfc on this topic, seeing as we have conflicting sources for the dates? GoodDay 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. GoodDay 20:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1942

An editor has nominated Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1942, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1942 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1899

An editor has nominated Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1899, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1899 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1896

An editor has nominated Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1896, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Party of Ontario leadership convention, 1896 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Free content on Wikipedia

Hi,

This is very late reply to what you asked two months back on Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks. You asked how could Wikipedia allow its content to be freely used by anyone, even to make profit for themselves. A number of people answered your query, but in the end you looked unconvinced. I chose to reply to your page itself as you might not be watching the said page till now. Hopefully in the two months, you would have understood more about our philosophy, but if you haven't here's my sincere attempt.

Wikipedia licenses its content under the GNU FDL license, which is a copyleft license. In short, this means that anyone can use the content for any purpose, provided they also license the content under GNU FDL with full text of the license, and acknowledges all the authors of the content. Full details of this can be found at Wikipedia:Copyrights. Also note that the top of the page says: "The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations." Thus, Wikipedia is a place where you can license your contributions under the GFDL, but this doesn't make Wikipedia own the work done by you. The Wikipedia encyclopedia chooses to make the content freely available to anyone throughout the world, free from any kind of advertisements or other bounds. This moral high ground need not be taken up by anyone using GFDL content. Some may want to use the content commercially by making it a part of their own website, by selling CDs, etc. But whoever chooses to do this also understands that if s/he wants to make profit, there should be something that would distinguish him from Wikipedia. For example, if there is a Wikipedia mirror that contains lot of pop-up ads, and spam anyone who visits the site, there would be a good reason for someone to use that website rather than the plain-ol' Wikipedia. Also, making into CDs would require some effort on his own part. Add to the fact that anyone can copy his business model, so it would be difficult to operate such a business on supernormal profit. While the example I gave is good to give an understanding of how Wikipedia's content cannot be exploited beyond a certain extent, but in reality, Wikipedia did not start functioning with this hindsight. Wikipedia just wanted to make things freely available to everyone. The best way that this was possible was to use the power of the internet. The content is so free that the only thing we want to ensure is that it remains free even in the derivative works (that is why we expect our mirrors to be GFDL compliant). It is true many people who contribute to Wikipedia actually think that they still own the content. Another whooping majority thinks that the content gets owned by Wikipedia. Frankly, I believe that if everyone is made truly aware of how free we make our content (especially with regards to commercial redistribution), many contributors will stop contributing. But there are still many people (like me, of course) who believe in promoting freedom of knowledge. Thus we all contribute for the greater good of humanity (as a near perfect charity work). Looking at your userboxes, I find that your contributions are perfect charity as you release all your content to the public domain. This means that anyone can use the content originally created by you for any purpose, even without acknowledging you, and even if you wish they don't.

Hope this clarified your doubts. If you have any more outstanding queries, I will be glad to answer. — Ambuj Saxena () 12:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the comments

Jeff, thanks for the comments and the welcome to wikipedia. I really have no idea how to reply to your post on my "talk" page so I figured this is the way to do it. My apologies if I am totally wrong. cheers, ewen (Emackinnon 13:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

(numbers)

just curious, what do the numbers in brackets on the edit history page mean?


thanks. Emackinnon 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your help jeff, i much appreciate it. cheers, ewen. Emackinnon 21:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. Sorry if I seemed snappy on the Featured Topic Removal candidates in my attempt to clarify; I've been under a lot of stress lately, which is why I'm preparing for a wikibreak. — Deckiller 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ralph Klein.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ralph Klein.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 48 hours after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

More

The same for image:

--Abu badali (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grant Devine portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grant Devine portrait.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Jesse Viviano 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Allan Blakeney portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Allan Blakeney portrait.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Jesse Viviano 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Allan Blakeney.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Allan Blakeney.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Jesse Viviano 14:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grant Devine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grant Devine.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Jesse Viviano 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Topic Viability

You seem to be someone who is very involved with WP:FT. I just received my first WP:FA this week. I am attempting to understand the prospects of a WP:FTC for

Featured articleCampbell's Soup Cans
Andy Warhol {{GAnominee|2007-03-31}}
The Factory
Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board

I am guessing I would have to leave the last one out of the topic. Would I have to research The Factory to site it or can this group be nominated if Warhol gets a GAC? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing you are saying if Andy Warhol is the topic The Andy Warhol Museum would need a true article and The Andy Warhol Foundation would need an article. In addition, The Factory, andAndy Warhol Art Authentication Board would need great improvement. However, Campbell's Soup Cans might make it with just the first three articles. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been blocked for no reason

Check my edit history, I have not done any vandalism. User:Cryptic seems to have made a mistake. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 03:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You have not been blocked, the IP 74.14.32.156 has been blocked. Are you that IP now, that would explain why it is effecting you. Does your ISP change your IP often? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
YesY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 74.14.32.156 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I switched the block to anon only, it should work now, let me know here if it does not. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 03:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I am unable to follow the procedure, could you have the 2 Articles added to the topic page for Michigan State, The Articles removed are sparty and John C. Holmes. Thanks for your help. Buy the way what happend to Wikipedia being a Free encyclopedia that any one can edit? I did not Vandlize the page I made it better, so what is the problem? The History of the page can be used to look at any changes, what makes this so different? I do not think I should have to jump through Hoops for adding 2 pages the the Michigan state section. Max 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will nomate the pages my self, I will let you know if I have trouble with this Thanks again Max 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Wiktionary entry last November re "Zombie"

Hello Arctic.gnome -- Like you I sometimes add Canadianisms to Wiktionary. I came across your entry under "zombie" and have put a request-for-verification tag on it, with discussion here:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#zombie

I'm not 100% sure, but I have my doubts that this usage can be counted as standard English (I think it revolved around one insult) or Canadian English. More like anti-Canadian English. But I'd be interested to hear of any sources you have. Respectfully. -- WikiPedant 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Michigan State University FA topics

Why can I not cheery pick the best Articles MSU has to offer? The rules say nothing about this.

Featured topic criteria
 1. The articles should have a clear similarity with each other, should be in the same category, and should be grouped under one collective name that does not arbitrarily exclude items.
  2. The topic should have a lead article, which introduces and summarises the topic.
  3. There must be at least three separate articles.
  4. All articles in the series should be linked together, preferably using a template.
  5. There should be no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic.
  6. Each article should be of high quality, including references. At least several articles should be featured class, and the remainder must be all Good Articles or A class. When achieving such status is impossible due to limited subject matter, each item will be individually audited for quality.

Max ╦╩ 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


I nominated the article's Because they were good and because I see that there could be more pages form Michigan state Universityon the list, there are some articles Relating to Michigan State that are B class but there is not aobvious gap in The master topic page, in that there are no "major missing or stub articles" all the pages I have nominated have places on the main page. and are adding to the Topic Max ╦╩ 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have put Many of the pages up for GA evaluation Max ╦╩ 19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Just deserts

A tag has been placed on Just deserts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is a dictionary entry (and a misspelled one at that). Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 02:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of a soft redirect before. Hey, I learned something new tonight! I'll remove my speedy tag. Realkyhick 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I prefer just desserts. If you saw my waistline, you'd know why. :-) Realkyhick 03:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

level 4 for anons

The Virginia Tech shootings article has been getting a lot of drive-by vandalism since it was created, because it's such a high profile news item. But because it's a high profile article, if a new reader comes here and reads vandalism on the article, they usually get upset and go to the talk page to post something along the lines of "the article says [insert completely implausible fact or obvious vandalism]! How could you be so disrespectful of the victims?" or something. The article has been semi-protected at different points, but because it's linked from the main page we don't want to leave it semi-protected for too long. So I and some other editors have been taking a rather aggressive stance toward any vandalism to the article.

This is somewhat of an unusual situation. Some other reasons you might want to give a level 4 immediate warning would be a returning vandal using a dynamic IP address or a new account, or the inclusion of someone's personal information (like a phone number or email address). In that case, also contact someone through WP:RFO so the edit can be oversighted. Natalie 04:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been autoblocked yet again

I fail to see how it helps Wikipedia to block everyone in a building because that building has one vandal in it. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 22:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

YesY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 24.235.229.208 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Michigan State Seal

Please do not change the Photo for the Michigan State Featrued topics box

5 articles
Featured article Michigan State University
MSU Abbot Hall sign.jpg
Featured article History of Michigan State University
Good article Campus of Michigan State University
Demoted article Michigan State University academics
Good article Michigan State Spartans
Demoted article Michigan State University Libraries

Using this image is not breaking the Rules, The College Seal is also free because the school is Public and Funded by the Government, with Tax payer money, and there for it is free.Max ╦╩ 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's free I agree that it would be the better image to use. However, the image description page says that it is under fair use, so if it is actually free you should change the licencing info or we'll keep getting in trouble for it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC) talk moved to other user's talk page

Just a note

Hey there, jus to let u know i ddin't put that vandal on the Pretty Ricky page that was by another ip address and please dont come on my talk page telling me about that edit and how its vandalism becuase I was editing the Page while that edit came up , I didn't even save it yet..Thanks..=] Push It Baby!! ..Dats Muh Song!!..=] (Tay) 16:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting silly

I spent all morning patrolling the recent changes for vandals and now I have to defend myself again? There is a serious flaw with the admin's blocking system. I have been a regular editor in good standing for two years, I really shouldn't have to keep doing this. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

YesY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 24.235.229.208 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Senate Amendments

The Senate Amendments can be found at http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/DEB-E/080db_2007-03-22-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1#47 an the text reads that "And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C., that Bill C-16 be not now read a third time but that it beamended in clause 1, on page 1, by replacing lines 23 and 24 with the following:

"religious significance, a provincial or municipal election or a federal, provincial or municipal referendum, the Chief Electoral Officer may"."

Sethpt 20:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Stoopid Monkey Logos

As you are probably aware, the Stoop!d Monkey page was the subject of an AfD and the result was, of course, "Keep". Currently, the logos are a point of contention with myself saying that they were part of the "Keep", while User:Calton saying they were to be dropped and the article was to remain.

I asked the admin who closed the AfD his opinion and he replied, "I just said the article was to be kept, I don't know about the logos". There wasn't a decision given on the logos and in the AfD only 3 users said the logos should go, only 1 said keep the article, lose the logos.

I am not sure how to handle this, but since the admin who closed the AfD made no decision and the AfD wasn't about the logos in the first place (and the majority said to keep the logos if you want to be picky about it, as far as I can tell).

This wasn't an issue from April 16th (immediately after the AfD) to May 3rd when User:Calton realized that I was blocked for 48hours (not related to this) and I couldn't revert his changes. User:Calton had no interest and made no changes on the page itself or the talk page during that time. So, to me, his initial revert on May 3rd was done because of my block.

I have asked two admins (in case one is offline) to revert his changes and put a block on the page until this can be worked out. I am also asking you, since you contributed to the AfD, what your opinion is on just the logos themselves. I appericate you input one way or the other. Thanks...SVRTVDude (VT)


Ontario Highway Rankings

WHO REALLY CARES??? Bacl-presby 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Chrono Series

I have modified the topic based on requests to establish a stronger lead article. Please take a look if you get the chance, and see if this is acceptable. Judgesurreal777 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support :) It'll get featured one of these days! Judgesurreal777 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hi. I just reverted myself on your RfA -- I somehow got you mixed up with an entirely different user, and indicated opposition based on that. I just wanted to apologise for any confusion. Jkelly 22:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You're an Admin!

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes and good luck, -- Cecropia 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations :) — Deckiller 17:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Horay!
Congratulation's! You've earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, good work; and, for the future, good luck. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been following RFA lately, but I think with all the Featured stuff you have, you deserve it! -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!?
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Unspecified source for Image:Woodrow_Stanley_Lloyd_portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Woodrow_Stanley_Lloyd_portrait.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Woodrow_Stanley_Lloyd.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Woodrow_Stanley_Lloyd.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Tommy_Douglas.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tommy_Douglas.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Paul_Sauvé.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paul_Sauvé.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Jean_Lesage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jean_Lesage.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Jean-Jacques_Bertrand.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jean-Jacques_Bertrand.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Robert_Bourassa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert_Bourassa.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You've tagged a number of images as © Government of Saskatchewan without providing a real source

© Government of Saskatchewan is not a source - it's a claim of copyright that is impossible to verify. Please provide a detailed source -either a URL or the book, magazine, leaflet that the images were scanned from. Additionally the image template that they are tagged under requires a detailed fair use rationale for each use. Megapixie 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Arctic.gnome. Thanks for your work in the above mentioned images. In the few images I checked, the source info you added is far much better now. Good work.
But if you could, try to add a more specific fair use rationale for those images. The rationales you created only address the "replaceability" criterion. You should also explain what the image is needed for (it's purpose), and then explain why it's irreplaceable in that purpose. And make sure to do it in a per-article base. The template {{non-free media rationale}}, although not obligatory, may be very helpful in this task. Let me know if I can be of any help. Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you dislike template messages... this image also lacks source: Image:Harry Nixon.jpg. By the way, did you had the time to write proper fair use rationales for those images? Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

New Featured Topic Viability query

I am wondering whether Good articleTimothy Blackstone, Good article nomineeBlackstone Library, and Good article nomineeBlackstone Hotel would be considered a complete WP:FT or whether adding Merle Reskin Theatre formerly (Blackstone Theatre) would be necessary and sufficient? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If I get all four GAed I will give it a shot (Blackstone Library passed today). It is the closest I will get to a GA with articles I have worked on. I suppose the bio would be the lead article if I were to do so. Would you agree that is my best shot. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the topic could be Good articleTimothy Blackstone, institutions he founded (Good articleUnion Stock Yards), institutions he funded (Good articleBlackstone Library), and other institutions named after him (Good article nomineeBlackstone Hotel and soon to be GAC Merle Reskin Theatre, formerly Blackstone Theatre). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
An alternate is a Chicago Skyscrapers topic with Good article Chicago Board of Trade Building, Good article Chicago Spire, Good article Joffrey Tower, Good article 108 North State Street, Good article Marquette Building (Chicago), Good article nominee AT&T Corporate Center and Good article nominee Blackstone Hotel. My questions with this topic is that there is no obvious lead article and the topic may be too broad and omits some important skyscrapers. I could narrow the topic by using only Future Chicago Skyscapers Good article Chicago Spire, Good article Joffrey Tower, Good article 108 North State Street, but this topic will only be applicable until the buildings are complete. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

re: block template

Hi. I was wondering what template you use to make the blocked announcements in the brown square, like the one you used on User_talk:66.199.212.7. Thanks. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be {{vblock}} (not to be confused with {{vandalblock}}). :) The Evil Spartan 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your block of IP 204.174.188.9

Hi, I'm new to this whole anmin thing, so I was wondering if you could explain to me why you gave IP 204.174.188.9 a six month block. I thought that first blocks should be around 24 hours; and for school-owned IPs like that one, I've only been giving 3 hour blocks because by then the students who were causing the problems would have gone off to another class. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 17:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

When you've been around here as long enough as I have, trust me when I say 3 hour blocks for K-12 educational IP addresses is tantamount to playing Whac-A-Mole. The whole point of a long term {{schoolblock}} is to stop the same students causally vandalizing Wikipedia again and again the next day or the next week during the same classes over and over again whenever they feel bored. If someone is serious about contributing to Wikipedia, they can go through the trouble of creating an account at home or emailing unblock-en-l (which you should consider joining) and asking for one. One other thing is that if you block a school long enough, teachers and staff eventually find out about the vandalism problem from their school and sometimes offer to deal with the problem themselves once unblocked. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

FTC

What's this "FTC failed" thing? Does one enter a topic? Where? Were the talk pages notified of candidacy? As someone who edits some of the British kings and queens articles, my radar failed me on this one. Could you explain, and tell me where I can find the criteria, submission and assessment processes? qp10qp 16:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. yes, it didn't have a snowball's chance. Even so, notification to talk pages would potentially have brought a very large number of editors into play. "Fail" is a tough word to cope with on so many watchlisted articles at once. qp10qp 16:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Don Getty.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Don Getty.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. BetacommandBot 04:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Load bearing bosses

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Load bearing bosses, by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Load bearing bosses is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Load bearing bosses, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Load bearing bosses itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Harry Potter

I agree with you that the dates seem odd. However, here is the thinking on the accuracy of the dates. The only real year given is Nearly Headless Nick's deathday: Oct 31, 1492. In the Chamber of Secrets, he invites Harry to his 500th deathday celebration - which makes the year they are in 1992 (to 1993). Ccrashh 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)