User talk:Thivierr/archive-8

Category:High schools in Calgary

I didn't have any particular definition of Calgary in mind; what I was going for, basically, was "high schools that were being categorized directly in Category:Calgary". Bearcat 02:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thivierr/school district myths

In regard to the item, "Myth: Where there are sectarian school districts, such as religion, a person is only interested in schools for the one district of their group." - does anyone really think that? I'd be really curious to see if you had any examples of people being under that impression. JoshuaZ 02:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who advocates "merging to district" as a blanket standard is implicitly under this impression. If districts are organized by government under secterian lines, and Wikikipedia organizes schools strictly along district lines, than Wikipedia has organized schools strictly on secterian district lines. The main disadvantage of merges, is you give somebody only one place to find a school. If you merge to a district, than you cant' find the school in a category, or an article linking to only the school (or you can, but it has problems). You have to find the district, and hopefully find the school inside it. If you're unaware of the district, you'll never find a school merged to it.

Note, that this subpage is largely a retort to a fairly specific narrow approach to schools (e.g. "merge to district"), which for a time, seemed to be the overhwelming popular "compromise" approach. For a while, people seemed to be voting "merge to district" in AFDs, unconditionally, regardless of what the nature of the district was, or if there was even a relevant district. Anyways, I can see how it doesn't seem to say clearly what I intended, so hopefully, I'll find time to rewrite it. Thanks for pointing this out. --Rob 05:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Big Brother

Hi, Thivierr. According to this page, you are a member of the Big Brother WikiProject. It would appear, perhaps because Big Brother isn't airing in Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States at the moment, that activity on Big Brother-related articles has died down quite a bit. Between seasons is a good time to be editing Big Brother-related articles as this is probably the only time where Wikipedians can focus on the articles that seem to have been forgotten about without too many Big Brother-related distractions. There are a few articles just waiting to be worked on, and proposed article changes on the Project talk page that have received little feedback. Nobody is forced to do anything as a Project member, but please try to edit whatever Big Brother articles you can and help with the WikiProject's aim - to make the Big Brother articles the best that they can be! Thanks. jd || talk || 20:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UC3

This article, along with Tracy Williams, has been nominated for deletion discussion. Please feel free to join in the discussion linked from the article Bwithh 23:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Images

Hi Rob - would you think about commenting at User:PageantUpdater/Use of Images? I just logged on to find over twenty images tagged with "Replaceable fair use" which I think is pretty ludicrous... considering how hard it is to find "free" images... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, a large bunch of images I uploaded, have also been tagged. As have countless others (well beyond beauty pageants). Apparently the magical text at Wikipedia:Fair use is "An image of a living person that merely shows what they look like" is a "counterexample" (e.g. what not to do). I'm not sure how new this is (or if its new). So, perhaps that's the location to discuss matter, since its of global signficance. There's little point (yet) in argueing over any subgroup of images. --Rob 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For hard work and dedication to Wikipedia (notably, your work with linking articles), I award you this Original Barnstar. Enjoy! Sharkface217 23:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new RFC

You may be interested to know that an RFC has recently been initiated regarding Fair use images of Canadian politicians. Many images of Canadian public figures are about to be deleted, including ones you have uploaded. Please feel free to participate. - Mcasey666 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Lynn Spears

Hi Rob, I noticed that you responded the last time the question of Jamie Lynn Spears' birthday came up; can you take a look at Talk:Jamie Lynn Spears#Birthday, again? I'm sure her birthday is April 4, 1991, but it complicates things when an apparently incorrect date still shows up on the official web site. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillfield Strathallan College

I noticed that you had edited this article quite a bit. I tried to manually remove many vandalisms but could not get all because I am unfamiliar with the school. It had been vandalized by several ips and registered users so that is was in a bad state. I reverted back to your version for accuracy. Perhaps since you are familiar with the subject matter you might take a look at it. Thanks.--Dakota 06:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Its sad to see there was so much vandalism, since I last watched the article. I have put it back on my watch list, and will be checking it for any future vandalism. Thanks for cleaning it up. I have reviewed the history. I notice you reverted to roughly the how I left. I also notice this version seems to be more up-to-date than my last version of the history. I'll have to spend some more time, before figure which is more correct. --Rob 06:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You are welcome. Yes it is sad to see. I went back to yours because I thought it was first non vandal version :)--Dakota 06:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, it turns out the anon's version was the best of them all (so far), and I have put in what they had. Originally, I misread the school's web site, and made a mistake about when they acquired their current site. The anon corrected me. --Rob 06:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo Matching Service

Hi there,

I'm contacting you because you listed yourself at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. You might be interested in a new wikiproject page that lists photographers and articles that need photos by location. The page is located at Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service or WP:PMS GabrielF 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary photos

Hi Thiverr,

As it happens, we need photos for ten Calgary articles. :) I've added them to WP:PMS.

Enjoy, 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to subst: templates!

Hi,

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks! :)

Hbackman 23:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolwatch Archive

Regarding [1] I put that in there because the closing admin thought it was important to note in his close. It also isn't a priori clear to me that an AfD discussion couldn't decide otherwise. Therefore accurately describing the closing admin's statement seems to be safe. Also, I'm not sure what you meant to do to Briarwood entry. JoshuaZ 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a closing admin may wish to inform followers of a particular AFD of their "options", without really making a decision about the item. The schoolwatch archive is really there to track decisions, and see where they're going over time. Recording "redirect optional" doesn't really do that, and may even mislead people into thinking only one deleted article "may" be redirect. If you wish to change it again, I won't revert, as I don't think its a huge deal. --Rob 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert then. I don't have a strong opinion either way. JoshuaZ 02:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Photo

I am from Vancouver (very soon to be Edmonton), so I am not too sure, as I only know Calgary so well. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 17:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Danni Boatwright.jpg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalhousie (C-Train)

Thanks for the expanation. I tagged the edit as "enlargement" because the default (for the unregistered person that browses wikipedia) is 150 px (after all, that's who we're writing the articles for); however I chose 200px because that fits the height of the text in most diplay sizes. Feel free to change it back if you feel it would look better. Cheers. --Qyd 04:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks :)

Hi Rob... thanks for the thanks :) After the whole Abu badali saga I considered asking some of my contacts if I could use their pics, but didn't have the guts. I finally contacted Leeann because she's been absolutely fabulous with sending me pics for my website, so I thought she would be a good test case! I'm really thrilled it worked out :) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 05:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit ^talk on behalf of Kaldari 02:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls as consensus

Regarding [2], a straw poll is not a "step" in reaching consensus. There can be valid reasons why a policy must not be a policy even if there were a supermajority on a straw poll in favor of it, but those reasons are not going to be revealed by edit warring over a tag; they must be discussed on the talk page, which you should do instead. —Centrx→talk • 06:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you actually reviewed what my actual edit was, or don't understand it. I put back (twice) a tag merely saying there was a dispute (but *not* changing the content or status of the page). Apparently you dispute the existance of the dispute. I dispute your dispute with the existance of the dispute. I assert there is as much a dispute, as there is irony in the position of those who dispute the existance of the dispute. Do you still dispute this? You don't want me to "edit war" over this? Ok, so you wish me to discuss the dispute first, and gain consensus, before I put back the dispute tag? Of course, we can discuss things, and resolve the dispute, there'll be no dispute, and no need for a dispute tag. But seriously, review the history of the page (and its predecessors), the talk page archives, and then come back and tell me there's no diapute. --Rob 08:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of us disputes the existence of a dispute, but the issue is one of scale. Nearly every policy or guideline (up to and including NPOV) has its detractors, as seen on the respective talk pages. Nearly none of those have a big tag on the page indicating such. Why then is the dispute on this particular page more important than just about every other dispute, and why would it require a tag? >Radiant< 09:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a policy or guideline in existence that is not "disputed" under the meaning you are using. Also, if you dispute a policy or guideline, you need to explain why on the talk page so that others may be convinced or so that flaws may be corrected. —Centrx→talk • 09:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather exceptional dispute. People have been declaring objections to this supposed guideline a policy long, long, long before it had any official status. There's an exceptionally large amount of objection set out on the talk page. Also, the need to declare an objection is much greater, when a number of editors try to use this effectively as a core policy. The actual/real core policies, were all developed before most of us came here, and people are obliged to accept them as the "price of admission". For instance, even if a majority of people objection to being free, that policy isn't up for radical change. Also, if you actually read WP:N, and review AFDs, you'll see the most of the most fervant supporters of it, define it radically different than what it says. In some ways notability around here, is like a religious term: people who don't actually beleive in something as written all insist they actually do, while fighting each other, to impose their version on a day-to-day basis. Like "morarily" those who use the term most on a daily basis, and isnsist upon imposing it the most, surprisingly know least what it means. Also, no, I'm not obliged to add to the talk page, when others have, amply, and declared the dispute, and I merely supported their statement that their was dispute. What we have here is people who create a guideline/policy simply by adding a tag, reverting it back, and giving an unstated (but fairly obvious) implied threat, that objectors better stop. --Rob 16:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a guideline is not a core policy, and to my knowledge nobody is using it as such (if you know any, please tell me and I'll go get my trout). Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception; they're far less important and ironclad than you seem to imply. >Radiant< 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Grenada

[3] Good catch. EvilCouch 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs

Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one edit to the Wikipedia article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, and there is considerable support for that position.

I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article by registering a keep vote on the article's request for deletion page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot reasonably be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because the viewpoints it presents aren't "scientific."

Thanks!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killdevil (talk • contribs).

All This Time

Just thought I'd let you know that Michelle McManus's song "All This Time" is not a cover of a Tiffany song. I've created a disambiguation page. There's also a song by Sting with the same name. And I don't think Tiffany's was a bigger hit than Michelle's.— AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that, I falsely assumed it was a cover because of an earlier edit summary, which said it was. --Rob 16:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I got a bit confused. Chad427 was the user who said it was a "cover of the bigger hit by Tiffany", not you. I didn't realise two different people had made changes. In fact I didn't realise the page had been moved until today. I think I meant to leave the message on Chad's talk page instead of yours. Anyway it doesn't matter now. Have a nice day! — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

(cur) (last) 06:12, 9 January 2007 Thivierr (Talk | contribs) (→Oppose - change tag display, to avoid putting page in cat)--SmokeyJoe 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Article

What should be the birth name and what should be the also known as?

BMI [4] and a court document [5] indicated Michael Joe Jackson. Israell 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

If you have some spare time, an image of the olympic oval outside, a nicer one of the inside, or even a picture of the calgary science school, located in lakeview by the weaselhead and glenmore resovoir. Just some suggestions, as I'm not much of a photographer, nor do I have much access to the one digital camera in our house. Thanks, Ard0

Thanks for the suggestions. I hope to take some pics this weekend, and the next one, depending on weather. I'm sure I can get one of the Calgary Science School. The Oval is a little harder, to get a good shot of, since its so big, but I'll give it another try (my last attempt was unsuccesful, due to poor lighting). --Rob 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks.. I didn't expect such an upbeat and positive attitude towards being able to take pictures. Keep up the good work; I look forward to seeing how the picture(s) turn out. Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the school is located at 5915 Lewis Drive SW. Get on glenmore headed west, go across the resovoir, follow glenmore to the next real intersection with lights near the tsu-tina reserve and take a left. Then take your third left, and I'm sure your human intellect can take it from there. I wasn't sure If you knew how to get there, so I wasted my time at 12:44 in the morning to tell you =D. Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You can see the pictures I took of the Calgary Science School in this gallery on Commons. --Rob 10:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! I don't know how I could really thank you! ... I do have one Idea though. Anyway, that's really good, and I mean really really good! Thanks so much for taking those pictures! As far as the article goes, I sort of think the CSS logo would be nice to incorporate into the page, and maybe image 18 instead of the current one, but I'll let you decide. Also, the blue links on a blue bkgd isn't working very well, and I don't have any experience with tables on wiki, other than the "Teachers" table that took me an hour. Thanks again!! Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular favorite between the various pictures, so I made the change, as you suggested (including putting the logo back). Feel free to change further. As for the issue of the appearance of the wiki links, I'll leave that till later. I do want to put the links back eventually, but am unsure what are the appropriate colors (and codes) to use. --Rob 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added: One note, on my screen the info box is light grey (almost white). So, the blue wiki-links are readable. I'm not sure why we each see a different color. I'm also not sure what most people see. Anyhow, I'll leave it for now, and hope somebody can figure it out. --Rob 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I changed the image and the logo, because I think that the logo is less important to have as the main representative picture, yet still important to have on the page. Also, I made the background of the box a color called AntiqueWhite. Let me know if it looks like a peachy white to you too.. Now I'm off to restore the links, and this article can take a rest. By the way, notice anything special at the bottom of this page?? hint hint.. Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good now, and thanks for the barn star. --Rob 00:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm meeting on monday (Jan. 29th) with the principle to make some changes, to make the article more accurate, and extensive. Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 02:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Just dealt with the Kelly Clarkson libel troll. Thanks for pointing it out in your edit summary. Warm regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no choice ;)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Thivierr, there's really no other way to thank you fully for your amazing picture contributions! Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Wikipedia meetup

Just a reminder that the Calgary Wikipedia meetup is this Sunday, 2pm, at Haymarket Café (1101 Macleod Trail SE). — GrantNeufeld 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind

I took your image Image:Calgary Science School 18.jpg and used Macromedia Fireworks to "Auto-level" The colors, and sharpen the image. You can see the new file here: Image:New Calgary Science School 18.jpg. Just as I read the name.. maybe it needs a better name. You can move it if you wish, But right now, I'm going to change the CSS page and Alberta charter schools page to the newer image. It doesn't look as.. 'faded', if you will.. Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your change looks good. When I took the picture, I had to manually increase the exposure (the school appeared too dark), but I overdid it, and set the exposure too high, making it too light. So, your change was needed. Unfortunately, it's very hard to get a good pic of North facing building. --Rob 03:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I noticed you uploaded the image to Wikipedia directly. For the future, can I suggest you upload free images to Commons, instead of Wikipedia. That way they're still useable in English Wikipedia, but they're also useable in all other versions of Wikipedia, and other Foundation projects. It's not a big deal for this case, but something to think about in future cases. --Rob 03:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get a pic.. =D

You gotta get a small picture of yourself on your user page. I really like being able to see the face of someone on wiki.. Makes me feel more.. open to talk. You kind of get a sense of knowing who your talking to.. Not just a username/nickname. Its just a suggestion, follow if you wish. And Thanks again for all those amazing pics of Calgary schools! Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foothills Hospital and Wikipedia since Jan

hi, i just thought i would add a comment on Foothills Hospital to your user page, - thanks for the comments, noticed that your comments are 1-year old for your user page, happy 1-year of Wikipedia? So far I am half a year as a Wikipedia user.--John Zdralek 07:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gypsy Poster.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I've seen your edits to articles related to the Bay Area, such as Ocean View Elementary School, so I was wondering if you'd like to join WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area. It's a WikiProject that focuses on improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Bay Area. (It doesn't matter that you're Canadian.) If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading! — Emiellaiendiay 08:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your edit summary: "add myself, with embarressment of my pitifull camera"

Hey - Don't feel like you have to apologize - I've seen many lousy pictures taken with very expensive cameras. — Zaui (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N

You called for a straw poll in an edit summary. I have started one at WT:N#Straw Poll. Dhaluza 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School address Template:Infobox Education in Canada

Well, this was changed on the Casino template among others many months ago. The point was made that the address is not encyclopedic. While I did not like that position, it seems to be correct. So over time when I find other templates with a similar problem, I make the same change. To accuse me of picking on schools with this change when it was fully explained in the edit summary is ignoring AGF. Vegaswikian 07:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "it was fully explained in the edit summary". Your edit summary said "address is not encylopedic and has been removed from other templates". Let's examine this. Everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic. So, arguing your doing something to be encyclopedic, while true, isn't much of an explanation. You could add that to every edit summary. As for "has been removed from other templates", that's useless, as there's no indication where any discussion for consensus existed for those changes, or links to the changes. You factually, gave *no* useable explanation in your edit summary. You said nothing on the template talk page. It's patently absurd to say you *fully* explained anything. Also note, that often when a building address is not used, a location (using coordinates) is used. Now, had you discussed doing a transition to that, it would have been worth talking about. While there's a consensus that Wikipedia is not a place to look up mailing address information (like any contact information), there's pretty widespread acceptance that a specific permanent location for a particular thing is fairly signficant item for that thing, and worth inclusion. If you took part in discussions in advance, you would realize that. But you went ahead, and changed something, effecting thousands of different articles. You have to learn that things aren't black and white, and there are often pros and cons to certain actions. Sometimes, a piece of information serves multiple purposes. So, while being bold is great, contemplate discussions that effect thousands of articles, in advance. --Rob 13:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Arkansas USA picture

Hi Rob... it's been a long time since I was last in contact with you! Anyway I just discovered this picture here... would you have any idea as to whether that would be free use or not? It doesn't give much information...

Also you might be interested in commenting on my (perhaps presumptuous but we'll see) FAC nom for Tara Conner.

Hope all is well with you... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I left you a message on your Commons talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion of duplicate images

Ah yes, my first batch of deletions as an admin. Some did, unfortunately, slip through the cracks. Chalk it up to inexperience. I believe most of the errors that I caused were fixed as it was brought to my attention by another editor and I looked into it. Although I do not know for sure. If you see any issues, I'd be more than happy to look at the deleted image and find out the name it was uploaded to the Commons as and if need be, temporarily restore the old file. Sorry for the confusion.↔NMajdan•talk 14:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Lingafelt

Thanks for dealing with the image :) Just thought I'd tell you that I was able to find a ton of free images for Jennifer Hawkins using Flickr... what an amazing source for creative commons free photos! I have had some great fun trying to come up wtih what I can... also I've found images for Brittany Swann, Zuleyka Rivera and Heidi Eckstrom. The best thing I found apart from all the images of JHawk were those from Miss Earth 2006... and a great one of Alexandra Braun Waldeck. If you haven't checked it out before I would recommend it :) PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. I think me and at least one other user were trying to deal with it at the exact same time (he got the article, and I got the image page). Somehow I think the "anon" isn't very anonymous. Anyway, you've had some great finds at FlickR. I've searched FlickR for Creative Commons images also, and probably had less success then you did in the pageant arena. On a minor note, I suggest, always making a comment on the FlickR page, which links to the relevant Wikipedia page, so people can see how they're images are being used (I should remember to take my own advice on this more often). Lately, I've personally, been focussing more on trying to actually take pics of some people with articles (alhtough sadly, this hasn't included any beauty queens, yet). --Rob 03:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both you and After Midnight got to it at the same time :) After Midnight has been a brilliant contributor to all the pageant articles... his contributions are invaluable! I agree that the anon wasn't exactly anonymous... did you see that there is now an Arbitration case? When I'm feeling a bit better I'll make a statement there but it's things like this that really piss me off. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:TREYWiki, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --TREYWiki 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)--TREYWiki 04:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm going to advise both of you try to remain more civil. The subject of schools is a contentious one on Wikipedia, and it's important to not get caught up in emotions. FrozenPurpleCube 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'd say that that choice of NPA-warning tag was a tad too high. A lower-level caution is generally more appropriate first. High-level block tags are best only used after expressing a concern about it first. FrozenPurpleCube 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly pic

There in lies the tale. After you found the original, I tried digging around defence link for a higher resolution version of the image but couldn't find one - A high resolution is available from here (you need a logon to get a non-watermarked version) http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=images/images_gallery.php&action=viewimage&fid=34138 . Working on the idea that the original story was probably reproduced in several places (and distributed with a high resolution version of the image) I went googling for some unique text - I settled on "1st Class Vivienne Pacquette". And found http://commandosof2bct.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html - click on the image... Megapixie 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Exchange Photo

Please consider changing the current photo of Michael P. Jackson ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Michael_P_Jackson.jpg ) with the latest photo from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security located @ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/JacksonMichaelP_e2037.jpg . This official photo can also be referenced @ http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/photos/JacksonMichaelP_e2037.jpg and http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/photos/Michael_P_Jackson.jpg Wpublishing 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I don't know whether you're checking the talk page of the Wikiproject Beauty Pageants page but I am hoping we can try to get it a bit more active (partly motivated, to be honest, by the recent spate of MFDs of inactive projects). You can check out my suggestion that we all colaborate on doing one of the numerous fix-up jobs that seem to be calling out for attention!

I also briefly mentioned pictures... and since it was you who originally got me interested in finding "free" photos I thought I'd let you in on what I've been doing... once I exhausted Flickr's supply for appropriately licensed CC images I decided last night to approach people and see if they'd license other photos under the GFDL... there are a lot out there on Flickr so I sent off over 40 messages and am already getting a decent response! I wish I'd done this earlier! There's a great one of Kelly Hu as Miss HI Teen USA (Image:KellyHuHITUSA.jpg), and photos of Dani Reeves, Courtney Barnas and Tiffany Martin. I am close to getting release of a better image of Brittany Sharp as well. I find it interesting... people are more willing to release images than I had anticipated! PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also meant to add... there's an entire gallery of free images from Miss Earth 2006 up on Flickr! 101 pictures! http://flickr.com/photos/pchin/sets/72157594387908510/ . I've already uploaded some but plan to put more in the article later... PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PageantUpdater. Nice to hear from you. I'll try looking at the project soon. To be honest, I've lost some interest in making articles (and hence WikiProjects) and am more "into" photos (particularly my own). I've been "burned" with investing time in working on a bunch of articles in one area, only to see a bunch deleted due to "notability" concerns. At least pics in Commons, are less likely to be deleted. Anyway. I have noticed, and am quite impressed by your growing success in finding free images. Before you came along, I felt at a road block on this front, and am happy to see you thinking of new ways to get more results. Incidentally, on a personal note, I kind of struck (a wee bit of) gold myself. I took a picture of a singer at a free concert. And, surprise, surprise, I found out later, she was a national beauty pageant contestant (with Miss Universe Canada). Later by chance, I got two other pics of girls who competed in the pageant. --Rob 01:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your sentiment about articles getting deleted... all the Miss Teen USA 2007 state titleholder articles I spent ages on all got deleted and that wasn't the end of it... (none too happy about it all :P). I am truly amazed by the reception I got to my contacting people... I seriously wish I'd done it easier because I have managed to source so many pictures! Check out commons:Miss USA and commons:Miss Teen USA and you'll see what I mean! Thanks for giving me the original inspiration for hunting down free images :) Let me tell you... if I lived in the States and could spend weekends attnending pageants I would! PageantUpdater talk • contribs 11:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out those galleries, and it's looking good. Please keep it up. It's also great, your getting pics of beauty queens without camouflage and army boots. --Rob 01:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Karen O'Neil Ganci (2nd nomination)

I read the talk page because it was on my watch list. I dont remember exactly what the page read when I looked at it, but I her notability as an artist would not have passed the notability guidelines here. I asked an admin to userfy the page to User:CorpX/afd to take another look at it. Corpx 07:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the page needs to be userified. My comments related to the conduct of the AFD, more than a particular outcome. I didn't argue about the merits of her artistic career. Rather, I pointed out none of the participants discussed it all, and were all obviously completely unaware of it, as none of them bothered to read the article (and was a major component of the article). I'm sorry if this seams very rude. But this evidence is very clear. You voted to delete something you never read. Even now, you don't seam to recall *any* info from the article. You only now know she's an artist, because I mentioned it on the AFD talk page. You included no facts, beyond what I gave you. I'm actually being polite, by saying you didn't read the article. To read the article and say she's only known for one event would be a LIE. I trust your honest. So, the only way you could say such a falsehood, is if you didn't know the truth, because you didn't read the article. --Rob 07:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in way too many AFDs to remember what the content of each of the articles in question are. I asked it to be userfied so I could remember my reasonings. Where exactly did you find her notability as an artist? She may claim to be one, but it certainly was not verified by independent sources. Corpx 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say "I asked it to be userfied so I could remember my reasonings". Avoid this in the future by writing your reasons during hte AFD. Reading the article, will help with this. But it must be read *during* the AFD, not after deletion. --Rob 03:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article before I commented. I've probably responded to over 1000+ other AFDs in this period, and I just cant remember the reasonings for every one of them. I did write my reason for deletion down. It was the violation of WP:NOT#NEWS Corpx 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who read the article and is honest would not say "...because only known for 1 event". --Rob 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grant_Neufeld_against_SPP_2.jpg

Thanks for adding the very appropriate photo from the protest rally to the article on me. The picture you selected is quite nice. —GrantNeufeld 06:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you liked it. I've thought for a while a photo like that was needed (eg. speaking on a megaphone to a crowd), but I didn't have any good ones till now. For some reason, it took me a while to figure out flash is essential, even in daylight. --Rob 01:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]