User talk:Donald Albury/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pariscombopr.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pariscombopr.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 2.

Approaching the date of the meetup, and we haven't decided on the place yet... · AndonicO ^Talk 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My wife and I have tickets to the theater that evening. -- Donald Albury 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

About Image:Pg1016.jpg

UN documents do not have proprietary protection as images do. I made the photo myself. Please remove the deletion pending tag.--Zereshk (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to where it says that U.N. documents are not under copyright protection. -- Donald Albury 10:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Please read:

{{PD-UN}}

Hi. I believe that is obvious. Who is the authority that copyrights UN documents? --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Somebody did something to the city nicknames article to make it hard to edit. I'm not an idiot, and I've been on here over a year now, so I know its not me. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In general terms, government organizations do not generate copyrighted material. In the simplest terms, you (the taxpayer) paid the person to render it. Since govt. documents, photos etc. are part of their operation, forcing people to request permission for their use would hinder their access to the govt. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk hogan and clearwater

He has a beach house on Clw beach. Does that count? I saw it in one of the many articles about the son's legal trouble. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's the citation from a reliable source? It's not mentioned in his article. "I heard it", "I've seen him on the street" or "I've read it somewhere" doesn't count. A specific reliable source (title, publication/publisher, date, page number [for larger works]) needs to be cited so that readers can verify the information for themselves if they so desire. -- Donald Albury 10:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian Key State Historic Site

Greetings! Please do not remove citation tags, as you did with Indian Key State Historic Site. Although this appears to be mere sloppiness on your part (in light of your simultaneous removal of valid links), it borders on vandalism. The proposition for which the citation tag was placed has not been cited, and is not reflected in any of the references provided. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for Indian Key Historic Site. The material I have reverted is not supported by reliable sources. I did not remove any citations to sources, and removing the {fact} tag along with the unsourced information it was attached to is not sloppiness or vandalism. -- Donald Albury 14:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You also left the date as a hanging fragment, and reverted links. Still sloppiness. Cheers again! bd2412 T 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What date? The bare year should be unlinked, but it was never a full date. The links were part of the unsourced and unhistorical material. How is reverting to a previously stable version 'sloppiness'? -- Donald Albury 15:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. The sentence fragment containing the date was created by the edit of the anon who edited the page before I added the fact tag and linked the names of the Indian tribes (those were the links to which I was referring, not the date). You reverted the article back to the anon's erroneous edits, which I did not catch either. By the way, your additions to the article to this point are very good, thanks! bd2412 T 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Famous people in Fort Myers

I reverted your deletions about notable people in Fort Myers. Those people are professional athletes. We should not discriminate about which sports are more or less important. Also "notable" people you left up was the founder of a small record label, a rapper who has never had a real hit and a 3rd place finisher on American Idol. I'd argue that a professional athlete in any sport is equally notable. BTW, I've debated deleting the 3rd place Idol finisher too. I am not convinced she belongs there. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The ones I deleted were unsourced and had no Wikipedia article. Without sources cited, notability has not been established. My rule of thumb for 'notable residents' is if someone has a Wikipedia article and a source is cited supporting residence in the city, I leave them in the list. -- Donald Albury 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because a fan writes a wikipedia article, they are now notable? That is a pretty unreliable standard, isn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Articles that do not meet the criteria of that guideline, or of one of the more specific guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (people), are likely to be put up for deletion. If an article has not been deleted, and I do not see good reason to nominate it for deletion, I accept the subject of the article as being notable enough for Wikipedia. Decisions on notability and whether or not to delete articles are made by consensus. No one of us has the right as an individual to decide whether the subject of an article is or isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. However, if no article exists for a given subject, then either it has been decided that the subject is not notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, or no effort has been made to create an article, and notability (in the Wikipedia sense) has not been established. -- Donald Albury 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved 2 of them to former residents. Are you going to argue about that too? I even posted a link to Dunbars website where she talks about what she is doing while living in Ft. Myers. She has since moved so rightfully belongs in the former category. I know that under wikipedias strict standards, the fact that I actually live here and shopped in Peggy Schoolcrafts store and have met her and her husband mean nothing because nothing that isn't on the web actually happens. I simply think you are being pedantic about it. And I might just have to see how much scrutiny a thrd place idol finisher article really will withstand. Or maybe I'll just write my own fan article so it'll then be "proven".Niteshift36 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe in abiding by the Wikipedia policies on verifiability and original research. If someone challenges an item in an article, it must be supported by a citation to a reliable source or be removed. It is so much easier to deal with names in a list of 'notable residents' if Wikipedia articles exist for them, so that the citations to reliable sources don't have to be added to the list. If you want to see how notability is established in Wikipedia, browse through the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- Donald Albury 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line is that I actually live here. I'm simply trying to share a little more about this city with the rest of the world. I'm not trying to make money for anyone or have some ulterior motive. I'm not sure what your particular interest is in this particular article, but if you'd like, I can give you a list of articles you can try to apply every rule to. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Earthworm ecology articles

Hello, Although you are probably acting in good faith, please stop editing the earthworm article by citing some "travel report" about cold survival. This is not a scientific article - just an observation - whereas there is a whole body of established work on diapause. Your other articles edits show a breadth of knowledge but some contributors, such as current, are specialists on this subject. My last comment was to delete the whole reference to cold survival if you cannot accept the scientific citation. Also please remember that not everyone lives in temperate zones that have overwintering problems. In the sub-tropics and tropics the problems are of heat and moisture - e.g. drought, monsoon. Regards, An Oligochaete specialist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.177.210 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop adding unsourced material to Wikipedia. Unsourced material can be deleted by any editor. The source I cited, while informal, is a report of a scientific investigation into the behavior of earthworms in winter in a particular location. If you know of reliable sources for earthworm behavior under varying climate condition, provide cites for that material, but DO NOT DELETE sourced material and replace it with your unsourced comments. -- Donald Albury 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I added Ken Lee's (1985) reference as citation. That is seminal text book (I have a copy and constantly refer to it). The travel report is not science it is just an observation. Also, as i keep mentioning, the situation in scandinavia does not pertain to the rest of the world. The reference section cites Charles Darwin's (1881) classic text. It is not proper to put a travel report above this. Rob Blakemore (earthworm specialist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.177.210 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

I'll be deleting the point about "relevant to the subject's notability" unless someone can define the term in the talk page there. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hernando De Soto

Dalbury, You took out my posting of Hernando De Soto's time in Arkansas in 1541. I am very concerned by this. I posted about his time in Hot Springs, Arkansas and it was deleted. That information came from the Hot Springs wikipedia site, so you might need to edit that as well.

The Benedict Manuscript was held by the Faulkner County Historical Society for years until the family took it back. They still have it in their possession. It is the original writings of Russell W. Benedict and his time in Arkansas around 1820, and his discovery of a large fortification that was made by some outside people. The Arkansas Census taken for the time and records from the Arkansas Historical Society have this person living in the area at that time. The Pinnacle Post published in 1991 also talks about Benedict and his discovery of this fortification believed to be that of Hernando De Soto's. None of this is made up, in fact, it is all documented in the Hot Springs County Historical Society, the Arkansas Historical Commisssion, which I am a member of, and Faulkner County Historical Society. I do large amounts of research for this and would appreciate you puting my posting back up. Thank You

Bart Moreland —Preceding unsigned comment added by BartLIV (talk • contribs) 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that everything in Wikipedia articles be verifiable from reliable published sources. Policy also prohibits the use of original research, which is what your work appears to be. Until you can provide citations to reliable published sources for the material, you cannot place it in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links... Help..

Thank you for taking the time to address my mistakes.. I would appreciate your help in th is regard..I am new to this and did not realize the problem..Just what are the external links to which you refer and what should I do to removem them from the Cape Coral website..Thanks\\Hans Seebo —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapeParadise (talk • contribs) 00:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The links you have added to several articles are all to "business portals". The Wikipedia guideline on external links specifies which types of external links are apprpriate and which are not. The web sites you have been linking to are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please read the guideline for more spoecific information. -- Donald Albury 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Albury: I have removed some links to which I believe you are refering and ask that you again comment on the submission of http://explorecapecoral.com I am not able to completely remove the Youtube video sections as part of it is controlled by the full owner of the portal business from which I lease these portals. What else can I do to make my sites conform??

Thanks, Hans —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapeParadise (talk • contribs) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links...discussion

Mr. Albury:

I have removed some links to which I believe you are refering and ask that you again comment on the submission of http://explorecapecoral.com .I am not able to completely remove the Youtube video sections as part of it is controlled by the full owner of the portal business from which I lease these portals. What else can I do to make my sites conform??

Thanks, Hans —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapeParadise (talk • contribs) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dalbury"

Durham, NC

Thanks for taking care of the recurring problem editor on the Durham page. Not sure what that particular person had against Christopher Martin or Kid 'n Play (or what his own notability is relative to theirs since he kept putting himself on there as a Famous Resident)... DukeEGR93 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem probably won't go away. He added himself to the Durham article before he created the account, so I won't be surprised if he comes back as an anon IP. -- Donald Albury 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on bibliographic data needs revisiting

Donald Albury: Please continue your response found here. Your present view expressed appears in conflict with stated Wikipedia policy and views issued by editors (administrators?) Dhaluza and JoshuaZ. Since you saw fit to comment as you did, it would be appreciated that you now revisit your remarks based on this information.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Albury: Please continue your response found here. Since you saw fit to comment as you did, it would be appreciated that you now revisit your additional remarks based on the reply offered. If Wikipedia policy does not make the distinction you make then it is inappropriate to assert the distinction as Wikipedia policy. In this case, it is not my burden to show what Wikipedia policy specifically accepts. Rather, it is your burden to show what it refuses, since it is your assertion that it refuses the particular item in question. Respectfully, I believe you have offered a view with unforseen consequences, and which also defies the fundamentals of what is acceptable from an issuing agency/institution based on the reputation of the issuing agency/institution. On the latter point, if journal articles published by a university press are deemed appropriate as a verifiable secondary source based on the institutions “reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” then it seems absurd to deny the same authority to educational transcripts issued by the same institution. More than anything else, an academic institution issues educational transcripts with the utmost academic rigor. Please revisit your remarks. The precedent of your current view has enormous consequences. Respectfully.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop posting here. The page is on my watchlist and I do not need you pestering me for a response. -- Donald Albury 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Donald Albury: I will. I have no way of knowing what is and is not on your watchlist. If you do not want editors asking for feedback to their responses to your views then you should refrain from giving comment in the first place. Have a good day, and you are welcome.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

Given your long-suffering involvement with the U.S. city nicknames list, you may be interested in knowing that I nominated Nicknames of Houston as a featured list. When I ran across that article, I was thrilled to see a classy article about this otherwise problematic subject. However, there is some difference of opinion as to whether it's really a list. You might want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, or at least take a look at the article and the discussion there and on the article talk page. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus

This may be WP:SYN, but the total amount of tentatively awarded was in one of the references, and Loftus is only waiving payment (by Taub) of the legal fees related to Loftus. Taub is still liable for payment of legal fees related to the other defendants. I'm not sure how (or whether) this should be inserted in the article, but there's the incorrect implication that Taub doesn't have to pay fees. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the references, and I didn't see a total including Loftus, only what the judge set as the fees due to the other defendants. The article is about Loftus, so I'm not sure we need to get into what Taus owes the other defendants. There has been a complaint to WP:OTRS about the use of the $450,000 figure in the article, and as I didn't find that figure in the refs, I removed it. -- Donald Albury 02:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible resolutions

We have reached a possible resolution on Talk:List of museums in the United States#Separation of Articles that is not consistent with the views you expressed. Please take this opportunity to further argue your views if you see fit. Thanks, Ben Boldt (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Of Theatrezone Page

You referred to this article as "Blatant Advertising"?

So, by that logic, no Performing Arts organization of any type should be allowed on Wikipedia? How is this article any more "Blatant Advertising" than articles for the Steppenwolf or Goodman Theatres in Chicago? How is this article any more "Blatant Advertising" than putting an article up regarding "American Idol", "Star Trek" or a rock band or a rap artist? There are articles in Wikipedia about Playstation and XBox Games, Theme Parks, and individual Broadway shows. Not all of these things are "notable" or "known" to all people, and I am sure that people use Wikipedia every minute of every day to in some way guide their decisions about wether or not they will go to a theme park, see a movie, a TV show, a play or buy a book. By your logic, the mere existence of a page that informs the public about an entertainment subject is an advertisement for that subject and not appropriate for the site?

I am not a member of the deleted article's organization in question. I have not performed at the deleted article's organization in question. I am a supporter of the arts in Southwest Florida, and allowing the public to find information about the arts in Southwest Florida. Nothing more. I am trying to contribute, and you summarily deleted an article which took me two and a half hours to create and format without so much as a chance to change the article to meet what you and Wikipedia consider to be "Neutral". I would have been more than happy to accomodate you.

I respectfully request you reconsider your action and reinstate the page in a way that it can be edited to be a part of the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachman76 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Notability. When the only sources for an article about an entity are that entity's own website, there is no evidence that the entity is notable, and I then presume the article has been added to Wikipedia to promote the entity. find substantial third-party reliable published sources about the theater to establish its notability. -- Donald Albury 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will re-start the page with detailed outside sourcing and referencing, because it is a notable entity in the SW Florida Arts community. Thank you for the explanation.Coachman76 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your input is required.

Diff. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:JzG edit

Somehow your edit deleted a whole bunch of other ones - you should re-add it, I've reverted it in the mean time. ^Avruchtalk 02:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah jeez! I followed another editor's link to there. I must have edited an old version of the page. Thanks for fixing it. -- Donald Albury 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Florida article

Why would my edit be "disruptive"? I was changing it from South Florida metro area to Miami metro area, since South Florida is not a city, it makes more sense to have it as Miami Metro area, as it is the largest city. I don't think that's disruptive. Disruptive would be if I were to vandalize the article by deleting random text and replacing it with crude, inappropriate text. So please don't go around saying "I may be subject to sanctions", because I did nothing wrong, damn. --Comayagua99 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the item in question was "LargestMetro" (not "LargestCity") and you changed a direct link to a redirect, and you have tried to change [[South Florida metropolitan area]] to [[Miami metropolitan area]] before. If you want to change the name of the metro area, make a proposal on [[Talk:South Florida metropolitan area]]. -- Donald Albury 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Euclid St. Paul's Neighborhood in st pete

Is this sufficiently notable for an article of its own? Do we have articles on sections of St. Pete?? Lived in Pinellas for 30+ years and never heard of it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The first test is verifiability. Are there reliable sources available about the neighborhood? I haven't looked for sources on Euclid St. Paul's, so I don't know. Even if reliable sources can be found, notability can still be an issue. There are no notability guidelines for neighborhoods, so any questions of notability would have to be worked out by consensus. Personally, I think any neighborhood that can be verified can be listed in the article about the city, but you have to be able to say something interesting (and verifiable) about the neighborhood to consider having an article of its own. There seems to be a tacit consensus that geographical locations (rivers, lakes, bays, capes, islands, etc.) and populated places (and ghost towns) are inherently notable. Even crossroads with a few houses are getting their own stub articles (Muce, Florida. I'm not sure that extends to small neighborhoods in cities, however. I grew up in Allapattah, Miami, Florida. It's big; it has history (most of which is not in the article); there are (more or less) reliable sources available. I now live in a neighborhood of 200 houses. It's not mentioned in the city's article, and, in my opinion, certainly does not qualify for its own article. I'm not sure that helps. -- Donald Albury 13:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that helps. I'm leaning toward AfDing the thing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll look in on the discussion. -- Donald Albury 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Elephant thing

I don't get what I did wrong. I do not hate Colbert. In fact, I watch his show. Yes, he is responsible for the elephant vandals. Why? Because he told them to make the page say that the population has tripled in the past 6 months. Please do not assume that I am retaliating. Thank you. Footballfan190 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Colbert totally promotes mucking around with Wikipedia. All kinds of vandalism related to elephants and bears, among other things, has occurred because of things Colbert has said to his viewers. -- Wryspy (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Key West Islets? Mule Keys?

Hi there, I concede the term "Key West Islets" does not appear in the text of the added link, only in the name of the link. Not good enough as a source? (If you want to reply, do it here and not on someone else's talk page, like mine for example :-)--Ratzer (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite any other source that refers to those islands as the "Key West Islets"? It sounds like a neologism to me, and may very well have been used only by the author of that web page. -- Donald Albury 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be an official name. I'm going to ask a resident of Key West.--Ratzer (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: 2Pac

Perhaps you can answer my remaining question back here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One, it's a guideline; 'have' is not the best word to use. Two, it's a matter of judgment about aesthetics and convenience to the reader. The ideal is that an article should be linked only once in the material visible in the browser window. Since the amount of material in the browser window varies with the screen resolution of the reader's monitor, it's hard to state that as a guideline. But I would say, yes, the guideline against more than one link in a section to the same article also applies to the captions of images in-lined in or adjacent to the section. Templates are another matter, and I'm not sure what you have in mind. -- Donald Albury 11:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just it. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I meet the requirements in more than one area of your criterion. I will continue to work to the empowerment and upliftment of all people as I continue to teach.I use wikipedia religiously with my students for a plethora of class and course work assignments. I am an Adjunct Professor at Los Angeles Trade Technical College. I am one of only two African Americans in this country, and probably the world, who have initiated and published scholarly research on the effects of psuchodrama outside of the traditional setting. I am PhDabd in Social Psychology with a speciality in Media. Since 2003 I have produced and host the highly acclaimed De Wright Show, first in Atlanta, now in Hollywood, CA. I have travel the country in many tours including the National and International shows of Evita, featuring Florence Lacy and Pray for Me, Daddy starring Sherman Hemsley (The Jeffersons and Amen. I was Guest Artist to the Southern Shakespeare Festival, directed by Ian Woodford, Dean of the Royal Theatre in England and Keith Johnson,an award winning actor. I look forward to when my work will merit inclusion on your website. PS: You have Daniel Sundiati listed as a notable alum when he did graduate from FAMU, I know this because I went ot school with him and was well aware of when he transferred. Check your verifiability. In addition I also attended college and graduated with Anika Noni Rose, who is an illustrious FAMUAN, Tony winner, actress and colleague in arts and entertainment. Sincerely, Yours in Academe, Charles DeA. Wright, PhDabd Adjunct Professor Actor/ Writer/ Producer —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesdeWright (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability must be verifiable from reliable sources. I would also ask that you read our guidelines on conflict of interest. We strongly discourage people from adding themselves, relatives or close associates to Wikipedia. If someone meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, there will almost certainly be uninvolved editors who want to add that person. -- Donald Albury 11:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Everglades National Park

I am pretty sure that the revert you made to my two edits on Everglades National Park was not right. Alligators are proven to live in the Everglades. Footballfan190 (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But not in Florida Bay, which is in the park boundaries, but is brackish to salt. -- Donald Albury 13:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:House-of-Refuge-Biscayne-Bay.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:House-of-Refuge-Biscayne-Bay.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help, but wouldn't it be {{PD-US}} anyway since it is pre-1920s? I suppose it can't be determined that it was published prior to 1923. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Human nose

Why did you revert my (User:Pseudonymed is my former account) edits? I don't see why one photo needs an ethnic qualifier and the other doesn't. MDer88 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither should have a an ethnic qualifier. I'll fix that. -- Donald Albury 13:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Barbera Striesand edits

Hi Dalburry, I'm sorry I made the mistake of not mentioning the change of the Barbara Striesand page before doing so, my intention was to not start any controversy at all. However the portion that I deleted was pov and had nothing to do with the source provided. The source provided was from RIAA detailing the top selling artists in America, the statment I removed from the page was this,

"She is widely considered to be the the #1 selling female solo artist in history."

This statement is POV and does n interpret the RIAA information correctly, simply because the RIAA is an American based company and does not track worldwide sales. Barbara might be the best selling musician in the US without any doubt, but in "history"? I doubt that and the source provided does not prove that at all.

P.S. I'll go post this in the talk page also. PhoenixPrince (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Eighth Hour Romance (concences was not reached on deletion)

I don't think the discussion was done. A concences was not reached during the discussion. A page should not be deleted while the discussion is still going on. Saksjn (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't close the AfD, not did I delete the article. Discussions are normally closed after five days. This discussion went from the 11th to the 17th. AfD decisions are based on the arguments about how Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply to the article, not on voting. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you still want to contest the decision, you may do so at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but be aware that deletion review is about whether process was followed (and I think it was): it is not a place to re-argue the merits of the article. -- Donald Albury 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Valid points were brought up by both sides, we did show ways it could meet notability. Saksjn (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this reference: [1]. I'll continue looking for more. Saksjn (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I could not revive the article, even if I wanted to. There is no point in posting here about it. Please stop. -- Donald Albury 14:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Where should I post? Saksjn (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As I told you above, you may contest the closing on procedural grounds at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Please do not continue posting here about it, as I am not in a position to bring back the article, nor would I want to. -- Donald Albury 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Askew

I just added his military rank. Isn't that constructive?—Preceding unsigned comment added by DianeFinn (talk • contribs)

Certainly not in the lead sentence! He is famous as a politician, not as a soldier. And please do not place warning templates incorrectly, as you just did here. You have managed to piss me off! -- Donald Albury 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)