User talk:Lou Sander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USEFUL STUFF:

Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Userpage

Hello. Very nice userpage. I made an external link into a internal one. I wrote here to tell you that you could use list-wiki-markup for the list of articles at the bottom of your page. Just start the line with "*" and you don't need to end it with "<br>" to enforce a line break. --Ysangkok 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Groups sometimes confused with the Amish"

Thanks for your recent thoughts about the Amish article. Yes, I agree that the "groups sometimes confused with the Amish" section should go. I have brought the idea up on the talk page, and will excise it in a few days unless someone brings up some unexpected reason to keep it. Happy editing, Wachholder0 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Defense Reserve Fleet

Cen, I reverted your addition of the photo of the USS Iowa, because I don't believe it is part of the NDRF. With very few exceptions, NDRF is for merchant-type ships. I didn't see Iowa in the current NDRF inventory at the bottom of the article. Iowa is probably in some other fleet. If I'm wrong about this, by all means put the photo back in. Lou Sander 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration National Defense Reserve Fleet Inventory Jan. 31, 2007, page 16 Centpacrr 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops! Before I removed the photo, I went through that list twice, looking for the Iowa and not finding it. Should have used Windows' Find, I guess. Sorry. Lou Sander 05:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I actually took this photograph myself from the deck of the SS Jeremiah O'Brien on a cruise by that 1943 Liberty ship to Suisun Bay in August, 2005, so I had no doubt as to the Iowa's identity or location. Centpacrr 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Lou

Going by a complaint I see at here I simply want to remind you to discuss the articles and not the editors or their intentions. I won't bore you with a childish warning template, and only ask that you make an effort to be more civil. Thanks and best wishes.--MONGO 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime trades invite

Pan pan. Pan pan. Pan pan. Attention all vessels. This is WikiProject Maritime Trades. Please be advised that the project has been created to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to shipping and the diverse maritime trades. Assistence is requested. This is Maritime Trades standing by on Channel 16.

Hey Lou, though this might be of interest! Cheers. Haus42 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Lenoir

You/Lou said: Good work on clarifying the county vs. the town! I put most of the AKA articles into Wikipedia, and it's fascinating to see the improvements to articles about ships that haven't been around for decades. Lou Sander 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grubbmeister")


Thanks Lou, I was interested to see the ship. Was doing a little personal interest in the Patriot William Lenoir and came across your article. Personally, I've only added about nine articles to Wikipedia. Back when they were threatening to hit a million (and now they have 2,409,604), I started racking my brain to find missing articles. Whipping out a list of old ships? Great Work! grubbmeister 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You/Lou said: Years ago I was on one of those old ships (USS Rankin (AKA-103)). I wrote an article about her, then branched into other similar ships, plus ships built at the same place as she was. I finished that project, and haven't done any more, but there are many of them waiting to be done. The basic material is at DANFS, so you can do an article fairly quickly. There's a LOT of Wikification to be done on them, as well as polishing up the DANFS language. Plus you learn about history and exotic locations. Hundreds of APA's (attack transports) are out there waiting to be put on Wikipedia. If I get the "new article bug," I'll probably start on them one day. Lou Sander 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grubbmeister")

Good stuff, would be ashanmed to let all that work go to waste when such a repository as Wikipedia exists. I am like super-busy these days, and when I need quick info, I trust the collective integrity of Wikipedia editors everywhere to get my pertinent info in seconds. Otherwise if I had the time on my hands... grubbmeister 17:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:USSMobile.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:USSMobile.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT (416) 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table formatting for USS Rankin

I've posted what I hope is the answer to your table question at the Village Pump. Let me know if this is what you wanted. -- MarcoTolo 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of polio survivors

Thank-you for your kind words. I can't take credit for the FDR info. I left the the text of that entry pretty-much untouched when moving the names from poliomyelitis to this list. There's a whole article dedicated to that story, plus the referenced paper is freely available online and is interesting if you like medical detective stories!

"Contracted" is more proper than "caught". I'm not sure of the best way to phrase each entry since there's a lot of repetition. Needless variation might make the reader think there is some subtle differenced between the entries. On the other hand, repeating a phrase might cause fatigue. I had in mind the advice to novelists that one should say "he said" rather than more elaborate words like "he explained". Apparently common words are invisible to readers and their repetition goes unnoticed. If I said "he contracted polio" 100 times, it might become tedious. But perhaps the word "caught" stood out every time you read it? I'm too close to the text to be sure. Colin°Talk 22:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Wyandot (AKA-92)

Many thanks for starting the article. My father served on the Wyandot during Operation Deep Freeze (1955-56). He now arranges the annual reunions for those who served onboard. — Loadmaster 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:GarrisonCap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GarrisonCap.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 21:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. Lou Sander 02:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Have you kept up with the Saaty situation on AHP?

I was just wondering if you were following the changes to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. There are some heavy COI changes that keep popping up.Hubbardaie 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:J38TelegraphKey.jpg & Image:VibroplexBug.jpg

In order to use those pictures in the Commons, can you add some details about the photographer, and those who have released their copyrights...? Yuval Y • Chat • 21:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5"/38cal gun

Thank you for the encouragement. I'm new to Wikipedia, and any pointers will be appreciated. FTC Gerry 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AKA ships

Just wanted to drop you a note to say that I've updated the final disposition of all the Category:Arcturus class attack cargo ships articles, as well as minor other cleanup like fixing flags, interwiki linking to the class article, etc. I was looking for something else on my talk page, came across your note again, and was inspired to clean up those AKAs. Thanks again for the note - it's much more rewarding to work on articles when you know someone out there notices and appreciates it :) Maralia 03:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image on your userpage

Image:PittsburghSteelers 1000.png is a fair use image, and as such should not be in userspace. You have it on your page. I thought I'd notify you instead of removing it myself. — i said 05:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If you notice my above comment, I notified you very politely about the fair use image. You did not respond, and have edited since I posted the notification. The image cannot be in userspace. Please remove it. — i said 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the image once more. Do not restore it again; you're violating Wikipedia's Fair Use policy by having the image on your userpage. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please stop editing my User page. Apparently you have a problem with an image that is there. Please tell me why you don't just delete the image. Lou Sander 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The image is not the problem. Where is is located is the problem. It is a fair use image, which means it isn't a free image. It can be used as a fair use image. However, part of the strict rules of fair use stipulates that the image can only be in articles, nowhere else. i said 05:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please show me these strict rules of fair use. Also please explain why there seem to be two of you. Lou Sander 05:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There is only one of me. EVula is an administrator who somehow became aware of this. As for the rules, see all of WP:FU, but specifically for the restriction on location, see #9. i said 05:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. It's a shame that it took so much discussion to get it out of you. I must say that you are one of the least pleasant people I have encountered in a very long time. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's a problem you have in life. Lou Sander 05:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm sorry I suppose. I just imagined a user who has been here since 2006 would know the basic fair use policy, and have the ability to click on a link and read the linked page. i said 05:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I see from your activity that you also "imagine" you are not incivil. It's not just imagining to think that a person who has been alive long enough to be a high school junior has developed inalterable lifelong negative personality traits. Please go away. Lou Sander 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm here because I noticed the note you left on I's user talk page (which I still had watchlisted from a post I made back in July). I would suggest that, if you're unfamiliar with what an editor is talking about (such as our Fair Use policy), you ask, rather than tell them to stop editing your user page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The offending editor was pretty incivil, IMHO. It left a brief cryptic note, then a bit later it edited my user page. I objected. What seemed to be a tag team discussion ensued, with Essjay-like claims of independence. Now I guess this page is on both (?) of your watchlists. Please try very hard to leave me alone, and I will do the same with you. Lou Sander 06:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I was not incivil. I notified you of the violation instead of removing it myself, a courtesty. You edited after I notified you, which indicates you ignored it. I removed it, because it violates policy, and you refused to. You, on the other hand, have not been particularly civil yourself. Saying that I am "one of the least pleasant people [you] have encountered in a long time", and that I have a problem in life, coupled with the subtle accusations of sockpuppetry is not civil. The issue is resolved: the image is removed. There is no need to discuss this further. i said 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
What part of "please go away" don't you understand? You are THE most unpleasant person I have encountered in a long time. I am trying to tell you that in a civil manner. Please stop posting your self-justifications here. Nobody here is interested in your lectures, or you, or anything you have to say (just like all the other places). Please, please, please, please just stop, you "male high school junior," you. Lou Sander 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Lou, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. While I's initial comment to you may have been a bit terse, no harm was meant by it. As it is, asking someone to stop editing your talk page isn't a guarantee that they will do so (though I have advised him to do so, and myself plan on discontinuing the conversation, though you're more than welcome to drop me a line if you have any questions or administrative needs). Saying that someone's good-faithed edits are "lectures" and saying that nobody cares what they have to say isn't particularly helpful to engaging in a dialogue with other editors. I would suggest being less reactionary in the future. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope it is obvious that I am trying to disengage dialog with this extremely offensive (IMHO) editor. Lou Sander 06:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thinskinned, aren't you?71.56.155.117 06:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Nah. Just tired of hearing from "male high school juniors" who aren't quite what they say they are. This one has a track record on a site that shouldn't be mentioned here. Lou Sander 11:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 101

This is me, from the library. Seven others are here, too. 72.77.19.206 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also here. Cleome 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AKAs

Just wanted to leave you a note since you are likely to notice that I am working on the AKA articles. What I'm doing:

  • Refining categories: There has been so much cross-categorization that it's getting really difficult to navigate categories. If a ship is in a class cat that has itself been properly categorized (like USS Achernar (AKA-53) is in Category:Andromeda class cargo ships, which is categorized in Category:Amphibious warfare vessels of the United States, Category:United States Navy amphibious assault ships, and Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States), then I'm removing those categories on the ship article itself. I am being careful to leave categories that are specific to that ship's service - i.e., the Andromeda cat isn't categorized for Korea or Vietnam because not all Andromedas served in those, so if an individual Andromeda ship was categorized to either of those, I'm keeping it there.
  • DANFS change: The DANFS template now accepts a parameter for the link to the DANFS entry on the ship, so I am moving DANFS links from External links to within the DANFS call in References.

I think the other changes I'm making will be obvious minor improvements, so I'll leave it at that. Let me know if you have any questions, please. Maralia 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! Lou Sander 01:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:AHPHierarchy1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:AHPHierarchy1.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Estes (AGC-12)

Hi, Lou. I think I stumbled across the USS Estes page from the Estes dabpage, although I'm not sure. Once I read the article (my military time was with the USAF, but I like the Navy and their pointy gray floating things too) the naming oddity was pretty apparent. Much of my wife's family lives in Estes Park so I'm quite familiar with the area and the mountains that dominate the skyline there. I was unaware of the Estes Mountain in Idaho, and although it's relatively obscure, it might be the source of the name. I don't know if the DANFS people are interested in this kind of stuff, but they may well be. I've contributed hundreds of errata to the FAA for sectional chart updates, so this is the kind of project of which I approve. Go for it! Merenta (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coulter

I'm not sure there was anything included in the quote I removed that was necessary to the article. We already know they entered the political arena, we don't need Coulter saying that. And perhaps anyone entering the political arena inherently deserves to have their dignity and the dignity of their family viciously attacked in this manner as you seem to be implying, but neither your comment nor Coulter's actually explains that connection (and it seems pretty counterintuitive to me). Anyway, this discussion belongs on the article's talk page so let's take it there. Thanks! csloat 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

It has been proposed that WP:EPISODE be merged into WP:WAF. Your input is desired, so please comment here. Ursasapien (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XF5U

FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.227.155 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know you, and I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe this message got misdirected somehow. If not, I'm open to discussion of whatever it is that's bothering you. Lou Sander (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free Republic consensus

Lou, I've noticed your interest in this article and it has been a point of contention in the past. Please indicate, on the appropriate section of the article's Talk page, whether you support or oppose the edits made by User:Shibumi2 on the evening of January 6. More voices speaking directly to the question of consensus would be more productive. Thank you. 68.31.165.119 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Datura Article

You're very welcome. Feel free to leave me a barnstar if you feel I'm worthy of one. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheShadowComic01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheShadowComic01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter talk

I wasn't reviewing all of the talk comments, just the most recent ones. You'll note that I've also reverted similarly stupid comments from the "other side." E.g. I would be fine with removing all soapbox comments that no one has replied to. That's the evil I am trying to prevent: I hope to cut off trolling before it's effective. Cool Hand Luke 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:IrvinCaterpillarPin.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:IrvinCaterpillarPin.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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. Rettetast (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One and only warning

This is to note your comments on the Free Republic article are treading very close to, if not completely over the line of permissible behavior regarding Wikipedia's policies on No Personal Attacks and Civility Look, do I feel that Eschoir has a conflict of interest? I do. I have said so numerous times. But your comments cross the line. Please do not repeat them, or your account could be blocked for a period of time. SirFozzie (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free Republic

Not to discourage you, but you will get nowhere with them, trust me, I've tried. It just goes round and round, with both sides putting out their highly detailed and completely opposite versions. And if you find my link to be unrelated, it is not at all, this is the same thing, with new editors (and Eschoir, who was there then too). If you do get through there, you have my utmost respect. Prodego talk 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping they just don't see how confusing their work is. I'm not going to waste a lot of time feeding them, though. Thanks for the warning. Lou Sander (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CruiseBook1959.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CruiseBook1959.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at Media Copyright Questions

RE: your comment here.

You're right: it is annoying for a lot of people. But unfortunately it's necessary in order to shield Wikipedia from copyright lawsuits that have the potential to shut down the site. I wish there was some easy way to communicate this at the mass level, so that users could direct their ire at the right target instead of Wikipedia, but there isn't. :( -- Hux (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Weasel words?

Its standard practice not to qualify external links, it's an efficient way to help prevent link spam. much larger is a qualification so I romoved it. perhaps my choice of words for the edit summary wasnt the best, but still. Anyways hope that explains it Regards Acer (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See here Number 20. The user who added that link (Cryptographic hash) had been going around adding a bunch of llinks to CZ with flowery language Acer (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:NCShipbuildingCo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:NCShipbuildingCo.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:BJU-2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:BJU-2.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First off I apologize for again leaving notices that you don't wish to receive on your talk page after you politely asked me not to do so. Please understand that I am technically required to notify the uploader of the problem when I mark the image, and while your notice to me may absolve me of that responsibility, other may not know of our arrangement. Further, a script I use automatically notifies the uploader when I mark an image. More importantly, I have taken actions to request/require that all bots and scripts be capable of honoring opt out requests (such as yours) where you may elect to not receive such messages at your own desire. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Expand Template:Bots to allow opt out of other notices and Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Clarify sourcing requirements and User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js#Suggestion: Incorporate scipting user message .22notice opt out.22 capability. Secondly, you can read a response to the other complaints that I have received (and you echoed) on my talk page (it's rather long to copy over here) at User talk:MECU#Image:NHYOKOAIR.jpg. Thank you for your understanding. MECU≈talk 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About some trouble we've had together

I'm trying to confront MECU about his recent flagging of large amounts of government photos, and photos in general. I see it as a serious problem because it doesn't help wikipedia, and in fact it's hurting it. Look at the destruction of the page Operation Rolling Thunder, from what I can see, several of the government images were removed. Now, I'm not a fan of picture books, but in an age where its nearly impossible to peak anyone's interest in anything educational, visual stimulation is vital to hold their attention. Anyways, I'm going ahead and confronting him on this, as you have, and will try to involve others. Your welcome to visit his talk page too add to this. Jimmyjones22 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LCPL on Seawall.jpg

When you get a chance, could you take a look at this image you uploaded and see if you can work out which template belongs on it? It looks like it may be the work of the US Military, but I wasn't able to find the photo offhand on the site you gave as the source, so I wasn't sure. Thanks! Shell babelfish 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Easter parade

Someone deleted your article from the DYK suggestions page. I definitely think the article should be featured, we just need to come up with a nice, non-controversial and interesting hook for it.

I suggest "...that at the height of its popularity, New York's Easter Parade drews crowds of over a million people?"

All I need is an inline cite for that fact, so if you could add one, I will promote it, assuming you are happy with the above hook. Please try to reply quickly as I would like to add this one to the next available update. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the inline cite. Maybe the article is too seasonal to be featured in any way now, though. It was a hard article to write, since the sources are long and intricate, and since the story of the Easter parade is just part of the story of Easter's growing from a solemn, hardly-celebrated holiday to a hugely celebrated religious and commercial event. Every sentence could probably have an online cite, with most of them from the two primary sources. It's a pretty interesting story, IMHO, but a long one. Lou Sander (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the cite, but now that you mention it, you may have a point. I'll ask Royalbroil if it's possible to hold this over to next year when we could run it at a more topical time. If not, I'll run it now. It's a very well written and interesting article and deserves to be featured IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 22 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Easter Parade, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Bobet 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] easter parade pictures

The best place to look for historical pictures, generally, is at the Library of Congress image archive, which has tons and tons of pre-1923 pictures and a fair number of pictures from later eras whose photographers have donated the images to the public domain. You are in luck as far as images go--there are about 15 Easter parade pics, some very good. You can just do a search on "Easter parade" and see the images that are clickable with blue borders after you press preview images. (The non-blue border ones are non-free.) My favorites are http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.09062 , http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.09064 , http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.00297 , http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c31230 , and http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.01550 . If you need help uploading let me know. Mangostar (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy there, I'm one of the idiots who bothers people about images! :) Just be sure to mark the source clearly (the template {{LOC-image}} is good--look at the template page to see how it's used) as well as the copyright status (here, either {{PD-Bain}} or {{PD-USGov-FSA}}). Stuff from the LOC is easy to verify as free, so there shouldn't be any problems. Mangostar (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chair

You are welcome to make a formal requested move, or discuss this further on the article talk page. There was a talk page consensus in 2006 at Talk:Chairman to move the article to Chair (official). This stood for roughly 21 year. Another user moved the article to a title that makes no sense Chairman (official) (it makes no sense because there is no need to disambiguation chairman per wikipedia guidelines on disambiguation). His move, while mentioned on a talk page, did not have support from other editors, but instead only had a "silent" consensus. Reading the Chicago Manual of Style recently, along with my concern about an out of process move and the improper disambiguation, I returned the article to it's previous home of 1 years. If this move of mine will generate more talk page discussion, great. I understand completely that consensus from 1 years ago can be changed, and I respect that. Hopefully my actions will bring about a more throughout, clear cut consensus reached through amicable discussion. Make sense?-Andrew c [talk] 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense. From what I can see, the common and historical title of the office is Chairman. The relatively recent concerns about gender neutrality have brought Chair and Chairwoman into use. There was recently a LOT of extremely confused copy about all this in the article. I tried to clean it up, and I think I did so. But if the article is to be "Chair," the whole discussion of different forms of the word needs to be redone. As it stands now, it isn't very clear (since it is based on differences from "Chairman," not from "Chair.") Since I recently clarified it, I'm not excited about doing it again, especially since I come down in favor of "Chairman" as the best title for the article.
I don't think there are a lot of people looking at the discussion page of the article. If it's worth hammering out the Chair/Chairman controversy, it probably should be done wherever those discussions are held. (I don't know where that is.) More important than the name of the article is that it should discuss all the different forms of the word. Lou Sander (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)