User talk:WTucker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, WTucker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium 00:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Tim P (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing caves[edit]

First, let me add my welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like you are jumping right in and making useful contributions in a area with which you have some expertise. Your intuition on categorization is basically correct, but I will add a couple of suggestions. Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, avoid placing an article in two categories where one encloses the other (has a parent-child or grandparent-grandchild, etc. relationship). There is no problem placing an article in sibling categories, such as Category:Show caves and Category:Limestone caves, if they both apply. The "strange and obscure" articles do tend to get left in the general category until there are enough to article to justify creation of a new category. With respect to Category:Erosion caves and Category:Dissolution caves, go ahead and create the categories. If you are not sure how to create new categories, just ask (hint: click on the red links and add its parent category).

If you have not already done so, you may wish to read the categorization guideline. One thing that took me a while to figure out is that when you are adding a category to an article, you can select the Show preview button and then scroll all of the way to the bottom of the page and it will indicate whether you got the category right (it will show up at the bottom) or messed it up (it will appear as black text or as a red, non-existent category). Let me know if you have any more questions and I'll try to help! Burlywood 18:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rimstone2.jpg copyright question[edit]

You have done the right thing by listing it as a possible copyright violation. Would you remove your question from Wikipedia:Requested copyright examinations since you have answered your own question? Royalbroil 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Caving sort[edit]

Helllo WTucker - you recently changed the sorting for the cat of Caving in New Zealand. You replaced " Caving in New Zealand" (note the leading space) with " ". Now both of these place the article at the start of the Caves of New Zealand cat list - where it should be. However, the longer version which I have now returned allows more specific sorting WITHIN the number of articles that should be at the top of said cat.

As an example, " Caving in New Zealand" sorts alphabetically before " Caving rescues in New Zealand" (which does not exist, but this is an example only). By simplifying the sort to " " only, you thus remove important info for the auto-sorting. This of course applies to all cats. Cheers and happpy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


What exactly did you find wrong with the picture in this article? If something is wrong in that particular one, then someone had better take a look at the article in mineralogy|this link. I hope there are not any copyright problems; I spent quite a lot of time making this article.

Also, I would rather you have made contact me before you put any more of my uploaded pictures on wikipedia up for deletion. I am not always able to be on wiki, and would like an opportunity to defend my work. Thanks!

Chiefsfan (Reply) 14:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

I appreciate you informing me and would like to thank you. I understand what was wrong with the images; it was a mix-up, and purely accidental. I also found the source of the images on the web Chiefsfan (Reply) 15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


The pictures in question were not a crop. They were a picture taken on a digital camera that I own. Is taking a picture of something that I could also take a picture of really a copyright violation? To be honest, if I actually had the time to be taking pictures in caves I would, or if I lived anywhere near a cave for that matter... And anyway if taking a picture of a photo is a copyright violation, then whose to say that a real picture of the same thing isn't. This may or may not sound ridiculous to you, but it doesn't to me.

Just a thought
Chiefsfan (Reply) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


I apologize if I sounded angry in my message. I wasn't angry at all. A lot of the time its frustrating because people think I have a "tone". It really doesn't make any sense how someone can pick a tone "tone" out of a written message. Sorry if I came of as defensive. Chiefsfan (Reply) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my typo's, it is quite difficult to type on an ipod, the controls are so sensitive...


A rather late "thank you" for your work on removing the weasel words in the article Lechuguilla Cave. It's a rather frustrating problem when articles which would otherwise be good get infiltrated by these words. BeefRendang (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


My guess for the poor fellow's pseudoscience mention was due to his confusing Karst topography with Kirlian photography. But it doesn't matter, it just didn't belong with karst. Thanks for fixing it. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Cave biology[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Cave biology and Category:Cave paleontology, which you created, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Hey Wtucker, I've seen your spirited defence of the Cambodia article, great job. I'm sorry that I killed a couple of new links that were added to the article by another editor, after you carefully formatted them. There's quite a bit of shameless self promotion by organisations working here - I think this was an example. I think NGO descriptions (and then maybe their website links) belong in List of NGOs working in Cambodia instead of the main category article. No offence to your nice piece of formatting work intended :) Paxse (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was just concerned with the format, not the content. I support the removal if you think it is inappropriate.WTucker (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem about your reverts[edit]

just whats wrong with mine ? I guess there is no vandalism, so whats the problem ? Mysticshade (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What you said is unpruved[edit]

You can compare, what I added is only pictures, so you can restore them please ?Mysticshade (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please standby[edit]

The Smurfs (band) is a real band and the article don't attempt against truthness. What may sounds ridiculous to someones, sounds amazing for others, and this people is fighting to reach fame. With this article we try to allow, through massive means, the total recognition of the group. I'm italian, and i'm studing periodism 1st cemestro, so maybe my english is not correctly translated or info has been exagerated, baceause the article forms part of fame enlargement project, totally legal in the site since possitivity is being englarged . . Please let me check the info and please wait until Tuesdey 31 when the info will be meticulously corrected by a professional, but the link needs to stay for public cntributions. Thanks. --Psytranz (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Wednesday 25th march 2009 05:09

  • I was all ready to AfD this but, like you, I waited for the meticulous corrections. I've added PROD2 and put some of my researches on the talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for the message[1]. Yes, it was the wrong tag more than anything else. {{db-a1}} is used for articles that are incoherent and gibberish, e.g. "The Smurfs is a ~'dlfkutns fnnkcjwf !£)(&*%^%$", rather than for hoaxes. {{db-g3}} can be used for really obvious hoaxes but a prod will do the job here. You may find this essay Field guide to proper speedy deletion useful (I do!). Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle[edit]

Thank you! I was wondering what happened to that comment. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. Have a great day! Scanlan (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pol Pot[edit]

I've removed the disambiguation hatnote for Paul Potts because nobody stupid enough to confuse the two should be allowed within 200 miles of an encyclopedia; also because it's an internet meme used for "lulz", so does us no credit at all to have it there. Please note that Paul Potts doesn't have a complementary hatnote "for the Cambodian dictator, see". Utterly fatuous. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

O.K. No problem -- sorry I restored it. From the diff, it looked like an accident to me. Carry on and thanks. WTucker (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion[edit]

Hi there. When tagging an article for speedy deletion like you did with Talisman Companies, remeber to check its history first. If there is a previous version that does not have the deficits that make it eligible for deletion (like in this case), revert to it instead of tagging. Regards SoWhy 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I did look at the history and saw the redirect version (remnants of which still remained in the article); but, after some research, I determined that the redirect was inappropriate and delete was the better choice. Thanks for your consideration and actions in the matter. WTucker (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

calling code[edit]

hi. i just want to make link in every country page, because i want to know what is the telephone numbers in every country. i prefer to make link if the page is already made. for cambodia, i didn't want to make link for cambodia, because page +855 is not exist. i also want to help everybody who wants to know about calling by making every link in every county page.Mfa fariz (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks. I havent check all the links. if the link is incorrect i will make it right. I noticed problem with +44. I have make correction.Mfa fariz (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your hard work, but please see WP:Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken (and the related page, Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects). Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am aware of WP:NOTBROKEN but I believe these links are slightly broken. First the leading plus sign is confusing and was not there prior to the changes to add the wikilink. The only article which I have found which seemed to find the leading plus sign important was France. My efforts are to remove the leading plus sign as it was before while preserving the effort to add the wikilink. And, in a few cases the redirect is bad such as +44 and a few others. i am about to run out of time for now so I may pick it up again in a few days if I find the gumption and there are no serious objections. Thank you again for the useful reminder. It has caused me to reconsider my efforts here once again. WTucker (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cave Without a Name- Thanks![edit]

WTucker, Thanks for your welcome and the great information! I will review the articles and definitely assist with the Cave Projects editing on Wiki. I have some great pics I've taken of several Texas Caves that I'd like to add (once I figure out how). Peggy Hollin (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Peggy Hollin

Cave coordinates[edit]

I missed out on the debate on cave location coordinates. I've put some comments here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Caves#Coordinates_have_to_go_back_in_internationally.21 Short summary: there's a need for some sort of Infobox European Cave, or something. Goatchurch 08:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversite on cave locations and geocoordinates[edit]

{{adminhelp}} I have a question for the administrators -- I hope this is a good forum to attempt to ask that question.

For a while now, a discussion has been occurring at WikiProject Caves and the Infobox cave template. This discussion revolves around the common US practice of not publishing cave locations for sensitive caves. A consensus was reached to remove the coordinates parameter from the infobox template to remove the temptation to add coordinates to every cave article. Discussion continues along those lines at the present time; but this discussion has sparked a question in my mind.

It has been a long standing policy of the National Speleological Society not to publish cave locations. In fact, members of the NSS agree to that practice. This policy is to help protect the caves from vandalism and looting and to reduce the accidents involving those who enter caves unprepared. Some caves can be protected by gates but not all caves can be gated and even then, gates can be cut. I know of a gate cutting incident which happened less than two weeks ago. Caves (particularly 'significant' caves on federal lands) are also protected by the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act which, among other things, limits publishing locations for significant caves. My question is is it possible to oversight or at least suppress edits which add unsourced coordinates or location information to cave articles especially sensitive caves which are partially protected by this secrecy? I know of a few edits which I would like to see oversighted in this regard. Most edits which add these coordinates or location information are simply original research and can be removed on those grounds and for lack of a source. Editors can remove coordinates and location information but they still appear in the history -- I would like to see an oversight policy or procedure which allows these edits to be expunged. Possible and, if so, how do I go about doing this? Thank you, in advance, for your consideration. WTucker (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. email with your request. It's not handled 'on-wiki' for reasons that I hope are obvious - ie by 'drawing attention' to the specific edits required just creates more needs for oversight.  Chzz  ►  02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick tip[edit]

People born more than a couple hundred years ago are not typically still living. --Pascal666 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was obviously a mistake. Thanks for catching it. WTucker (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Conkling Cavern[edit]

I notice that you have twice removed my geographical coordinates for having been unsourced. As stated in my latest edit, the source is the United States Geological Survey. In this particular case, they use a variation of the name, "Conklings Cave", but I am sure that they are referring to the same item, since the location fits the article's text description of the site just about exactly. It can be found at their usual geographical names search website. I will however not attempt to enter the coordinates a third time, as I am sure that you would again remove them. Backspace (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I and the cave managers appreciate your consideration, thank you. What you are describing sounds like original research to me. I am not being pedantic here. This cave is fragile and publishing the geographic coordinates would only serve to invite the unprepared, the ignorant and possibly the unscrupulous to visit and maybe do damage. I would also like for you to reconsider your practice of adding geographic coordinates to sensitive locations such as wild caves, and unprotected historic sites. Thank you, again. WTucker (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
My first consideration for anything that I edit and post is factuality, and secondly, relevance to the topic. All of the locations that I post are available on published documents, mostly from official government sources. I do not go around to various localities armed with a GPS device to obtain my information, which I admit would be original research. Perhaps one area that I might improve on is to consider that some people may not want this data to be widely disseminated. However, as I have stated, nothing that I reveal is a state secret nor is unavailable upon fairly basic research of already published documents. In this particular instance I have given you the specific source. Backspace (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..."WP:VERIFY (nor factuality). Searching through a database for a variation of a feature name then comparing the location description for fit then publishing the resulting geocoords sounds exactly like WP:OR to me. A GPS device is not required. OR is most often conducted through publications. If the geocoords were published in a reliable source, that is different but deriving them by searches and discernment is original research. I, personally, don't mind the geocoords for locations such as commercial caves and will not argue the original research point for them; but, for sensitive locations, I will argue it if not verifiable from a reliable source. Thanks for your consideration. WTucker (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I can understand your reasoning for not wanting such data to be published, whether verifiable or not. I have no reason to want to see the destruction of sensitive places by the stupid and careless. My biggest question for you and other people with your particular interests is that, if you want the locations of these places to remain unknown, why even make the effort to write an article about them? Does not the very existence of the article encourage interested people to further investigate the subject (perhaps even do original research), including on the very basic attribute of its physical location? I, and presumably many others, would never have even known about the existence of this place had there not been a Wikipedia article on it. Only knowledgeable people as yourself would be competent to write such an article. I am not a caver and have no particular interest in or knowledge about the subject. I am, however, a geographer, and I like to know where places are. I do not pick on caves in particular when I give geocoordinates, as they are simply geographical entities to me, the same as cities, states, bridges, rivers, mountains, dams, parks, forests, etc. The locations of all major ones and many minor ones are widely published and need no original research on anyone's part.
An aside on the topic of verifiability: Taken to the extreme, verifiability is nothing more than agreement, which does not necessarily have anything to do with factuality. If Wikipedia had been published a thousand years ago it could probably have been verified that the earth was flat. Backspace (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It does not take someone knowledgeable in the subject to write an article from reliable sources which is the way it is supposed to work. This particular article does have sources but not for the geocoords. The history seems to indicate that the article may have been started by someone who at least had an interest in the subject but that need not have been the case. I, personally, have avoided writing a large number of articles on sensitive locations from the many sources which I have for the very reason of protection. All I am asking is that a reliable source be provided for geocoords of sensitive locations with no hint of original research. Ideally such a source should be provided for all locations but I am not pedantic. WTucker (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Cave onyx [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Cave onyx , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Kleopatra (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Where to begin a discussion on adding unsourced geocoords enmasse?[edit]

{{helpme}} I have a question. I wish to start a discussion on the practice of adding unsourced geographic coordinates to articles. Recently I have even noticed a bot adding these coordinates sourced only to interwiki articles which are themselves unsourced. These geocoordinates are often the result of original research with some editors going so far as to search databases for similar geographic feature names (see discussion above) or carrying GPS devices into the field. I would like to start a long overdue discussion about this practice in a visible place. How do I go about doing this? Thanks. WTucker (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd try one of the village pumps first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I took your advice. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


As the operator of the bot in question, I note that you appear to have forgotten to inform me of your edits at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding my bot's edits. I would have greatly appreciated the courtesy if you had done so. -- The Anome (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello The Anome. I apologise if you felt slighted in any way. My post at WP:VPP was not to discuss your bots edits but to discuss the policy related to adding unsourced geocoords in general. I posted on your talk page to discuss the specific edits of your bot. But, again, I apologise. I did not intend to slight you. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Convert talk page[edit]

Sorry about nuking your comment. There was an edit conflict, and I looked for other edits but I didn't see yours for some reason. I certainly didn't intend to delete your comment.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I figured as much and said so in my comment on the restore. I never thought it was intentional. Thanks for your courtesy in explaining. WTucker (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Msluka (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Msluka

Lechuguilla Cave: removal of the "See also" section[edit]

You recently removed a newly created "See also" section on the page on Lechuguilla Cave with the explanation in your edit summary that "These articles are not related to Lechuguilla Cave". Although this is strictu senso true, this has also the disadvantage that useful links pointing to interesting topics or scientific questions dealing with similar extraordinary crystallizations are lost. My intention was only to create new links to open new perspectives to the reader of the page. In this sense, the removal you did represent a loss of information for the curious reader. I am aware that there also exist narrow interpretations of the functionality of the ==See also== section in the WP policy Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section. My intention was certainly not to overload this nice page with useless information, just to orient the curious reader loving caves and science, as I do. I hope you can understand this point of view and I would certainly appreciate if you could cancel the revert you did. You can reply here. Thank You. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your intention and your pleasant and respectful request; however, I will not revert my removal. If the addition were more directly related to the topic at hand, namely Lechuguilla Cave, it would be more useful. But, 4 links to articles which have nothing to do with Lechuguilla and are much more directly related to Naica mine or Cave of the Crystals, or crystals in general is a bit much. The reader has many options for finding these tangential topics including categories, links, and the ever present search box among others. They are not lost just not very helpful to the Lechuguilla Cave article itself. WTucker (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer. I aggree. Regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hidden behavior[edit]

Hey WTucker... I didn't understand what you meant by your comment "hidden behavior" on the cave template infobox discussion. Could you clarify it for me? Leitmotiv (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the original question which started the section (Template talk:Infobox cave#location_ref). In it, I suggested that unreferenced coordinates could be hidden from view. I wasn't set on the idea from the beginning and now I am wholely against it. Unreferenced should simply add to a tracking category and nothing else. WTucker (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay got ya. Yeah coordinate references are only needed for those that are challenged. In this case, any cave coordinate has a higher likelihood of being challenged when it appears to be original research. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox cave[edit]

Are you done, with the {{Infobox cave}} sandbox? It's time we finished the merge from {{Infobox ukcave}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am done with the sandbox. Thanks for letting me use it for a while to work out the coordinates ref stuff. WTucker (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


.de is German, not Dutch. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Will Crowther picture[edit]

You say first I have to upload the picture. Obviously I have to do that. The question is how. I don't see anything to click on to upload a picture. I do have rights to the picture; Severo Ornstein gave me the picture and said it would be a good one to add to the wikipedia article. I can forard his email if necessary. As for references, it sounds like you are saying that only something published in a book can be used, and that my personally knowing Will does not constitute factual knowledge. I find this hard to believe and difficult to work with. In our experience, the authors of books about Will get some of the facts wrong. I was trying to make sure the wikipedia article about him is correct, so that people will know the truth instead of getting distorted information from the published books. Will stopped granting interviews to authors because they would often misquote him.

Nancyscrowther (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nancyscrowther. Yes, you understand what I am telling you about reliable sources. Statements made on Wikipedia must be based on published, reliable sources. Personal knowledge does not count. That is the way it works. I very well understand the problems with accuracy and completeness in the media, especially news sources or short cycle publications; but, that is how it works around here.
Since you have an obvious conflict of interest with this particular subject, it would be better if you could point us to reliable sources which talk about your husband. Just add notes to the article talk page describing the source. Then, let others with no conflict of interest make the edits from those sources. You can comment on the progress to discuss the changes if you think they can be improved -- again, on the article talk page. This is the best way to do it in this particular situation.
To upload an image, use the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. It is available as a link in the left menu under the title of "Upload file". Having someone give you a photo for use is not really good enough, though. They must also be willing to license it properly (see WP:IUP). It would be far better if you used an image that you created yourself that you were willing to license for use on Wikipedia.
I hope this helps you get started. I plan to put a welcome message on your talk page (if someone has not already beaten me to it) with some links to articles that will help you to better understand how Wikipedia works. WTucker (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a picture of Will Crowther to insert in his article. I took the picture on October 8, 2012. I am releasing it into the public domain. I have read all the articles about uploading, and have a number of questions. 1) Apparently I can't upload an image until I have made 10 edits. Is there any way around this? 2) I am willing to put it in Wikimedia Commons but can't find how to do that, and can't find how to see what is already in the Commons. 3) When I go to the left hand column on Will's article and click on Upload File, I get a page that says to click here to be guided through the procedure, but nothing happens when I click there. Is this because I have not done 10 edits? 4) I am happy to add the copyright tag but don't know how to add a tag to the picture. I used iPhoto software to put a title and tag on the picture, is that going to be sufficient? Thanks for your help. Nancyscrowther (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I can help you with all of these questions; but, I will try. I am not really aware of the 10 edit limit. I knew there was some kind of limit; and, I don't think there is a way around it. Commons is a different site -- a sister project. To upload to commons you will need to go to and upload there. I am not sure what restrictions are in place at that site; but, once uploaded and properly licensed, those images can be inserted in Wikipedia articles. The upload wizard should guide you through the steps to license it for public domain. It has a graphical guide with links to help topics. I hope this was helpful and happy editing. WTucker (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, WTucker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)