User talk:Rmhermen/Archives11

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

Hello, Rmhermen. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EV1 pictures

Hi there, I noticed that you uploaded several pictures of the GM EV1 that are in use in the article. Do you perhaps still have higher-resolution originals? I was hoping to work on the pictures a bit (adjust orientation, improve clarity) to try and improve their quality, and starting out at a higher resolution would be helpful. Thanks! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and references

Hi there, I'm writing re: the International AIDS Candlelight memorial. I've deleted the offending text (I believe) and added references. Is this sufficient? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalhealthcouncil (talk • contribs) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the link on the notice to create a new version of the page without the copyright issues. Do not just keep re-editing the article. When it is sorted out the old will be deleted and the new one moved into its place. I must note however that you edits left most of the copyrighted material still in the article. Rmhermen (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CUIS

Hello, Rmhermen;

I was pretty sure about Cumberland Island National Seashore, so I went back and checked. It turns out that CUIS is part of the Carolininan-South Atlantic Biosphere Reserve. Thanks for correcting me! J. Spencer (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot proposal - comments needed

I'm messaging you since you participated in a Village Pump discussion a while back on the subject. I've since put in a proposal for a bot to revert the addition of redlinks to a subset of list articles and/or list sections. The selection of such articles and the policy of operation of the bot is under discussion there. Your input would be welcome. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

I erased that brinkstar link because many people here agree it's not a reliable source. Also, it has connections to hate websites like Stormfront. How can one be fair when the person has a racial bias or hatred? Pandyu (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Request

Hello, Rmhermen. You have new messages at WP:GL/I.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spacewalks FL demotion

I posted a few questions hereabout the work needed to return List of spacewalks and moonwalks to FL status. I noticed you had participated in the demotion discussion. Would you care to comment on my questions? WVhybrid (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaming lawye r^c 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Leahy

I beg your pardon. Emma Leahy is a real person and all of those accomplishments are real. I am her father and I can vouch for that. However my wife was surprised to find her there in the first place. Not sure who placed her there and it may not be important enough for Wik... but it is all true. Tom Leahy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.196.225 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion occurred in August. If you disagree with the action, feel free to bring it up for discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review; although, I think the deletion is unlikely to be overturned based on the information present in the article. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your preferred method of improving the encyclopedia?

Removing information you feel is in the wrong place -- without putting it in a "right" place as established by our content guidelines? And then edit-warring when you've been shown to be wrong? Is this how you feel you can best improve the encyclopedia? Because if so, please, stop. You're not demonstrating proper familiarity with the disambiguation guidelines, and I encourage you to review them before engaging in pointless edit warring. Two sections in particular should be given your attention: 1) The "Categorization" section of WP:MOSDAB specifically addresses categorization of disambiguation articles that /also/ have human names in them. 2) The "Given names or surnames" section specifically addresses how lists of people's names should be included in a disambiguation article. Why would these sections be included if it wasn't expected that such lists are allowed? Again, please, review the entire guideline, and either commit to following it, or don't touch the edit button -- especially if it will continue an edit war. Thank you. Warren -talk- 18:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines and their reasoning for yourself: "Partial title matches - Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." All of the words I removed fail under the criteria. It is not unknown for multiple guidelines to have conflicting information. For instance whatever page you are quoting is not Wikipedia:Disambiguation which does not contain your quoted information. Rmhermen (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read further into WP:MOSDAB you would have read: "Pages only listing persons with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them. In such cases, do not use {{disambig}} or {{hndis}}, but {{given name}} or {{surname}} instead." (emphasis added). Rmhermen (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pages only listing persons with certain given names". ONLY. Are you reading the words you're using in your argument? It says ONLY. Corn (disambiguation) clearly doesn't list ONLY persons with certain given names. Keyword ONLY. This text is clearly talking about articles like List of people with surname Smith, not Corn (disambiguation). Keyword ONLY! And besides, what in the world does removing this list accomplish? Name three ways this absolutey, undeniably improves the encyclopedia. Name that reason specifically. If you can't do it, revert your own edit. If you're going to insist, I'll file an WP:RFC for outside input, because you surely aren't interpreting the guideline as it was intended, and I'm not going to edit war over something this stupid... Warren -talk- 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it. To recap that,

you cut out the names without any edit summary at all
you redeleted with the edit summary "dfisambig pages do not contain lists of eveyone carrying a surname - only of single-name people", which taken as a statement of fact is spectacularly untrue
edit warred again, this time at last trying justify your action from policy "See Wikipedia:DAB#What_not_to_include"
and one more time, after Warren had left you a message here.

At no stage have you justified what you have done on the article talk page. You never suggested the creation of an article Corn (surname), or still better, just did it yourself. If you'd done that, and just put in a link, everyone would have accepted that. I have now created that article, but while I was doing so it seems that you've lost the edit war which you ridiculously started, so we've got the surnames twice.

Having seen this behaviour/behavior I was astonished to see that you're an admin. Irrespective of the merits of the wikilawyering as given above, your sequence of actions has been extremely unwise and unhelpful. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you disagree with my editing style Samuel; however I do not consider reverting within the limits of the 3RR with incresing explanation in the edit summary to be edit waring.I also do not and have never believed in the use of surname pages and you won't see me create one or suggest it. I also replied to Warren here before I made my last edit on Corn. The cluttering of disambiguation pages with unrelated content is what is unhelpful and needs to be controlled. Rmhermen (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand you to object to the entire content of "Category:Surnames"? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be persistent, but I'm asking a genuine question there, to which I'd like to know the answer. I've done quite a bit on surnames, and it never occurred to me that anyone might object, so I'd like to understand your viewpoint. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Space Station

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical warfare

I have nominated Chemical warfare for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

you in general references read?

you in general references read? My information actual 2009Gnomsovet (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my reference is early 2008 and comes from the same source as the U.S. estimate while your source is from two dates in late 2008 and one in early 2009 and comes from a source with a different methodology and no comparable U.S. forces figures. Additionally you state START in your source description which treaty has its own bizzare counting methodology, not a total count of warheads. Empty missile silos may count for ten warheads while bombers carrying 16 warheads count as only one![1] Only politicians could come up with that. See also List of states with nuclear weapons. Rmhermen (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to John Demjanjuk. Thank you. --Ericdn (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention

Hi Hermen,

Naming conventions are often established in practice, not in policy. To say something is a naming convention is just to say that most articles on the subject employ that title format. When I looked at all the articles dealing with protected areas in particular countries, some were called "Protected areas of x" while others were called "Protected areas in x". To me, it didn't matter which title was chosen, so long as the titles were consistent. Employing the preposition "in" made more sense to me than "of" in this case, therefore I moved the articles employing "of" to "in". The items you listed on my talk page are categories, not articles. I do not believe that there is a need for the category names to be aligned precisely with the article titles, but consistency between articles is important. When I said "The other pages in Category:Protected areas of the United States now conform to the naming convention", I was referring to the articles: Protected areas in Georgia (U.S. state), Protected areas in Michigan, and Protected areas in Ohio. I hope I have properly explained myself. If you have any concerns about what I have said, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Neelix (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator or editor of some of the many Protected areas of ... articles that have been recently renamed by User:Neelix you may be interested in the discussion at Talk:Protected_areas_in_Tamil_Nadu#Requested_move.--Marcus (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hermen,

Thank you for contributing to the "Protected areas in Tamil Nadu" discussion. I apologize if my prior comment appeared to be a "false 'appeal to authority'", as you stated on my talk page. I have always used the term "naming convention" to refer to a standard practice of naming on Wikipedia, often using the term on Wikipedia:Requested moves, and no one has ever suggested that I was misusing the term. The guideline you quoted, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, states that "The conventions are supplemented and explained by the guidelines linked to this policy" (italics mine). This suggests that naming conventions exist independent of whether or not they are described in the guidelines. It was not in any way my intention to suggest that the naming convention to which I referred was enforced by policy, and I'm sorry for any frustration my edits have caused you.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:1999 west nile map.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:1999 west nile map.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. 05:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, the reason this image was tagged was because of a software error back in 2004 that messed up the image description page, making it so there no description, just a file sitting there, thanks for understanding. MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Michigan

Just a word of praise. I thought your recent addition was very helpful. Good job, good information and good source. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Kdbank's talk page

I know I'm not an admin, but your comment here seemed sorta un admin-like.--Rockfang (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not every action taken by an admin is an admin action. An admin action would have been to use my powers to block the bot and then comment on its behavior. The use of mild humor is generally seen as lowering the hostility of an interaction. Rmhermen (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call it an "admin action". I just guessed (wrongly I assume) that admins don't typically make comments like you did.--Rockfang (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:2000 west nile map.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:2000 west nile map.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. 05:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian cake

Torte itself derives from a "German" word for "cake", and the dish is a Hungarian food (I'm not Hungarian by the way). You seem to want to make a consistency with Sacher torte or other-torte cakes. However, the article was originally named "Dobos cake" even though that usage is not widely used. My move was based on google hit/book/scholar.

8,570 for "Dobos torte" 15,900 for "Dobos torta" 2,160 for "Dobos cake"	6,530 English pages for "Dobos torte" 4,260 English pages for "Dobos torta" 1,730 English pages for "Dobos cake"	877 German pages for "Dobos torte" 2,840 German pages for "Dobos torta" 16 German pages for "Dobos cake"	27 Hungarian pages for "Dobos torte" 43,000 Hungarian pages for "Dobos torta" 20 Hungarian pages for "Dobos cake"

I don't think Dobos torte is not that prevailing than "Dobos torta" as you assert. Sorry that you did unilaterally moved it without any rationale at first.--Caspian blue 05:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I presumed it was either a simple typo in the move or a Hungarian nationalistic move. Either way the comment I would have made, I feel, may have been seen as bitey. Conflict is sometimes avoided by making no comment than one which potentially offends. Rmhermen (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you would write "either typo or Hungarian nationalistic move" at the edit summary, I, with a thin-skin toward civility might have been offended by the too honest memo. =) But hmm...I'm neither a native of English nor Hungarian, but just ate the yummy cake, so if others google it, I wanted them to find the entry quickly.--Caspian blue 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have in my possession a "charity cookbook" published on behalf of "The Relief Fund for Romania" (Undated but I am guessing it dates from the late 1980's/Early 1990's). One of the recipes in the book is entitled Dobosch Torte and seems to be a version of the same recipe described as a 12 layer cake that feeds 24 people. The introductory notes state it was found in an old medical ledger dating from the turn of the century. If anybody is interested I'm quite happy to transcribe the receipe.Graham1973 (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atilla the hun

Hello, Rmhermen. You have new messages at WP:GL/I.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab American Book Award

Your changes to the Arab American Book Award site were wonderful, so much so that I am angry that I didn't think to arrange the information that way! It makes much more sense for future additions. Thanks again! Aanmlibrary (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of x-related topics

Do you prefer the old name?

The Transhumanist 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LocMap Kenai Fjords National Park.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:LocMap Kenai Fjords National Park.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LocMap Kings Canyon National Park.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:LocMap Kings Canyon National Park.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of spaceflight

I have noticed you have made some edits with regards to flags and their usage on several Timeline of spaceflight articles. Since these edits were not discussed before hand, I have undid them, and request that you please discuss them at WT:TLS with those of us who are actively working to make these articles comprehensive and accurate. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penda foes.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Penda foes.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australasia, Oceania or Australia in regards to trans-contental railroads

Would you care to debate your views in the talkpage section created for this. I proposed it, nobody objected, so I made the change.--OffiMcSpin (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Thank you for your comment at WP:DERM, and I have responded there. ---kilbad (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"I will be reverting these whereever I find them."

That would border on or even be vandalism. It is akin to deleting high-quality external links. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that peer-reviewed sources are largely inaccessible or uninteresting to most readers (as opposed to people who take enough interest in an article to edit it), and hence there is no harm in outcommenting them.

I note that you edit very little empirical science articles, but I assume you are aware of the special emphasis Wikipedia places on sources like those I annotate.

An alternative would be to implement the system of Baird's Sparrow or Golden-cheeked Warbler. I could do that, but do you really think it is better?

"They are supported under no policy of Wikipedia and add nothing useful to the article."

This is not correct. Comments were invented for exactly such purposes. To cite Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Character_formatting:

Commenting page source: 
not shown when viewing page
Used to leave comments in a page for future editors.
Note that most comments should go on the appropriate Talk page.

Brief annotations for sources will clutter up Talk pages needlessly. Most single secondary sources only have tidbits of data; quality-wise they exceed any tertiary source but by themselves they are usually insufficient to unstub a stub. In other cases, annotations on Talk tend to get swamped and lost in the Archives. And I tried putting them on Talk pages. I lost a handful of them and the rest still lingers on; you'd be amazed how seldom most Talk pages are accessed. The source comes under scrutiny by any editor doing a worthwhile contribution, on the other hand. As soon as a major overhaul of an article is started, additional high-quality sources are immediately available.

Moreover, "nothing useful" is an argument from personal incredulity. It would be correct if there were hardly any people contributing to Wikipedia who habitually read and understand scientific journals, but fortunately, this has long been incorrect.

Hence, my rationale is

annotating the source as comment is harmless (least overhead code of all alternatives, WP:DE does not apply)
in the medium to long run its benefits massively outweigh the drawback of a few additional bytes of memory.

Prove me wrong.

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. your concern

Sorry if I came off harsh, but I literally found nothing on the man's passing. I tried to keep it polite, but again, if it came off harsh to a new user, it wasn't meant to be so. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced lists of people: Dearborn, Michigan

Hi! Please do not restore unreferenced lists of people (especially if they have living people on them) - Potentially contentious information about living people (Yes, even seemingly trivial things can be contentious) can be a problem regarding WP:BLP - If you wish to restore the list, please go to news.google.com and source, one by one, each and every entry on the list. This is especially important for the living people. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculus reasoning. Such overzealous misapplication of guidelines is neither helpful to the purpose of the project or the morale of the commnunity. If you are concerned, add a fact tag or do some minimal checking of sources yourself before making large deletions of content with no warnings. Rmhermen (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. As shown here, that is perfectly reasonable reasoning: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_21#Folks.2C_we_urgently_need_a_rule_for_.22Notable_people.22_lists_in_cities.27_articles.21 - Read the discussion and see what happens as it progresses. I don't go through Wikipedia only doing this, but when I see a long-unreferenced list with living people in it, I remove it immediately as it solves the BLP problem in the least amount of time.

2. WP:BLP says: "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons." - The burden of evidence does not rest with me, as I am the one removing it. If you want to restore the material, the burden of evidence is on you. I have no obligation to go through and source every single entry, but I can help you if you want help. However, expecting the person who removes the content to go through and source every single entry in a very, very long list is not corteous. Please start from scratch and build the list back one by one.

3. WP:BLP says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

4. Please stop reverting my edits and begin the process of sourcing the material. First please immediately restore my revision, then use the edit history to begin restoring the list. As stated earlier, the responsibility largely is with you because you want to restore the material.

5. Above all remember that this material is in the edit history, so don't freak out when a large unreferenced list like this is deleted. Just go through the old revisions, add sources, and save it back.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Ice cave.jpg

File:Ice cave.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Big Four Glacier Ice cave.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Big Four Glacier Ice cave.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maize ear.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Maize ear.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pullman car interior.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Pullman car interior.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few things

1. You need to reference material when you add it. This block of text you added was not referenced I added a fact tag.

Also it was not appropriate to remove Royal Jordanian Airlines. Dearborn is a smaller city and does not have as many *notable employers* (generally employers with Wikipedia articles)

2. I will give you one more day (24 hours from my timestamp) to begin referencing the list of people from Dearborn, Michigan, or else the list disappears again. I will contact the BLP noticeboard if you revert the removal without referencing the names. You and I are expected to work together if you want this list to continue. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Since 24 hours have been exceeded, I am removing the unreferenced material once again. It is expected that you begin sourcing it if you want it to re-appear. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on displaying time since last edit

Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Straw poll. Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German American Politicians -- Category Deletion Discussion now at ...

[2] --Epeefleche (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Old faithful geyser.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Old faithful geyser.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Why revert? all wikipedia arcicle for film, tv actor and crew datas has copy from imdb. (TV) and (V) tag is only using imdb titles. --Sdvlk (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a production is a television show and not a movie is valid and important information - why would you delete it? Especially for foreign language material likely to be unfamiliar to English-speakers. Rmhermen (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

Hi Rmhermen,
Confusion will be my epitaph (King Crimson)
I agree with you too, but I had an edit conflict with your diff.
I begin to realize how it's difficult to build an univesal encyclopedia in the "most international language". Things are easier on fr: with more than 80% (or 90% ?) from just one country: France.
Ciao

Alvar☮ ☎ 14:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit task force

Dearborn is within the scope of the newly established Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan/Detroit task force. If you want, please join and help discuss Detroit area-related stuff! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Service awards proposal

Hello, Rmhermen/Archives11! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards.

If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States National Parks by state

Do you remember what reference you used for the park areas on List of United States National Parks by state? Was there a list with all the areas, or did you check each park individually? Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Amerindian genetics

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		tks you for the fix up...I have been waiting some time for a second set of eyes to copy edit that!!!!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your addition to the now archived Main Page talk

Yeah, coming in here with your fancy Gopher protocol? I used Minitel. In France we were all over your childish pre-WWW attempts and damn, Minitel was teh king of the interweb!Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for clarifying for me on the trained squirrel-monkey possible vandalism on the Animals in Space article! Mod mmg (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Reliance_building_detail.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Reliance_building_detail.gif. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really remember. I have to guess that it was a detail from a PD-old image that has since been deleted. Anyway it has been replaced by modern images in the article. Rmhermen (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Winter Olympics medal table

Can I asked why you removed the image File:Kerstin Szymkowiak Amy Williams and Anja Huber2.jpg from the above article? As shown by 2008 Summer Olympics medal table it is common practice of WP:OLY to have more than one image in these articles when they are freely available from Commons and I can see no reason for youe edit. Basement12 (T.C) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image adds no extra value to the article and breaks the page for me. I have to scroll down past a section consisting only of that image and white space to get to the medal table which appears far "below the fold". Rmhermen (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the thing to do is try and fix the issue not remove the content? Do you have any issues viewing 2008 Summer Olympics medal table? Basement12 (T.C) 14:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue may have been the image being too large, it was 250px instead of the 205px that appear on the 2008 article. I've restored it but smaller, please let me know if it still causes problems in your display. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historic qualifications of a Wiki admin.

How many times do we see the rudeness and ignorance of a Wiki Admin fiddling with historic data as he/she sees fit thereby depriving the public of valuable information. Objectivity, rational presentation, and informative is hardly found in the history and religious sections. Suggest that Wikipedia changes his selection process who can or cannot be admin of a historic/religious page and these qualifications of the admin are posted on his personal web page. For History and Religious information it is better not to rely solely on Wikipedia, because of the ignorance or special agenda or whatever it is that prevents these people from being objective, rational and informative as is usually found on the pages of an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edensa (talk • contribs) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit puzzled by this. I did not use any admin abilities in the article British colonization of the Americas. I simply returned the British Columbia section back to a balanced presentation with a similar amount of detail as the other colonies in the list. I also fixed links to the individual articles on the colonies in question that you had broken - which is where more detailed information belongs. There was no ill intent and nothing about you edits or mine had anything to do with religion as far as I can see. Rmhermen (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. No editors, including you and me, are asked to present credentials before editing any subject. Edits stand on their merits alone, not on the reputation of the writer. No admin is in charge of any article or any subject area. Admins simply do the heavier jobs of cleanup and policing, like banning vandals and deleting graffiti. Admins have no special tools or higher stature in respect to editing the content of articles. Rmhermen (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rmhermen. You have new messages at 124.197.4.25's talk page.
Message added 02:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baengnyeong incident

There has been zero support for the merge of the article into the ROKS Cheonan article. Accordingly, I've reverted your conversion of the article into a redirect. Comments welcome at the relevant discussion on the talk page of the ROKS Cheonan article. Mjroots (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my actions offended you, but from the merge proposal at talk:ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772), the only person in support of a merge at the time you redirected the incident article to the ship article was the nominator. There are plenty of people saying "not yet, let's wait" - myself, Julianhall, OOPSIE, two IPs, XavierGreen and Hourick. I don't see that it is incumbent upon me to improve the article. I merely restored it to the pre-merge condition as there was no demonstrated consensus to merge it. You hadn't contributed to the discussion before the merge. OK, the incident article needs some work, but it is mostly referenced. As I've stated, I'm maintaining an open mind over the question of a merge until more details are known. I may support a merge in the fullness of time, but am undecided at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about warren?

Is warren equivalent? Johnmartins (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Johnmartins (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:LocMap Zion.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:LocMap Zion.PNG. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:LocMap Saguaro.PNG

Thanks for uploading File:LocMap Saguaro.PNG. 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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Bert Williams blackface.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bert Williams blackface.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. 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 per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:70.31.101.86

You left a message on this page with a link to the ANI. I couldn't find any discussion there. Did you forget to create it or did it get removed already? - in which case perhaps we should update the message on the anon talk page. Rmhermen (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was already archived. I placed a second message under the first one, which links to he now-archived discussion. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits

Rmhermen ... i do not see why you have reverted my editing of the incorrectly-used "Arabian Gulf" in an article to Persian Gulf. As you may know, that body of water is called the Persian Gulf. The term "Arabian Gulf" is incorrect, controversial and not recognized by the United Nations. To compare, imagine Americans suddenly deciding to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of the USA ... would you follow suit? Thank you.

Reverting my edits

You reverted my well gounded edits of Timeline_of_aviation without a word on the discussion page, and obviously without knowledge of the facts documented in many wikipedia articles about early airplanes. Please engage in a discussion on the discussion page of this article before making any changes to it again. (Roger Johansson)

I did comment on the change and am well aware of all the facts on the matter. Rmhermen (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Scars of Life" Page

I noticed you had deleted this page back in June and wanted to know why. You cited that it no longer referred to pages that exist. I was curious which ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.183.138 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted "Scars of life" which was only a redirect to the page "Scars of Life" which had been deleted a day earlier by User:Fastily with the edit summary: Expired PROD, concern was: Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical ensembles. Rmhermen (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National parks of New Zealand

Hello, I see that you restored the table headings I removed. Whilst I created them for better organization, they were borking the sortable function. I haven't re-removed it, but just to let you know why I removed them in the first place. sonia ♫ 23:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Flatiron Building NYC.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Flatiron Building NYC.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Thanks

I just wanted to send a quick note of thanks for supporting our site, gCaptain, during it's recent blacklisting. And I appologize if we put you in a position to have to defend your own links. -John, CoFounder --Gcaptain (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for comment regarding SFB article and maybe you can help keep it around (even though I know you wanted to delete it ;)

I just wanted you to know that I agree with your criticism regarding the SFB article, however, it is precisely because of the poor information regarding SFB out there that I wanted to start its wiki page. The truth is that SFB is a very exciting bacteria (or group of bacteria), but it does not have a well-defined taxonomy. I can go into that in the article, but my point is that there is without a doubt something exciting about Segmented Filamentous Bacteria. Having a wiki article to help establish or clarify some of these points would be wonderful. If you have any interest in microbiology or could elaborate on the page yourself, I would encourage and welcome any helpful contributions you might have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vupadhyay85 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceflight portals

Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fort Caroline

Hi. I removed again the reference to cannibalism from the Fort Caroline article. I don't get why you would restore such contentious and inflammatory text without any source or citation. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your page. Rmhermen (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The small barnstar, for gnomish work

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is for that quick and poisonous work you did on the Ayina River. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity

Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Mediaeval spelling

Hi, Thanks for your link. I have left a reply on my talk page. -PrincessStar

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot

Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism Protection

Hello, I have been monitoring the adam stenavich page for some time. I have made several contributions to the page and I have watched it become a target of IP vandalism. I have contacted the vandalism board several times to no avail. Would it be possible for you to block editing from IP users on this page? If you count, the same reference has been removed over 14 times. Thank you.keystoneridin! (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]