NOTE: In 2012 User:Whenaxis requested that I change links to "User:Whenaxis" to "User talk:Whenaxis" so there are no red links. This does not substantially alter the archive, so I made the change
Logo of Wells Fargo Plaza
I'm sorry I tried to delete the logo, but we're not talking about an airport or a corporation, we're talking about a SKYSCRAPER. SKYSCRAPERs need to have, if any picture whatsoever, a picture of itself in the skyscraper box. I admit, I made a horrible mistake in rashly deleting it. Now I have shifted it to the gallery and replaced it with a picture of the actual building. Best Wishes. Fajubi (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I will not interfere anymore with the logo as long as there is a picture of the actual building in the box too. It's a compromise I guess. Just for the record, if you find any skyscraper article on Wikipedia that incorporates a logo in its infobox, I would dearly like to know. Fajubi (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your cooperation and response to my request. However, although you found (or created) an article with a logo of a skyscraper, you didn't find another one with a logo in the infobox. On another note, you probably edit a lot of Houston articles, which coincidentially enough, I'm from too. Fajubi (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closed consulates
I noticed your discussion with Kransky on his talk page in regards to closed consulates. Within Diplomatic missions in Russia I am in the future intending on breaking out the consulates in Saint Petersburg to its own Diplomatic missions in Saint Petersburg article; ths is due to the fact that SPB was once the capital of Russia, and as such also hosted many embassies up until the Bolshevik revolution and the city has a rich diplomatic history which is notable, verifiable and as such, should be noted. Notes on closures of embassies/consulates, etc should be in prose form, and should be notable in the overall structure. In terms of a country's diplomatic network, the closure of a consulate in say Houston is likely to be not all that notable. However, in terms of Diplomatic missions in Houston, it is entirely notable; a good format would have to chosen for such an article; and I would be suggesting such as Diplomatic missions in Russia. As noted here by another editor, compare the Russian list to List of diplomatic missions in India, and the Indian list is basically useless. I will be pushing with wikiprojects to get some consensus on what these articles should be containing and how they are formatted, because frankly, the way they are set up now is not encyclopaedic and does not allow for article development, either development of the list or development of other articles (such as the C-G in Houston). Thoughts welcome --РоссавиаДиалог11:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Don't remove content which can be verified by anyone who knows the basics of the topic.
2) Don't remove content, even when unsourced, if you yourself know that it can be sourced, especially when you have participated in a discussion in which a source was actually given.
Searching for pages on Google with either one or the other name (not both, thus weeding out those discussing the name difference) gives about a
"Results 1 - 30 of about 96,300 for tetsusaiga -tessaiga. (0.34 seconds)"
"Results 1 - 30 of about 77,100 for tessaiga -tetsusaiga. (0.24 seconds)"
This reflects a significant proportion of usage for Tesseiga in English language pages, over 40% (assuming that Japanese pages don't use the English name). To maintain WP:NPOV, Tesseiga can't just be ignored as a Japan-only name.
Blatant removal of unharmful and easily-sourced content does not improve the article. You have other options, such as "citation needed" tags and section headers. Much of the content you removed was encyclopedic, NPOV, and could quickly be backed up by reliable sources. All that was necessary was to remove all mentions of how Viz made a "mistake". The proper action in this situation would have been, if not a rewrite, a section tag which alerted others to the POV in the topic. --Raijinili (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name 'Tetsusaiga' is not an entirely correct translation from the original Japanese name for the sword. InuYasha's sword is actually known as the 'Tessaiga' in Japanese...
... but when translating the series from Japanese to English, due to either an error or an intentional change, it became the Tetsusaiga.
Are you arguing that I have no reliable source for the fact that it was changed in translation, or that it was either an error or an intentional change? In the case of the latter claim, it conforms to a NPOV, covers all main possibilities, and, really, doesn't need a source since it's common sense that the rather common (as many Japanese readers would know) misreading of the smaller character "tsu" makes the possibility of a mistranslation significant enough to warrant a mention.
The smaller version of the hiragana character "tsu (kana)" (っ) was mistaken for the larger version of the hiragana character "tsu" (つ).
I can see your point for this part. I think I planned to change "mistaken" to "taken". However, an intentional mistake is still a mistake (i.e. taken as something which it isn't).
So, instead of doubling the consonant "s" in the name, the syllable "tsu" was inserted into the name, thus giving us 'Tetsusaiga'."
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, it's common sense again that says that the small "tsu" was read as a large "tsu", and it's clear by the result it gave us.
Other than the single use of "mistaken", nothing that I wrote required sources, or if it did, you yourself knew that they existed and where to find them. That's applying selective ignorance to make a point. While RS is important, your removal violates WP:NPOV, since you knew of a source for some of the information. Reliable sources are excellent to have, but the policy is Verifiability, not RS, and how much sources are required is outlined in WP:V: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Anyone with a copy of the original Japanese with the furigana and a good eye can verify for themselves whether the "tsu" is small.
The only part you're really challenging, as far as I know, is that it was a mistake. Then change the part which says it's a mistake! I know you can do it.
As far as using Google, your dismissal of my usage has several flaws.
1) I didn't use ranking. Ranking is relatively easy to manipulate. Raw count is harder, unless you're xkcd.
2) I don't see where on WP:OR "we" exclude Google usage as a whole. My use of Google, to prove the popularity of a term, is a listed use of Google and other search engines in WP:SET: "Alternative spellings and usages can have their relative frequencies checked (eg, for a debate which is the more common of two equally neutral and acceptable terms)." I'm not using Google to establish notability or as a source for the "mistake", but rather to gauge relative popular usage in English, which is an accepted use for search engines on Wikipedia.
And I have to add another "don't" to the list. Don't revert edits involved in an active issue unless the content is immediately harmful to the encyclopedia. This kind of behavior leads to Edit wars, which ARE harmful to Wikipedia. Most of the article is unsourced, yet isn't likely to be challenged and isn't harmful. Fixing it doesn't mean blanking the page. --Raijinili (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is DOES NOT SAY is whether "Tetsusaiga" was a mistake.
"Tetsusaiga" is an obvious mistake. The question is whether it's intentional.
Because no relaible sources say that Tetsusaiga was a mistake, you cannot add this information in.
I offered a compromise of changing it to "taken" from "mistaken". Regardless, an objection to one word of one line is not just cause to remove the whole section.
A sentence like "due to either an error or an intentional change, it became the Tetsusaiga." does not belong in here. There may be a third, or fourth possibility.
But, as far as you or I know, they are not significant possibilities. They are "fringe cases", and thus adding them in would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR, while NOT adding in the significant possibilities would violate NPOV.
Suggesting that it may be due to an error is OR too.
The point is, if it's verifiable, it's not original research. The small "tsu" misreading is easy to make, something which can be verified by the reader by checking the "sokuon" page and inspecting for themselves the similarity. This makes it a significant possibility, and thus must be covered by the policy of NPOV.
From WP:NOTOR (emphasis mine): "Many sources contain typographical and proofing errors, some more than others. Claiming tendentiously that such a mistake represents the author's intent is often dishonest."
BTW, this name change does not need a section on its own as there is no information about it.
As I keep saying, NOT to have a section on it violates NPOV. The change is notable because it is one of very few names which did not directly come from the original Japanese intention. The difference is significant because, as I've shown, both names are popular in English usage.
No information? No confirmation, but to say that there is no information is dishonest. Because there is no confirmation, we must represent all significant and notable possibilities on the page.
In an encyclopedia, you do not refer to the reader as "us"
Then, again, change it yourself. It's a minor change, and it's no reason to delete content.
You do not need an entire section about how the name is different unless you have sources that explain how it is significant. As there is no significance to the name change (no reliable sources that state anything special about it), there is no need for a section.
A tag has been placed on Image:Map Venice MK1888.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Map Venice MK1888.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:KatsuyaJonouchi.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:KatsuyaJonouchi.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Article idea for Diplomatic missions in Houston
Hello, WhisperToMe. You have new messages at East718's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Strongest Under the Heavens, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:WellsFargoPlazalogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:WellsFargoPlazalogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Angolan consulate
Thank you for seeking consulation on the photograph of the lobby of the consulate in Houston.
The question you need to ask is whether the picture really demonstrates what the item is, at first glance. My first impression is that I don't see a consulate. Instead, I see the door to an office. Is there anything notable about the office door? No, not really. An embassy building looks more unique than a generic office. Kransky (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the photograph of a corridor with the Equatorial Guinea and American flags, and a portrait of the EG President, "says a lot about the EG Government"? Well, this is what my detective skills tell me:
They forget that English sticks to the French convention of (noun) (adjective) in translating "consulate general")
They perhaps cannot afford an office with carpet
The EG President likes white hankerchiefs
Are these facts notable? No. Is anything here relevant? The fact that they have a presence in Houston (because of oil interests) may be worth raising, but it is not worthwhile indicating through a photograph.
This time I wasn't referring to the "Diplomatic missions" article - I instead placed the picture in the politics page. Anyway, here's the thing - when you go into an American consulate, do you see a large picture of George W. Bush as the very first photograph that you see? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate. Equatorial Guinea went through a coup four years ago and there are other noteworthy aspects about EG's political life - I don't think a photo of a lobby with some regalia of EG does justice to the topic. Kransky (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arudou Debito's daughters
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing anything near "consensus" on the talk page. Arudou may mention them by name on his site in passing, but I don't see (and judging by the talk page, the vocal majority doesn't either) a reason as to why we should include their full names on Wikipedia. Simply saying "one daughter looks Japanese, the other doesn't" is enough to communicate his point.
Again, his usage of his daughters' names in the context of his arguments is his prerogative. That's a website that he controls and readers are welcome to visit his site and investigate. I'm not hearing a reason why the name of these children, both of whom are minors, need to be included on his Wikipedia page. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 01:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For template
You might want to read about the {{for}} template. It's useful instead of all the dashes and such that you've been putting at the tops of articles. For an example, see my edit at the Rachel Fuller article. Dismas|(talk)21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the way I handled this. I should have asked what you were up to on your talk page first. I see now what you're doing. I don't agree with it but I see what your intention is/was. Dismas|(talk)07:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly take another picture if I'm ever down on that side of the city. It may be a while. I took these pictures when I was taking a 1-week class at UMBC.Wallstreethotrod (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads-up, they've been removed by anons from Nick Berg (where I've readded it) and several others. Seems you've cared about the issue in the past, so you might want to take a look around. --91.18.199.178 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if it would be better to incorporate your edits into the main text, rather than on each individual character? In the Production or even a new section. By the way, thanks for helping with this one, hopefully it's on your watchlist now. Do you watch the show? Yngvarr(t)(c)00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:JackHensley.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:JackHensley.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
You are mixing up with communities with neigborhood councils. See the index plan for the communities [1]. For example Pico-Union is within the Westlake community. The Pico Union (corner of Pico Blvd. and Union Ave. as center of the area) redevelopment plans show the boundaries of Hoover, Olympic, Harbor Fwy. and Santa Monica Fwy. It was created as a redevelopment project in the early 1970. Neighborhood councils, which do not follow the community areas, were created in recent years. West Adam Prep. School is located in the South Central LA community area. Ucla90024 (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Template:Los Angeles and Template:Northwest Los Angeles or other district templates to see all the correct communities and neighborhoods. Neighborhood councils are really advisory body and should not be used here. City Council District are really govenmental bodies. Even with these communities, there are number of errors. For example Temple-Beaudry in not located within Pico-Union. It is located at the intersection of Temple and Beaudry and on the opposite ends of Westlake. The LA Almannac map [2] incorrectly shows Wilshire as Pico-Union's northern boundary, not Olymic Blvd. as shown on the development plan map. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the districts and neighborhoods at List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Temple Beaudry is listed under Pico-Union. Pico-Union and Westlake listed as separate districts. Also see the two maps at LA Almanac: [3] and [4]. Then see the Pico-Union redevelopment map [5] vs. the Westlake district map [6], which show the same corner at Harbor and Santa Monica Fwys. Ucla90024 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Pico-Union students go to Belmont High or the new Miguel Contreras Learning Complex at Lucas and 3rd St. At least some kids from Pico-Union go to Miguel Contreras. Ucla90024 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:MihoNosaka.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:MihoNosaka.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
RE: inherent notability of library system. I would desperately love to see a discussion about this. I've looked through archives, and searched, and I cannot find a discussion like this. Discussions, though (as you may know), are very tedious to search through, so if you know where such a discussion might be, I really would like to know. This article (I did not notice who created it) simply lists such little information that it could be included in the parish article, and at this point I'd like you to consider that as an alternative. If you really want a separate article, I'll restore it and take other actions instead, such as a mergeto tag. Let me know. - CobaltBlueTony™talk13:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I was taking my cue for notability from the music album notability, in that albums by notable performers are inherently notable, but they suggest that album articles with little more than a track listing would be better suited to being listed in a main article, or main discography article. Also, it is common practice to break out subtopics in general only when a main article has become too cumbersome. I'll poke around for a place to present this discussion. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™talk13:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My uploaded photo of the banner of the Jack Smith (columnist) exhibit at The Huntington Library was deleted for being dervative. My understanding is that public places are fair game. Is there a legal department that can provide guidance? What about a photo of a part of his column in the paper, would it be ok to use as illustration or fair use? Actually I took some pictures of him at his house, but I am not sure I want to make public. Then you wanted "This section does not cite any references or sources." for list of alumni. That would be hard to do with a long list. I have a list from the LAUSD and have verified with some high schools. There are some that I remember from readings. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Photos
Will be uploading photos shortly on: West Adams Prep School, Ray Charles Square sign, Johnnie Cochron Jr. Middle School, Westwood School, Warner Ave. School, Notre Dame, Palm-Rancho Park Library, Overland School, Westwood Library, Loyola High, Rosedale Cemetery, others. Ucla90024 (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have failed the GA for this article. See comments here. While I would've loved to put it on hold, as you requested, I think the article is a long ways away from GA, and it's development needs to take a sharp turn in a different direction. The article appears to be written as if you're writing about a small city or town, and many of the sections and subsections appear to be following the guidelines for a US city article, which I don't think is accurate. Many sections are just too short, and it looks like you're trying to squeeze content to fit those sections where there really isn't any to begin with. What I think you need to do is write the article and structure it as if you're talking about a city neighborhood, and focus on the historical development and the culture of that neighborhood. I've provided links to some current GAs on neighborhoods in the review (linked above). If you could follow that format, I think you'll find it much easier to attain GA status,... Dr. Cash (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neighborhoods don't have to adhere to the US city guideline. I mentioned the US CITY guideline back in May because, as a part of a city, some of the information there might very well apply. But I didn't intend for that to be read as "must adhere" -- it is just a guideline -- there are even some very small towns where the guideline will serve as just that, a guide, but the actual makeup of the city may be such that many of the sections simply don't apply to it; the guideline was written more for larger cities. I may have also been confused back in May because the article's title "River Oaks, Houston, Texas", to me sort of said, "city", when in fact it was merely a neighborhood, and not a city.
But, it is clear to me now that we're talking about a neighborhood, and as such, there are no specific guidelines for neighborhoods. Some of the material still is valid, but I think it's going to be rather difficult to find things for many of the suggested headers for cities. A good neighborhood article should provide a good description of where the neighborhood is in the city, a good description of its history, its people, its culture. Merely listing things like schools, libraries, police and fire precincts, and local newsletters, is really going a bit beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia, and getting almost into a directory, of which wikipedia is not.
I suppose I could treat this as an on hold, instead of a fail. But I still think we need a different angle of thinking instead of strictly adhering to guidelines for a city article. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GA review is on a subpage of the article's talk page, and is located here. When you click on the link to edit the GA review section, you're actually editing that subpage. If you click to edit the main Gulfton talk page, the GA review text won't be there, but you will see {{Talk:Gulfton, Houston, Texas/GA2}} where the review would appear. The double brackets tell the wiki software to transclude the text of that page into the page being accessed. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate Offices
Are those really important/relevant to mention in their own first-tier section? I wouldn't have thought so so I'm curious as to why you decided to add it in. NcSchu(Talk)16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Lakewood Elementary School (Dallas, Texas)
Well, that's fine and what not, but I lived in the DFW area for several years and heard nothing about this school, so it would strike me as un-notable. Top 4000 elementary schools, meh. What if they were number 4000? Blue-ribbon based keeps are precedent, but not policy. Not saying it's defintitley not, hence why I didn't tag as speedy. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit [8] you entered the victims real last name when posting in the debate over whether to include it. As including the real name is currently a WP:BLP issue we must not mention the real name either in the article or on the talk page. If you read through the talk page you will see I've already had to remove the name a number of times. Accordingly I've replaced the real name with "the victim". Please do not insert the real name into the discussion until a decision/consensus is reached that it is not a BLP problem - use a euphemism instead. Exxolon (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:IshizuSecond.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:IshizuSecond.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shadi.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Shadi.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:SugorokuMutou.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:SugorokuMutou.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fremont Alumni
Funny that you removed the alumni from Fremont High's list, yet you didn't take Fremont off their pages. I have told you I have a list of alumni in LAUSD high schools. I have not have time to put it in yet. I am most likely the only person who has the list. At the old Board of Eduaction Board room entrance, there used to have photo display of some of the alumni from the LAUSD. Yet other schools are allowed to have their list not cited. Some of my information are personal information. For example Congressman Corman wrote me about himself. Mrs. Glenard P. Lipscomb told me about her late husband Congressman Lipscomb. The information can't be cited or it would be time consuming to research them. Ucla90024 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that train wreck. You were a lot more bold than I; even so, I had at least one unregistered editor berate me for daring to clear out some of the cruft. Pages such as this one are perfect examples of why the AFD process needs to be reworked; one cited fact does not make for a credible list, and the whole thing should have been nuked. In any case, I've got it watchlisted, and I'll work with you to keep the cruftiness from returning. Horologium(talk)17:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:JackHensley.PNG
Thank you for uploading Image:JackHensley.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
The user appears to be a single purpose account (only 1 edit). I'm sure his proposals have some merit, so I'm sure some discussion is due. You've been involved with the article much longer, so I'm sure you'd be better at addressing some of these issues outside of the "references" debate ongoing. The359 (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed it. I think it's best to ignore that specific comment (while still addressing his concerns regarding the rest of the article) as an arguement over it would be fruitless. He seems to obviously be here through Debito's blog. The359 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! Ha...I was concerned for a minute. It'll take a bit for the database to update, so it may not transclude properly on all pages. Also, we need to add a little snippet in the template documentation. Perhaps something along these lines:
Taskforce parameter. Currently, the project supports one taskforce, for Paris. To tag a page as belonging to this taskforce, use this code: tf=ParisLazulilasher (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I was thinking about this today. Do you know of anyway that by tagging the article, we would also be able to add it to a category or to a list where the articles could be compiled? This might make task-lists easier to compile. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is to inform you that I undid your addition to the Berne page (see also the edit comment of the undo) with apologies if it hurts. I wouldn't have objected nor acted if the only company cited was the biggest plant or the biggest employer of the city - meaning then 'that's a start'. But a single entry for an office of a few sales persons in a city of roughly 130,000 is not on. Clpda (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Olusegun Obasanjo
What's that? I'm afraid I don't understand. I merely took back what I thought was vandalism. Apparently, I mistook that. You've undone my edit as I saw. That's fine. 71.176.127.17 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Whispertome. Please do whatever you think is worth the trouble, but frankly I don't see the point anymore. After a while, we seem to be getting decreasing returns to scale on this subject. The consensus on the talk page is that the references are suitable. Even C.S. agrees, and he edited the wording for length. The WikiProject Japan page was contacted and their views seem clear on the subject. The reference is suitable. The Biography of Living Persons noticeboard was contacted, and their silence was indicative: they either don't care or they don't see anything objectionable. The reliable source noticeboard was contacted and one new editor responded, acknowledging that JapanReview is written by scholars, but offering an opinion. After others responded, he did not elaborate, suggesting to me that this situation is not a serious problem for him either. Only one user -- the subject -- appears to have a personal problem with using this source as a reference, despite the fact that he and other well-known authors obviously thought it noteworthy at the time to write into the JapanReview editors. Plus, as C.S. rightly points out, if Mr. Arudou were taken at his word, you would get the impression that JapanReview and Dr. Honjo were some random bloggers writing something negative about him. They are not (based on the evidence) and the review is obviously both notable and nuanced. To your credit, you've gone the extra mile to put Mr. Arudou's concerns at rest, but I honestly see little improvement in his behavior towards others. He continues to refer to Wikipedia as a "kangaroo court," despite warnings from The359. He continues to assume bad faith of users. He is uncivil in his language about Wikipedia and its contributors both here and his website, and unfortunately, he doesn't seem to care about such policies as WP:ATTACK, among many others. I admire the way you contacted several venues (you have more patience than I), but at some point (as C.S. says) it becomes overkill. J Readings (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Whispertome. Just one clarification to your RFC statement. We don't know that JapanReview is "defunct." This is Mr. Arudou's opinion only. It's not a fact. For all anyone knows, something could be published tomorrow or the next day or 5 years from now. I would recommend that the adjective be removed from the introductory sentence. People can read Mr. Arudou's views on it in his various postings above the RFC. J Readings (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of the name change initiative for UH–Downtown? I wanted to let you know in case you have not heard. I know you like to edit school articles so thought you might find this issue of interest. http://www.uhd.edu/publicaffairs/namechange/index.htm
Just wondering if you might have any comments regarding my proposed substitute map for Westheimer Road as discussed and presented at its talk page. I would still need to provide labels and perhaps add symbols for 6 and 8, but wanted to get feedback before going any further.--Rpclod (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:YusukeUrameshi.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:YusukeUrameshi.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LAUSD school photos
Actually I have taken a number of school pictures that I have not posted, for I am afraid if I post them, people like Newport Backbay and others would delete them without any particular reasons. He deleted my picture of Marines [2] at the Rose Parade without any reason and not allowing me to post it again. It doesn't seem decent. It frustrates me very much. How can some people can just delete and revert again and again, while others can do it. Looks like the strong survives and the weak one falls. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible task to publish a list of notable alumni. It would be a long list. Closest was the display at Board Room office wall. What they did before was to ask each school to submit a short list. List are incomplete and at discretion of individuals doing the list. It is extreme difficult to do at the individual school level. I tried before. Sometime we read about names from publications. That's why I said about Fremont High list, which I put in 3 names. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One way to find alumni is to go to individual shcool's site or alumni site. One time I contacted Dr. David Ho, dealing with HIV to verify his alma mater. He replied that he went to John Marshall High. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Mayor Tom Bradley graduated from LA Poly High School, but I don't think he's listed. He would have gone to Belmont, but the family moved. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I wanted to "talk" to you in a place that's more casual than the talk page of the Arudou entry. (Others are welcome to join in, as long as it's ok with WhisperToMe.)
I'm assuming that Wikipedia embraces (at least to a certain extent) the
spirit of "opposing viewpoints" that is everywhere prevalent in the US
(from the adversarial legal system to the series of books presenting 2 opposing viewpoints to controversial issues, like abortion, death penalty, teaching of evolution, etc.)
Now, Arudou (the one-issue zealot) seems to be a person who is incapable of accepting this philosophy of "opposing viewpoints".
If there's a criticism in his entry that's 3 lines long, he can provide a 3-line (or longer) rebuttal and those opposing views can both be presented to the Wikipedia reader.
In fact, if he can do this well, his credibility will only increase.
(Antipating a typical criticism and rebutting it --- this is the ABC of persuasive writing they teach in high school.)
As far as I can tell, Arudou has never been able to do this.
On his website, he just deletes every comment that's inconvenient for him.
On the Wikipedia talk page, he just says something insulting like "Yes, it is essentially a blog post; [...] it's like swatting flies." (actual quote) and cannot provide any reasoned or intelligent rebuttal.
All he wants to do is to delete the criticism. For the Arudou entry so far, things have gone the way he wished. Has this (appeasing the bully) been typical of Wikipedia in such cases in the past? --Addmi (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "opposing" viewpoints we have Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight - viewpoints are presented depending on how many people believe this viewpoint. As Undue weight says, a viewpoint held by a tiny minority of people may not even be represented on Wikipedia. The same goes with factual information; factual information is to be divided depending on importance to the subject. This is why, in previous discussions, editors decided not to include the "Little Yellow Jap" stuff. On the other hand the "Gaijin" = n word got a lot of press in The Japan Times, so editors decided to include that. Many of the people who worked on this article also wish to include Japanreview.net specifically because other reliable publications trusted the site and that the Arudou review received a lot of attention from famous expatriates. Now, as for Arudou's requests, whether they are fulfilled depends on whether they fall in line with Wikipedia goals and policies. As CS pointed out, Arudou was correct in asking for the criticism section to be changed (CS wrote that criticism sections do not need to be in articles, and that the criticism must instead be worked throughout the article) - Plus, you have Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight which is why many criticism entries against Arudou were reworded so they were shorter; therefore Arudou's request was accepted by other editors. The editors didn't act just because Arudou wanted them to; the editors acted because they determined that changes needed to be made in the Wikipedia article. Now that Arudou disputed Japanreview.net some editors believe that it should be included. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for what Arudou does with comments on his personal website or what he posts on his blog, in most circumstances Wikipedia isn't concerned with that. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as CS said "The focus should always be about getting the article right, not on whether Arudou is consistent or alleging corruption amongst Harvard facultt (issues raised by the most recent comments by J Readings)." WhisperToMe (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, opposing viewpoints need to be published in reliable sources. CS more or less decided that JapanReview didn't make the cut because of WP:BLP concerns. The Japan Times response to the gaijin = n word controversy does make the cut. See [10]WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the responses. You are one of the least arrogant of the bunch.
This is the first time I've witnessed Wikipedia being defeated by a bully.
Have there been other cases in the past? (Could someone tell me? -- Maybe it's better on my talk page.) I'm interested in cases of Wikipedia appeasing a rude bully, BLP of a minor self-promotor (zealot) who obssessively meddles with his Wikipedia entry, etc. Thank you. --Addmi (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland article - Unreferenced tag on Places of Interest section
Can you chip in to the discussion here so we can figure out what cites might be required to satisfy the reference requirements (such that the "unreferenced" issue can be addressed, and the tag you've added could satisfactorily be removed)? Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For an editor who always keeps a cool head in heated dicussions and has always served as the beacon of light for civility. Good job! I hope you stick around for another 5 years! Utan Vax (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mirmo!
I was thinking of editing Mirmo!, an article you created years ago (and still editing!). I was going to add the anime's article on Anime News Network (the manga is already there). Can I do the edit? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew09:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Ryu Fujisaki
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ryu Fujisaki, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Orphaned non-free media (Image:SaintSeiyaLogoUS.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:SaintSeiyaLogoUS.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Rocko's Modern Life GAC?
Hello. I'm Dylan, a Rocko's Modern Life fan (seriously, it's my favorite show!). I saw on it's article history that you are a main contributor to the Rocko's Modern Life article, I have something to ask you; do you think that it's time to nominate the article as a GAC? And if not, what improvements do you think could be made to the article so that it's capable of being a GA, or even a FA? I wanted to ask a main contributor of the article about the matter so that I don't end up repeating the mistake(s) I made in nominating Hurricane Kate (2003) as a featured article (although the nomination may still be successful, as it does meet the notability guidelines). Please reply sooner than later; although I am not a member of it (yet), the Nickelodeon WikiProject considers Rocko's Modern Life a Top-Importance article, and articles like that should always be attempted for at least GA-class quality, while Rocko's Modern Life currently stands at B-class. Lounge withDylan620today!
P.S.: Are you at all interested in tropical cyclones? They're another interest of mine.
Thanks for uploading Image:Dn Misa film.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Samus Aran
After seeing your recent edit removing all info about Jennifer Hale, my initial instinct was to revert it, until I realized that's an honestly stupid decision. Instead, I should not act so childish, and give another thorough look at WP:BLP to see whether I understand and agree with your decision. That said, I did take a detailed look, and I'm not sure I agree. There's certainly no issue with privacy or human dignity here. I suppose it may be considered contentious in that it's displaying information that may be considered either ambiguous or outright wrong, but that wouldn't fall under BLP because of the fact that there's ample reliable third-party references that note this. If you took that segment out on the basis that you didn't consider tv.com, IMDb, or Rotten Tomatoes as reliable, then I think it should go back, because there's certainly a lot more references than that available that we just hadn't thought to put into the article, and could. I certainly could track down at least 5 refs in the next 20 minutes that would be considered reliable via community consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List, from sites like IGN and the like. So in this case, a "refimprove" template would probably have been a better choice than deleting the info. Arrowned (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't actually offering to change consensus on the refs already there, which is why I mentioned I understood if you didn't feel IMDb and TV.com were useful sources (we don't allow either over in the Power Rangers area, so I'm familiar with the fact that they're pretty worthless as far as we're concerned). I was offering to get new sources from reliable locations, of which I'm pretty sure there are plenty. If that's fine with you, I'll do so and restore the section in the process. Arrowned (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I can't seem to find any reliable resources at all. The sites I had assumed mentioned Jennifer's name do... but they're all either forum posts, or user-input wikis contained in subsections of the sites, and not in articles actually written by site staff. So I guess it really would be best if we just left it out, at this point. Arrowned (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Montreal
If you'd like to propose a discussion to move the article to University of Montreal (unaccented e), that's a perfectly acceptable and reasonable discussion to have. But University of Montréal (accented e) isn't an appropriate title, as it's a non-standard hybrid of French and English spelling. I'm not attempting to forestall any discussion about it, but if the article is moved from the French title to an English one the e in Montreal needs to be unaccented. There is an official preference for retaining the accented e on Montreal in institutional usage, but it's not reflected in common, everyday use at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:DanielPearl.PNG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DanielPearl.PNG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. ViperSnake15120:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:JunoJapaneseLogo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:JunoJapaneseLogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know about how I nominated Rocko's Modern Life as a GA candidate? I just thought I'd let you know that I've started a task force on the subject. You would be very welcome to join, especially considering that you appear to be a prime contributor to the topic. Dylan620 (yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 15:38 UTC October 26, 2008
I notice you have joined the Rocko's Modern Life task force, so I'm here to welcome you! Since you signed up, I have written a to-do list for the task force, which can be found here. Although we could benefit from the joining of additional members, I'm not surprised that we're the only two, considering I just founded the task force this morning. Well, good luck! Dylan620 (yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 20:44 UTC October 26, 2008
P.S.: Could you please make an icon for the task force? (Preferably a purple triangle in front of a blue background, to resemble Rocko's shirt.) I would do it myself (I even tried doing it myself), but for some reason, I'm having a difficulty uploading the picture to Wikipedia.
OK, where's the icon for the task force? Oh, and I just planned a simple purple triangle in front of a blue background. Dylan620 (yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 20:55 UTC October 26, 2008
I don't mean to be rude, but the image you made wasn't quite what I had in mind. What I did have in mind was a blue square with an equilateral right-side-up purple triangle in the center. Oh, and about that file I made, whenever I try to upload it, there's a message in red saying "corrupt file or incorrect extension." Like your result, it's meant to be a "png" image. Dylan620 (yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 21:24 UTC October 26, 2008
That second file did the trick. It will be that file that will be used to design the task force's userbox. Oh, and thank you for designing the logo. Dylan620 (yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 01:08 UTC October 27, 2008
Got a question about the removal of lists of people from places, such as this edit. Your edit summary mentions BLP (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), so I was wondering which provision in that policy is the reason for the removal. The policy is quite clear in stating that we should remove "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material," but I don't imagine these lists of "people from" or "people associated with" or in this case simply "people" would be considered contentious. Is there a discussion going on somewhere or some other reason for removing these? Having put a lot of work into those lists, I'd like to see them stay, but if there's a reason we have to remove them, I'll understand.
I met one of the brothers and took a photo (I think). They loaned me a picture of the Walk of Fame ceremony and returned it to them. Their photo collection is the history of Los Angeles. What a family! Don't know what pictures we can post, which ones are public domain. Also Bobs Watson is an interest story. Ucla90024 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
amazon.com
Sorry, I did not realize you were using the Amazon.com link as a signal of notability. That being said, I would still argue that Amazon isn't the best resource for this purpose. After all, Amazon.com sells just about everything and its information is not always accurate. Perhaps a better resource would be the New York Times page on the film? [11]Tryptofeng (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep removing the notability tag from this article? If you check the talk page, you will see there is existing discussion debating whether it is actually notable enough to support its having been split from Weekly Shōnen Jump. It was also discussed at the time I split it from the article that it may or may not actually have enough notability to support a full article (Talk:Weekly Shōnen Jump/Archive 1#Split SHONEN JUMP?). Rather than just remove the tag, why not join the discussion and explain why you feel it is notable. In the case of a magazine, just having one or two sources that mention it is not enough to fully establish notability. If it can not be brought up to the level of Shojo Beat or Shonen Jump and and if all that can be said about it is what is there now, it isn't notable and could be remerged back to WSJ without any real loss of information. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:KatsuyaJonouchi.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}