User talk:HokieRNB/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Good work!

I really appreciate the work you do on Wikipedia. I see your edits to the Baptist article regularly, and you do a lot there to just help keep things clean and neat and from getting out of control. Keep up the good work! Sighter Goliant 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Baptist page

I had to revert Baptist to what is was before. For some reason the entire formatting had been hashed up. --One Salient Oversight 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:ESV.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ESV.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Concord High School

Do you really think it was built over an Indian burial ground? - Schrandit 21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I live pretty close to the school, my sister went there and I've never heard anything about it. If someone can't come up with a source I'm going to take it down - Schrandit 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Hokie

See you're in charge of this userbox. Wanted to suggest placing a ribbon in the ID slot due to recent events. ZueJay (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Fisher-Price logos

Hello HokieRNB! Thank you for helping me properly add pictures to the Fisher-Price Little People page to strengthen its appearance. I thought I presented the pictures in a way that was accurate and proper, but however I've obviously made a mistake. I'm currently contacting Fisher-Price to get permission to use the photos because I believe they will allow people the opportunity to view the actually toys from years ago and compare them to the toys today. Thanks again and please offer any suggestions for properly present a fair use rationale. Sharpd0526

Removing websites

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre&diff=124680055&oldid=124679363

Why did you do this?

Some details of the victims are supposed to be fleshed out at List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre - We obviously cannot go overboard, but I find it notable to mention that he operated a website. And, the German professor also had his own website. WhisperToMe 19:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that Bishop held a job as an illustrator for his father as well as for some other authors, so we have to keep a link to his site, as it displays his portfolio and serves as a source for the fact that he held that job. WhisperToMe 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually social networking sites are not okay. But, in VTech case, the response to the disaster on social networking sites has been noted. I.E. many memorials to victims and requests of statuses of victims were posted on MySpace. WhisperToMe 13:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

E.G. You can look at this: http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=350063&Category=14&subCategoryID= - Because of this phenomenon, MySpace/personal site links should be allowed. Also see: http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-now-hamptonvic.a17,0,432420.story?track=mostemailedlink WhisperToMe 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-serious warning

A note about the userboxes you've created (I love House too!), you can't use their logo in the userbox. Using a fair use image in a userbox is violation of the Fair Use policy on Wikipedia, read this. Additionally, you did not create the logos, and subsequently cannot claim them to public domain. You must find a free equivalent. ALTON .ıl 05:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that works, good job; do Heroes and Office too! ALTON .ıl 21:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre

Thanks for removing the day of the week from the lead sentence. I've brought that up before, see talk, but was pretty much dismissed. The owner of the article, User:Gwen Gale, must not edit on the weekends, otherwise she would have reverted this. Expect that to change when she returns. Good luck and I will try to stay in touch. Cheers! --Tom 17:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

IPvandal

Regarding the IPvandal you just warned, I had just given him/her a "blatant-vandalism" warning, telling him/her that s/he would be blocked if any further vandalism was observed, as they had blanked the VT article a couple times and also added disinformation to another university's article. By giving the vandal a lower, "nicer" level of warning after I gave a warning threatening a block, you made it so that the admins will be less likely to block the vandal right away if (when) he or she strikes again. If you see a vandalism warning threatening an immanent block, it's probably there for a reason, and the vandal should receive no more warnings. Instead, report the vandal directly to WP:AIV --Dynaflow 18:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it typical for the person who spots and reverts the vandalism to issue the warning? The warning I left was for the first revert, and I assumed that your warning was for my second revert. At this point, I have him cued up in AIV waiting to his "Save Page". HokieRNB 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I see, there was an edit conflict and you were actually leaving your warning while I was leaving mine, so yours has an earlier timestamp. My bad. HokieRNB 18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically, my warning was for his or her edits to Saint Louis University, and I was going to squash the dumb bastard the moment s/he made another edit to the VT article. If you're on it, though, it's all good. Thanks for your diligence. --Dynaflow 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I have no barnstars to give, nor am I near any barns from which to steal them...

For your tireless and totally uncompensated efforts against the vandalism, stupidity, and other assorted crap that have been almost magnetically drawn to Virginia Tech-related articles since news of the massacre started to filter onto Wikipedia, I award you a bonus of ten Norton dollars, redeemable in gold from His Imperial Majesty's Treasury at some point in the indeterminate future. --Dynaflow 04:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One third

I'm wondering still if the article can be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia standards. The article does cite a number of appearances on national TV in Jamaica, which would seem to meet WP:BAND, but I agree, it greatly needs to be cleaned up and definitely spoken from a NPOV. Wildthing61476 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, I've done some research and can't find ANYTHING of a reliable sort to back the claims up. If you list it for AfD, I'd have to agree in deletion at this point. Wildthing61476 19:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:FPLP_Sonya_Lee.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FPLP_Sonya_Lee.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

School article proposals for deletion

Hey, Hokie. I read the rules that you directed me to, and it sounds like you did the right thing. That said, I don't understand what the point of "cleaning up" articles that simply don't warrant encyclopedia articles could be. No matter how much info you add or how much editing you do, the schools aren't noteworthy and don't deserve mention. Why is Wikipedia policy to "clean them up" rather than delete them if keeping them makes no sense? H3G3M0N 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Little Boy Drumming On Pots

I didn't actually delete it but I did tag it for speedy deletion and have done so once more- thanks for the heads-up. MarkSutton 13:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Einsteins

Got the sources cited, the formate was a little confusing. Is it possible to add a 'citation' button to the edit tool bar? or is it there and im just missing it. thanks --130.108.192.217 02:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your user page, and regarding buttons on the edit tool bar I have no idea as I've never used any edit tool bar. I'm an old school code typer. HokieRNB 02:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Im glad that my statements ammused you, considering you are white, you have apparently some sort of wikipedia edit power, and you want to preserve white priveledge. You 'laugh' at the fact that children are being taught, by Disney, that the black man is only a minor character and that the black mans art is not worh noticing. I would expect some tolerance and understanding from someone from virginia tech, but i guess all those victims were white too. When a non-white speaks out it is apparently laughable or considered a tragedy. but when the white system destroys a race and culture it's no more than a foot note, it apparently is only for the better of civilization. White man's burden huh, keep carrying the load my friend, us dumb coloreds cant figure notin' out.

Official versus Common Names

It is common English use to introduce the full official name of an entity on first use and the common name on subsequent uses. For example: "The Commonwealth of Pennsyslvania, commonly known as Pennsyslvania, is one of the 50 states of the United States of America". I work for one of the U.S. states, and I am required to use the official state name for all correspondence. Please see U.S. state#List_of_states. --Buaidh 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Buaidh, and I don't think you should be reverting people who change it back to the way it was before you changed things. It's Bold-revert-discuss, not Bold-revert-revert-discuss. I went to the Delaware talk page expecting, at least, to find a discussion among editors of that article, but all that's there is an announcement by you that this is what you're going to do. It seems you've stopped, but i would recommend not restarting until a consensus is reached. IMO, the official name should be used first, then the common name. I can't spend much time on this today, but I strongly suspect this is already addressed in the WP:MOS somewhere; I'll look it up if someone else hasn't done so by tomorrow morning. Should this discussion be here, or on Delaware's talk page? --barneca (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The best I could find with limited time is WP:Lead section#Bold title, which gives and example of:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (usually shortened to the United Kingdom or UK) occupies part of the British Isles in northwestern Europe ...

Also, for a different example of the same theory, but different article type, look at Jimmy Carter, which starts out:

James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. (born October 1, 1924(1924-10-01)), was the 39th...

I still think the MOS somewhere addresses US states, specifically, but can't find it and have to go. A message left on the appropriate MOS talk page might get some good feedback. --barneca (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My concern is more with the flow of the lead sentence, which when rendered the way that it is being changed by Buaidh would be akin to having the aforementioned example starting - "President James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. ... was the 39th President of ..." "State of..." is part of an official title, but the name of the state is still simply "Delaware". I will copy this discussion over the Delaware page and will desist from making further changes until there is consensus. Thanks. HokieRNB 21:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Private individuals

There WERE some people earlier who objected to this, BUT, after I presented more arguments, they stopped talking. Should we consider them after I refuted some of their points? WhisperToMe 14:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Salesianum

awww come on man - let us keep our trivia section, part of it anyway. and if I can grab a source on that model UN win can it stay up? it was kind of a big deal for the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrandit (talk • contribs)

the school rivalry bit gives you a feel for the school, puts the sports wins in context and a fair few other schools have trivia sections - maybe the section could be tagged as unsourced? - Schrandit 07:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixing disambig in Child Evangelism Fellowship

Hi. I noticed that you changed the target article that I attempted to disambiguate "Evangelical" to in Child Evangelism Fellowship. Just wanted to say "thanks"... I'm hoping that I get most of the disambiguations correct, but sometimes I might make the wrong choice - so I'm glad you fixed it. Paddles ^T_C 08:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)