This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hello, Dumarest/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 22:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A talking drum video question

Fine, and now I have a question. the Talking Drum page, I added a video. No intent to upload, just a link, which I used the 'media link' to format. And now, when I click on it, it says upload description needed? I guess I should have used another link type??

And related, how do I enter a link to another section of an entry, when editing - i.e. one that is in the table of contents? -- Dumarest 18:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Talking Drum has never existed, could you point me to the right article? When you link to an outside url (in this a case a video) you use the external link format. For example [http://example.com/VideoOfAPeach Peach video] looks like Peach video. I think a media link is just for media uploaded to Wikipedia.

The actual page is 'Tama'.

You haven't edited Tama.-- Commander Keane 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Tama (musical instrument} - I did put a link, then it was removed, and I have put it back, I hope correctly. If you have high speed, try it - for me it is over 6 hours to download that media file.-- Dumarest 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found it and it works fine.-- Commander Keane 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And by the way, do you know of a cheap [read free] program that I could download, to splice a bit of that file, and put it up under fair use as a media file? say 10 seconds.

I don't know of one, but you could ask on the Reference desk. Make sure it has the Ogg Theora format (not mpg or wmv) as explained at Video_policy.-- Commander Keane 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To link to a subsection you use the # symbol followed by the section heading. For example [[User_talk:Dumarest#Help_has_arrived|Test1]] looks like Test1 and links to the section below. I usaully just load the page and click on the section. Then I copy the url from by browser (everything after the /wiki/) and make the link.-- Commander Keane 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Moosehead

There is an entry for this term by itself, to a brewery. But there is also a 'Moosehead Lake' entry. There needs to be some mechanism that a search on Moosehead gives more than just the beer. -- Dumarest 23:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a line at the top of Moosehead that points a reader to the lake. The search index is often out-of-date and is out of the hands of normal editors like you and me.-- Commander Keane 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Biscay/Vizcaya

A search for the first of these redirects to the second. BUT, there are a lot of 'Biscay' items and a simple redirect is not the way!-- Dumarest 23:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what you might be thinking of is a disambiguation page. Edit Biscay (go here and click "edit this page") and make a disambigaution page if you like (or ask and I'll help).-- Commander Keane 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sylvain Beauchamp

I entered this page to satisfy a link from the ==Tarzan== page that I added, but I was wrong - the Tarzan he played was NOT the ERB character. It is a very very very minor entry and I think it should simply be removed.-- Dumarest 12:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You can put {{ db-author}} a page if you are the only author, and an admin will delete it for you. But don't worry, I have already deleted it.-- Commander Keane 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Help has arrived

You wanted some help, here I am! How can I help you? You can ask your questions right here, and I will respond.-- Commander Keane 13:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The four headings just above this are all questions. Thanks to you. -- Dumarest 19:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I see the term disambiguation in several places, and when I edit I see links that have a form that seems to link to the 'correct' site with the spelling/form in the article. What is this, and how do I add Wiki links that are correct and complete and valid. -- Dumarest 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if you make a wikilink to an article, you can always test it by clicking it, to see if it points you to the article you had in mind. If there's a more specific article that you want to link to, but you don't want to mess up the text, you can make a "piped link", like this [[this is what you link to|this part will show up in the text]]. -- Joann e B 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

An 'en' question

I am learning. But a question. In the couscous article, the end has the following

   * "The March of Couscous" article written by Farid Zadi. Traces how couscous was taken to different countries from its origins in North Africa.en:Couscous

What is that 'en:couscpus'? And if I go to edit that page, after the Categories material, there are a whole batch of these 'en' things. -- Dumarest 14:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a mistake in the article Couscous, which I have fixed. The things after the categories are Interlanguage links. Eg, putting [[fr:Couscous]] at the bottom of the article puts a link to the FRench Wikipedia article Couscous. At Couscous you can see the links under the toolbox (way below the search bar on the left). Someone accidentally tried to link to ENglish version (which was actually the article itself, so en:Couscous showed up.-- Commander Keane 14:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dumarest - you added this sentence at Common Hazel:

Additionally, for those persons who need to restrict carbohydrates, 1 cup of hazelnut flour has less than 10 net carbohydrates.

1. What's "a cup"? - 50 g? 100 g? 200 g? Please change it to grammes weight, for better clarity!
2. What does "less than 10 net carbohydrates" mean?

Thanks! - MPF 10:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think 'cups' - but I can't easily change the 'cup' to 'gm', I don't know the density of the flour. So I used metric measure. As for the 'net', that is now explained. -- Dumarest 15:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Volume is fine - MPF 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your question:

In your greeting to me, you said that I might post to your page if needed. Well. I am playing with the corn bread article, intend to completely rewrite it, and at that time corn pone should disappear. But simply replacing a whole article seems not tha thing to do by just editing out the old and dropping in the new. Can one write an article and ask [you - editors ?] to comment first? And by the way, the latest edit there was minor, someone changed 'skillet bread' to 'skillet brea'. Is there such a term or why might someone have made that change?-- Dumarest 12:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My reply: When leaving a message for people please leave them on user:talk ont user: (the message we leave for new editors isn't entirely clear about this). For one thing, I get a notice when my user talk page has been changed since I was last there. Therefore, even though I sign messages with user:RJFJR please put messages at user talk:RJFJR. It will improve how soon I notice and reply. I've moved your question to the bottom of my user talk page.

Skillet bread to skillet bread was either a typo or a joke (we'll assume good will until it is obviously otherwise and assume someone made a mistake, but it may well have been silly vandalism).

About the rewrite. What you can do is create a new article called corn bread/temp, place a message at the top of the corn bread article saying you are working on a rewrite there and would like comments. Also, discussion can be done on the article's talk page, as you've seen.

Does this help? RJFJR 14:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Thank you. -- Dumarest 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at 'Atlantic Slave Trade' - I have put the newer slave ship image there, at a particular size. I have looked at the help pages, and see how to add a caption [the 'frame' command], but trying this AND having the size did not work. Maybe a thumb, but I want this image to be big enough to see the slaves but not full siaze.

Hi there, I think Wikipedia:Extended image syntax could be helpful. I'll be watching your talk page if you have any further questions. Hope this helps — TheKMan ^talk 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A two part question. I have been adding images to this article - thanks for the caption information from 'TheKMan' - but I played around with placement of the SisterSlave image, left, but I would like it to be higher. If I moved the instruction up it broke lines in the paragraph. So can an image be placed WITHIN a paragraph.

Second, near the SlaveShip is an image of a slave ad. But there is no image, and if I click on the box, there is no image in the page that 'has' said image. -- Dumarest 20:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean with your first issue, but images have a habit of mucking up text spacing - especially for viewing in Internet Explorer. The Sister image is on the right... did you want to make it the same height on the page as the Brother image just aligned to the other side? For your second question, its likely an image caching issue with your browser, as it works fine for me. Try restarting your browser, or if that doesn't solve it, clearing the cache. I've heard many people have the same issue and that seems to fix it. - Dawson 20:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, just wanted one left one right, the second a bit below the first. I can understand the screwing up of placement, so will accept that. -- Dumarest 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bah, hit save accidentally. :) If you put both image tags on the same line, or one immediately after the other it will put one left and one right. I think that or the way you had it is about the only easy option, unless you made a table or something unnecessarily ugly. I'm certainly no expert, but I can't think of an easy way to only bump it down a little bit without messing up the text formatting a lot. - Dawson 21:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I read the mass of literature on Wiki in this area. But still a question. I want to do an article on the cradle, an agricultural implement with no entry here, and have a great image. I have contacted the source, and this is the gist of the reply "Yes, feel free to use the photo of me cradling, with proper credit". What does that mean to my ability to use that image in a Wiki article??

Well that depends exactly what he means, if he means it's ok to use it on Wikipedia and Wikipedia only with attribution, then we can't use it. The image has to be freely useable by anyone who wants to use it, though the requirement for attribution is ok. Perhaps you could ask him to consider licensing the image under the GFDL, there is a boilerplate for that here, or alternatively as that page also suggests one of the creative commons attribution licenses (Those which are non-commercial only variants aren't an option again since it has to be usable freely by anyone), but the simple attribution or attribution share-alike ones are fine. -- pgk^{( talk)} 20:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The followong is a link to a report, first hand, on the status of New Orleans just after the hurricane. I have looked at what I can find for articles about the situation in Wiki, but none of them seem to be the place to put this link - no real location for 'what it was like' in the city in the days just following the storm. Perhaps some of you, with time to look at this, and more familiarity with the Katrina articles, could suggest a place. http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/556/556_04_RealHeroes.shtml -- Dumarest 13:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the the Katrina articles either. What you could do is ask this exact question at

Talk:Hurricane Katrina. Or try the Help desk for more people to take a look. Good luck.-- Commander Keane 14:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is beyond my current knowledge. I have entered an article on Douglas Clark sculptor and it is very incomplete - label may be wrong and it needs disambiguation re Douglas Clark who is a poet. Please 'fix' and tell me what you did or tell me what to do. -- Dumarest 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see this question before. I am investigating.-- Commander Keane 22:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have done a few things:

1. Moved (using the "Move" button, to the right of the "Edit this page" button) Douglas Clark sculptor to Douglas Clark (sculptor). This is the conventional naming
2. Adding a note at the top of Douglas Clark pointing to the sculptor article, so people can find it. An alternative to this is setting up a disambiguation page, as disucssed at Disambiguation. Tell me if you think that is neccessary (ie, if the current Douglas Clark isn't more popular than the sculptor)
3. I also changed some minor formatting at Douglas Clark (sculptor), as seen in this edit.-- Commander Keane 22:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - and the poet is the most well known, so the pointer there is appropriate. -- Dumarest 13:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, this confuses me. First, what are the Wiki rules for a reference vs. an external link? See 'Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans' my change listed in the history of April 17, link to reference. In the Katrina stuff, there are MANY external links referred to in the text, not just in this article. What is the rule? And, after I did this change, it seems that older versions of the article also had the reference, not the link that had been the case before. If reference is the rule, I can change all the external links to references in that and other Katrina articles if that is the desire. Now, at the 'Criticism of Government Response...', I added a section. There is a reference there that I put in, and as far as I can see it is correct in format, but it seems not to work. And, as I said in the talk, the image may be illegal and should be removed. -- Dumarest 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:External links should have some guidance. Bascially I think the situation is that if you use a webpage as a reference it goes in the references section. If there is a useful link that wasn't used as a reference then it goes in the external links section. See the featured article Cheers for an example.-- Commander Keane 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, understood. But is it reasonable that I edit the Katrina items, those that are as external links, into the reference format, as I did for one such??

Yes. Naturally, if an external link is actually a reference, it is perfectly acceptable to document it as a reference (in the reference format). By the way, remember to use edit summaries - they are very useful for other editors.-- Commander Keane 00:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:FEMAdog.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a message from a bot, so I go to help. I noted in the talk for the page that the image was doubtful, and if not valid use, should be removed. But it is so on the point of these Maine FEMA workers [or officers of this state sent to aid FEMA]. As the image says it was from a local paper, and in that paper attributed to the Associated Press. -- Dumarest 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your question is. The image is copyrighted. If you think it is fair use then WP:FU will be of interest.-- Commander Keane 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the desire to add or fix some plant items or stubs. I understand the Topo... whatever it is called, for a species or genera and such, and the sources for valid scientific nomenclature, but is there any site where plant images are free to use?? I have looked at a number of entries in Wiki and in all the sites I have seen the image is someone taking a digital photo. -- Dumarest 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such sites. -- pgk^{( talk)} 18:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I also don't know of any such sites; in general pictures found on the internet are not freely licensed under the GFDL. However, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Images#Finding_images_on_the_Internet and Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources. You may also consider leaving a message at that second link's talk page, and perhaps someone can help you find something good. :o) E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

He was a pirate in New England, not much known about him. Now, no Wiki entry. I will put up one such, with what is known - BUT. Long time story in my family, an ancestor of my mother was involved in a raid by Dixie Bull on Pemaquid Maine. Part legend maybe, but a part of what I grew up knowing. Now I know, personal items are NOT part of the Wiki, but can this be used or not - family history which is legend about a legend. -- Dumarest 21:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Bascially: probably not. It all comes down to verifiability ( Wikipedia:Verifiability). For any fact in an article, there should be published sources to back it up. The problem with your fact about your mother's ancestor is that it would be impossible for me to find out if it is true or not. If you can find a source for the fact, then you can use it.-- Commander Keane 21:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I can find a source, but, while I can find it and see same, the site URL is currently empty [Google of course still indexes it and that is my source of the 'fact']. -- Dumarest 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are a couple of links to material on categories: Wikipedia:Category, Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ.

To add a category make a link into category space, e.g. [[category:fundamental]], this will add the category rather than displaying a link. If you do want to link to a category use category:fundamental, the first colon indicates you want a reference to it.

One way to find the categories appropriate to an article is to find a related article that has categories and see which ones it has.

Try to use the smallest sub-category that describes an article.

RJFJR 17:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone has changed it so Hibberts now redirects to Hibberts, Maine. This seems to solve the problem. RJFJR 16:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is NOT Hibberts, or Hibberts, Maine. It is Hibberts Gore [or Hibberts Gore, Maine]. -- Dumarest 17:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The correct way should be that Hibberts or Hibberts, Maine redirects to Hibberts Gore, that is the correct geographic designation. There is no official Hibberts Maine, although that name is used at times and by some to refer to Hibberts Gore. There is a Hibberts Corner, another town not far from the Gore, but not part of it.-- Dumarest 17:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This one is beyond me to do anything. And it is POV in a sense. If I go to 'List of World Heavyweight Champions' I am on a redirect page to a list of heavyweight champions of one or another wrestling federation. Now, I am not a wrestling fan [maybe the college or high school sport, NOT the stuff on TV]. It is a redirect, not a disambiguation page - and I think it shuld be, so that that term goes somewhere where you get boxing and whatever else, not just one of many wrestling groups. I agree, if the administrators do this, then there may be the same problem on 'world middleweight champions' and 'world lightweight champions' but it is an area that needs editorial work. -- Dumarest 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't need any administrator's approval to do this kind of thing (although you might like to get consensus at the relevant talk page - Be bold, and change the redirect to a list/disambiguation/whatever yourself. Just go to List of World Heavyweight Champions, and when you are redirected, click on the blue link in "Redirected from List of World Heavyweight Champions" to go to the redirect page, which you can edit like any other article. If you need any more help, feel free to ask again, and be sure to put the {{ helpme}} template back so we know to check back. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I could change the redirect to boxing rather than wrestling, to satisfy my sense of the relative importance of the two sports, but that is not what is needed. One needs a page, such as I have seen, that is 'List of World Heavyweight Champions', and on which are noted wtrestling, boxing, and any other things I don't know about. Just changing the redirect page is a good way to start an edit war I think. -- Dumarest 19:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've added the {{helpme}} tag. Can I help you with something? Is this in reference to your situation above? -- Pil o t| guy 19:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. What I think ought to happen to the article[s] is much more than a simple edit of a redirect. -- Dumarest 20:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I have set up a disambiguation page at List of World Heavyweight Champions. The idea is explained at WP:DAB.-- Commander Keane 21:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this. Yum. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I sure do agree, yummmmmmm!!!!!!! -- Dumarest 10:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I could read lots of pages, but maybe someone can help - how in an article do I add a link to a subcategory of an article. S[pecificall, to the Linus Pauling article, the 'Molecular Genetics' part. -- Dumarest 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Like this User talk:Dumarest#Questions Does that help? Eagle talk 20:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure looks like it would - thank you. -- Dumarest 10:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is my 'paragraph' and getting that link is not working - something is not all there. Of course, all I want in the text is 'Linus Pauling' but the link should be to the subsection.

"A milestone in that process was the work of Dr. Linus Pauling#Molecular genetics, which for the first time linked a specific genetic mutation to a demonstrated change in an individual protein, the [[hemoglobin] of sickle cell disease." -- Dumarest 14:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, simply use [[Linus Pauling#Molecular genetics|Dr. Linus Pauling]] ( Dr. Linus Pauling) in place of your link. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 14:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Interested in sickle cell? Anyway, when I said that I'd restored the link minus the vandalism I wasn't referring to your edit but to someone else who'd inserted gibberish in the reference. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. -- Dumarest 21:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The PMID code is an unique PubMed indicator, and is very useful for people who have fulltext access to journals. It is common practice on Wikipedia to include PMID codes even for articles with no abstracts. Please do not remove the PMID again. JFW |  T@lk 20:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

One is never too old to learn. Over 40 years in medicine and clinical research [retired in 2000], and I never encountered PMID. With no abstract, I found it useless, and the simple reference gave all that might be helpful even for those with paid access to on-line publications -- but I will revise that thought, the link did give one piece of useful information, the address of the author[s]. You might note that the original reference had the [presumed] title of the article wrong, and there was that 'user name' appended.

By the way, that second reference has a PMID [PMID: 11926226] - and note that there also the title seems to be incorrect [James Herrick and the description of sickle-cell disease] at least for the issue and page given. I feel non competent to add that PMID, so would you do it? -- Dumarest 21:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page for Hog Farm. I have a note there, the wholesale deletion of the article for copy violation seems heavy handed, although as I note there the initial paragraph of the deleted part is a direct copy. But what is the process, if any, that I might follow - as noted in my question on that talk page? -- Dumarest 18:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If only part of the article is a copyright violation you can rewrite that portion and restore the rest. RJFJR 14:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:NewOrleansRequiem.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

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

Put this on another site, but still not appropriate. I really feel that this image has a place in Wikipedia, but no place seems correct. It is a requiem for the New Orleans that was destroyed by Katrina. -- Dumarest 17:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is from the copyright holder of an image I dearly want to put on the John Kendrew article most of which I have done.

" Dear Dr Cameron

Thank you for your request to use the image of John Kendrew with his 'forest of rods' model of myoglobin, in your Wikipedia article on John Kendrew. As copyright holders we give you permission to use this image, but please acknowledge us as follows: MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology.

Any subsequent use of the image would require further consent from us.

Best wishes Annette "

I need someone more knowledgeable than I to interpret the validity of including the image. Or to tell me how to ask the copyright holder to 'modify' their permission.

And, in this sort of case, does the copyright holder have to deal with Wiki or can I as a secondary person do the upload and information? -- Dumarest 17:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that permission is inadequate. The project is to produce a free encyclopaedia, free in expansive sense that people can take what we produce and reproduce it in full or in part elsewhere without restrictions. That is why we license all text under the GFDL. If we accepted images licensed only for use on wikipedia, then they couldn't be reproduced elsewhere and hence fail our objective. WP:COPY contains a section "Using copyrighted work from others" which explains a little on this. And the boilerplate request for permission states this also. The boilerplate page also contains, as it name suggests, some boilerplate requests which can be used. -- pgk^{( talk)} 17:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you thank you. I will continue to correspond [in the Internet age meaning of that verb] with the copyright holder on this question. -- Dumarest 17:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Still too new to understand. I have noted an image that, like one of mine no longer used, uses a magazine cover in a Wiki piece about the subject of the cover, and I understand that this in not fair use. But the procedure of nominating an image for deletion is split in several places, and confuses me greatly. My thoughts are at Image talk:Bridgetmoynahan.jpg if that construction at the left takes you there. -- Dumarest 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For listing images for deletion, you will need to visit WP:IFD. -- Nearly Headless Nick 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For Image:Bridgetmoynahan.jpg, it might not be fair use on Bridget Moynahan, but it should be on Glamour (magazine).-- Commander Keane 13:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That is what I thought. Thanks. -- Dumarest 14:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I have never done any of this before - what was the sequence such that my listing for deletion, non fair use, of the Bridget Moynahan image, was gone so fast? I did not even indicate the uploader and such, not understanding how to correctly list, and boom! it was gone! -- Dumarest 18:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Dumarest. The image is still on Wikipedia, but I have removed it from the Bridget Moynahan article because, as you correctly pointed out, it was being used under a failled fair use claim. After that, as the image was no longer being used in any other article, I've marked it as {{ orfud}}, that means orphan (unused) fair use image. Such images are deleted after 7 days (as there's no point in a fair use image that's not used at all).

Thanks for you interest in "cleaning up" Wikipedia articles. Drop me a note whenever you need any help. Best regards, -- Abu Badali 18:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In Image:New York Draft Riots - Project Gutenberg eText 16960.jpg

Below the image, vandalism? I assume the line 'sasha is a loud mouth.sasha is a ho' is such. I can't edit this or anything, but someone must have the authorization to fix. -- Dumarest 14:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to have been vandalism. Since this was an image from Wikimedia Commons, I've reverted the description there. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 14:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The internal code name CADET already appears in the article. There are three known interpretations of it. -- RTC 20:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does - but the 'Can't Add Doesn't Even Try' meaning is NOT there - it was, but removed. -- Dumarest 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is there it has been there since I wrote that section, it was not removed. It is in the last paragraph of the section where the machine moved to San Jose, near the photo of the prototype. The "joke" originated in San Jose, not earlier. All three meaning are the article.

At one point somebody added a redundant copy of it in an inapproppate place, which I did remove. But the original — "Can't Add, Doesn't Even Try", referring to the use of addition tables in memory rather than dedicated addition circuitry — text that I put in when I wrote that section has never been removed.

Does it NEED to be in there twice? -- RTC 02:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

In the article talk, I have apologized - I missed the inclusion of the"Can't Add..." - it was in a later part of the article. -- Dumarest 19:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep the duplicate reference that I added in the introduction. Many people may not read beyond that. It is the most commonly known interpretation of CADET. -- RTC 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A puzzle. In the article, I see the 3rd line as in a greyish box with dotted line borders, as if it were 1 long line no word wrap, running under the image. In the edit mode I see no indication of what may be causing that. Is what I am seeing my browser's fault, or is something strange about that entry? -- Dumarest 19:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's because the first character of the line was a space. I've removed it. -- JD ^{don't talk}| _email] 19:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason that happened is because someone put a space before the first word. I have fixed that now. GeorgeMoney ^{( talk)} 19:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You persons are fast, knowledgeable, and co-operative. I am impressed. Maybe I use to many of the 'helpme' calls, but it is so easy. By the way, I just had to see where the problem originated - the version at the edit 22:47, 5 July 2006 149.169.149.13 (Talk) had the problem, the immmediate one before that did not. But I can't see that 'space' you mention in edit versions, so no wonder I could not fix it I guess.-- Dumarest 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to look for the answer to your question about tagging image copyrights. RJFJR 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked omegatron and he gave the following response:

The list of tags is here. You should tag those two images with {{ Promophoto}} and {{ Withpermission}}. — Omegatron 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the way. The photographs are NOT on promo photographs, and the permissions tag requires another tag. The photographer gave me the 'right' [whatever that means] to upload the photographs. If they individually sign off, no problem - but they gave ME the right to upload. What tag, or how to do this???? -- Dumarest 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked Omegatron (who I know from work on engineering articles). He seems to be up to date on these things. He replied: Even if you have permission, you can't upload copyrighted photos anymore. Only if they are fair use. Where are these files? — Omegatron 13:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I still want to talk with Omegatron on these images. -- Dumarest 20:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really the best place, I probably use 'HELP' to much. Is there editing of talk pages for inserted obscenity? Take a look at the talk for the Integer article - near the end under 'Multiplicative Inverse', someone has added rather very improper language. I guess I could remove it, but editing anothers talk?? -- Dumarest 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, that was simply a case of an anonymous vandal editing another person's comments to include obscenities. (See this diff) I've reverted this change, as it is pure vandalism. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to ask about such minor entries. Take a look at Trencher (tableware) (fixed, categorey changed -- Dumarest 18:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)) and Trencherman. I edited the first, started the second. For the first, the word is more than a piece of bread, needs retitling or something, as it is also the metal or wooden plate. The second is very minimal, maybe has no need to be in Wiki, but I will go by recommendations. -- Dumarest 16:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the first article, I'm really not sure. I think "(Bread)" is okay, as it's the main thing the article is referring to, but if you have a better rephrasing, feel free to move the article to a new location. As for your second, it might require transwiki-ing to Wiktionary, as it appears to be a dictionary definition. If you can improve it so that it becomes encyclopedic, that's okay, but you might like to check out Wiktionary. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 17:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, it is bread, but it is not basically the food, it is a piece of the setting for the meal. Only there if meat is served, and used to rest the meat on for cutting. I know it is ususlly eaten [by the guest or by others] but that is not the basis for the item. -- Dumarest 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What would you like help with? — Omegatron 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with my first uncertainty. I have uploaded images that are by me [such as the ibeji], and looking at that set of tags, one was for an image that the creator permitted to be uploaded by a Wikipedian. I have used that, but questionably, and I cannot find that tag any more. It seems iffy, in that how can the site know that the agreement for another to upload is real? And what should one [I mean 'I'] do in such cases. The creator may not know Wikipedia, have no interest in it, not agree to personally upload, but it is fine with him/her for the image to be there in a valid license. --Dumarest 15:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can ask for help with image licensing and tags at the Help desk. Make sure to include links to your images, like this: Image:Ice T2.jpg, so they know which images you are talking about. — Omegatron 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is NOT about a particular image, but generality. Or specifically, what happened to that tag that I can't find anymore? does it exist, can it be used? or what. I will get to other general questions later. -- Dumarest 18:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The talk page for theis item seems quite unused, so I try here. Probably a simple thing, but. I replaced the Berlin fossil picture, and another Wikipedian arranged that and the Munich image, so that now there is a column of white space below the Berlin image that pushes the Munich image and text to the left. I do not see what does this, so have not tried to fix it

I've just broke the tagging of the second image onto a new line ( diff) and it looks ok now. -- pgk 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dumarest, Moving the image onto a new line causes the list to read 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-1-2-3, instead of the intended 1-10 one would expect to see. That's why I reverted the edit, as explained in my edit summary. Happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it - the descriptions were fine, in correct order, I just didn't look at the numbers! -- Dumarest 21:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice it originally either. Maybe we can work out something else if the layout still looks lousy in someone's browser. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I had access to the HTML which what I assume the article is in I could fix it with a 'clear' - but lefting the second image seems to do the job of eliminating that big empty space below the first image. -- Dumarest 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Change image size and the position a little, looks like it works! -- Dumarest 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, too. Thanks for your fixes. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The following recently appeared in the Cincinnati Riots article:

It has been suggested that 2001 Cincinnati Riots/temp be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

The temp page is mine, I plan a pretty full rewrite of the main article. I have now saved on my computer all that stuff, and the temp article chould be DELETED. UNDER NO CORCUMSTANCES should it be merged, doing that would essentially revert a number of recent edits unnecessarily. -- Dumarest 15:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, none of the two articles you mention appear to exist. Also, the merge we're talking about here is a history merge; the new version of the article will still contain the newest edits, but with the history of the other article as well. Histories must be preserved so as to maintain GFDL compatibility, and cannot be deleted for this reason. I hope this answers your question. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it might be me in lonesome solitude, but at least two other Wikis comment. Take a look at the HELP page, item 6.22, posted by me, on 'Images and access'. There has been no response. But then take a look at item 10.1 'Wikipedia is ****ed up real time' [I don't repeat the language of the title exactly], by another, and an agreement with the criticism by still another. What may be happening to at least some of us. -- Dumarest 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. So the page terminates while loading? What browser do you use? AQu01rius ( User •  Talk) 21:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I am on WIN-XP SP-2, Firefox very recent download [but this started when I was NetScape 7.2], dial-up, very slow. A page starts, goes on, but then sort of hangs, and frequently eventually stops, and the images are now just boxes with the alternate text. Will Wiki shut down if the connection takes too long without activity? My wife, no problem. She is WIN-HOME SP-2 and Netscape. Now, my browser uses tabbed pages, and I may [OFTEN] have multiple tabs going at once, she never does that and that may be the secret. I have cleared the cache [several times] with no effect. My test page is Archeopteryx, it is weeks snce I have seen the top image in the Taxobox [but I can click on it and get the image page fine, usually].

I think dial-up is the problem. I have broadband, and it still stumbles me sometimes when loading a long page like Wikipedia:Help desk (which is 224 kbyes long). Do you have browsing problems with shorter articles? AQu01rius ( User •  Talk) 21:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

While I was fixing the gore page to reflect that it was a general, and not a Vermont-specific, term, I noticed your discussion of Hibberts Gore. Specifically, I noticed you saying you were about "twenty miles" south of there. As the crow flies, that's approximately how far away I am from the Gore as well, so it looks like we're in the same area. If you'd like to get in touch, you can e-mail me through Wikipedia if you enter an e-mail address in your preferences. I can't imagine there are many Wikipedians in Lincoln County! XINOPH | TALK 15:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My email is in my preferences. -- Dumarest 21:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hibberts Corner does not exist. How can tha article be deleted??? -- Dumarest 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Bjelleklang - talk 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:British Army in Concord Detail.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The replaced images

This image, as well another on that page, are simply better presentations of the images that were already there, so the information requested is on the image page. Do I have to reproduce the data for the original image on the 'better' copy of that same image?? -- Dumarest 19:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do duplicate the information. Someone looking at this image won't necessarily know that it is a detail of the other. Each image needs its own license information. — P^{urple R}A^IN 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

But it is the same image - merely a better version, in respect to image quality, from another site, but the SAME image[s] - I did not upload a new image, I replaced the image that was there -- if I edited the data I would replace it by the identical material. -- Dumarest 14:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not the same digital image. They seem to be two different digital images of the same original engraving or maybe of different versions of the engraving, and I can't understand why you think your presentation is better. In every case, you seem to have replaced a high resolution high quality image with a lower resolution lower quality image. I don't get it. Do you really think [1] looks better than [2] and [3] looks better than [4]? You may be one of the few people who think lower numerical resolution is better than higher resolution. Here: [5] is your digital source. Here: [6] is the digital source in the prior version. Which looks better to you again and why? Right now the image pages cite the New York Public Library in words but cite history.org pages for links. Some people really do use Wikipedia as a resource to find image references, and they hope to find consistent information here. Why did you do this? Unless there's a good (NUMERICALLY good) reason for it, PLEASE return these images to their earlier state. Flying Jazz 06:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's start with one pair. In the text that follows, '1' means wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/British_Army_in_Concord_Detail.jpg and '2' means wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/5/59/20070127184151%21British_Army_in_Concord_Detail.jpg.

I can't go on - downloads are failing - I will get back to this -- Dumarest 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, try to continue. Number one better than number 2. Absolutely, unequivocally, without question - it is clearer, one can see the individual soldiers marching, the tombstones on the right are clear, and it is a complete image not a part. Now to numbers. Number 1 is at a resolution of 150 pixels per inch, number 2 is 72 pixels per inch - on this character, which is the higher resolution? Recognize that I am looking at the images that are in Wikipedia, not the thumbs, and not the original images that are on the indicated site[s]. I have not detailed the other images, but as I remember the data is similar. Now, the image I put up is brighter, less muddy, maybe more 'off' from one way of looking at the original, but that is a matter of taste.-- Dumarest 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dragon1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No argument, the newer image is better, mine can happily go. -- Dumarest 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I reverted the wikilinks you added to John Brown Russwurm. The title of a section should not be wikilinked ( here), and only the first instance of a word/phrase in a paragraph ( here)

Thanks,

WLU 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Did not know that, thanks. Seems not a good idea in all cases - first instance is on page 1, and the second is 200 hundred lines later - seems to me it ought to have a link too. -- Dumarest 19:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The actual policy makes sense - basically it's not every time the word occurs, but more than once per article or section is OK depending on length and readability. WLU 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse-- ragesoss 04:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Will someone consider looking at [ [7]], second item [from me]. If no discussion, how long should I wait to do what I suggest, or should I forget this. -- Dumarest 19:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If no one responds to your discussion in a few days (give people time to look at the article), then perhaps you could try bringing it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. That would bring in more opinions and help figure out what to do. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For major changes, I try to wait at least a week to see if anyone objects. However, for talk pages with low activity (which is what you have at Talk:Corned beef and cabbage), you probably won't get a response for months. If you feel your proposal will improve the article I suggest you be bold and make your changes now. It can always be changed back if someone has a big problem with it. Although I'm not a culinary expert, if you say "Corned beef and cabbage" is the more common name for "New England boiled dinner", the article appears to be named properly according to Common Naming Conventions. Hoof Hearted 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is just pride or such. I have a beautiful photo that I took of New England boiled dinner, and it just does not seem right for a Corned Beef and Cabbage name article - but if the boiled dinner is the inclusive term, then what I want to do may be fine and the picture lives. -- Dumarest 11:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why your picture couldn't be included in a "Corned beef and cabbage" article with a caption that says something like: New England boiled dinner is commonly called corned beef and cabbage, but usually contains turnips, carrots, and parsnips as well. At the very least, it sounds like the New England boiled dinner explanation in the article needs to be expanded. Hoof Hearted 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out that item. Note that he worked on 'The Shadow' with a Jack Bender. There is a Jack Bender in Wiki, but of considerable stature - but nothing I can find is about his early career and I would really like to know if he is the Bender that was a 'Shadow' artist. What is the best way to go? -- Dumarest 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a content question, I suggest asking at one of the various help desks. John Reaves (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse-- ragesoss 06:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just a copy and paste from the help desk, where it is now almost gone. Sele esplanatory, but I am puzzled.

Refer to Sex and the City current page. In the 'Overview of Characters' section the image is to the right of the first character paragraph, but below it is a large white space forcing the entire second character paragraph to the left. I have, to my satisfaction, confirmed that this is because the image enters into the vertical space of that paragraph, and also I think I am satisfied that a paragraph like the second, with a '*' at the beginning, will not wrap around an image. Confirm, explain, or whatever - the extra white block I would prefer to get rid of. --Dumarest 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

   I think it is something that just happens. When looking at the syntax I don't see any different between other images on other pages. ~~ Vagish T CVPS 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

   * Make sure you are watching at fullscreen resolution and not in a small window. When you are watching a page in a smaller window, the layout can easily get smashed up. _ Mgm|(talk) 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

       Nope, something is special about that next block, with the start as

   * Charlotte York

Note that initial character. A paragraph with that will not wrap. Compare a later image on that page, Region 1 Edition of Complete Set, near the bottom. It goes into the next paragraph, which wraps. Now go to the first image and pull in the sides of the window - when it is narrow enough, so the text takes more lines, at some point the text of the first paragraph extends beyond the bottom of the image, and boom! the extra white space below the image disappears. It is that marker of the paragraphs at this point in the article. --Dumarest 11:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hello. On my monitor the Carrie, Charlotte and Miranda paragraphs all are wrapping on the left of the image. Is it possible that it is your browser? Are you experiencing the same behaviour with other images? -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be! I use FireFox, but IE does wrap! -- Dumarest 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so we are narrowing it down. Perhaps there is a setting in FireFox that you can adjust? I just switched from IE to FF and it still works for me, so hopefully there is a setting that will help. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 66.230.200.145 lifted or expired. Request handled by: — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Dumarest 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

These autoblocks are affecting everyone... not just you. It even affected me. Btw, I'm not an admin so I can't unblock you. -- Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)( 会話) 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to edit. I can't see any trace of the autoblock anymore. -- Deskana (AFK 47) 21:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No talk page on the category page, so ask here. I added to that category the writer Lea Wait, and, unlike all the other writers on that page, she is listed under 'L', her first name, not 'W', last name as is the listing of all the other entries. Why??

Actually I have another useless question. Can this personal page be archived? it is getting very long, so if I could archive and continue with a clean page I would like that. -- Dumarest 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

ok, I have no idea about your first question, I can't figure it out either. :P About the archival of your talk page, this might be of help. A simple way to do it is to move your current talk page to a new page in your user space (eg: User talk:Dumarest/Archive 1). Am leaving the helpme template so someone else can answer the other question. - Two Oars 19:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)When a page is added to a category, it's sorted by its title unless the software is told to sort it differently. I added a {{ DEFAULTSORT}} to the page to correct how it's sorted in the categories. For information on how to archive your talk page, see Help:Archiving a talk page. Cheers! WODUP 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I need an Administrator. I have gone beyond myself. Eagle Island had a disambiguation page, one of which is Eagle Island, Maine. But there are two in Maine. I did a move of the existing item to Eagle Island (Penobscot Bay) which was wrong so I double moved, Eagle Island (Penobscot Bay) to Eagle Island (Casco Bay) which is the correct identification. I also did a stub for Eagle Island (Penobscot Bay) which I will finish later. But the ultimate is a mess that I cannot seem to fix. The Eagle Island of Peary should be Eagle Island (Casco Bay), the other at this time a stub. The disambiguation page has an error in that one of these 'items' seems to be an illegal item. And lastly, there should be a disambiguation of Eagle Island, Maine to the two choices. I have made a world class mess (well, maybe not world class). -- Dumarest 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to straighten this out for you now. -- Mnemnoch 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know if the changes are correct to your satisfaction on my talk page and I will be glad to assist you again. -- Mnemnoch 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine - guess I got in over my head! -- Dumarest 11:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about this, and the extent of use of presumably copyrighted material on a Wiki page. Check out Wiki page Imam bayildi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0mam_bay%C4%B1ld%C4%B1. In the discussion, a source for the unsourced material is suggested, and if I look at that it looks like an almost complete simple copy-and-paste. How does this go with the Wiki policy on copyrighted material?? -- Dumarest 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CP should be able to help you here. KTC 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse-- ragesoss 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing. Sullins College is a now gone college in Tennessee, and had a number of important graduates, and an important history. I want to do a Wiki article, but sourcing... how? Following is a reply from the location of the archives of that college - there is no publication or such on the history. And what that material is is personal? What can I do?? " Mr. John W. King has sent me a copy of your e-mail to him asking about a history of Sullins College. I do not know that there is a history of this institution, and we do not have one in the King College archives. I can tell you generally that the college was founded about 1868 in Bristol and named for David Sullins, a Methodist minister...... I am sorry that we do not have anything better to offer you at the present.... It is my understanding that in the fire of 1915 everything was destroyed. Let us know how we might be of any further help to you. Thanks for inquiring.

William J. Wade Curator, The Tadlock Collection (The King College Archives) " -- Dumarest 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be unsourceable. You might want to read our article on WP:Verifiability. It describes the related requirements. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, it's not verifiable, therefore not encyclopedic. Perhaps consider trying the library in the town where the college was located. They may have news articles from the local newspaper(s) archived on microfiche. Lara Love 00:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chin the Great.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. BetacommandBot 15:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This was an edit of a previous image, but it seems that the page that held that image [and then this] is gone. Deleted?? When and why? -- Dumarest 16:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.