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.

Archives

1 Apr. 13-Oct. 10, 2006 2 Oct. 25, 2006-Jan. 1, 2007 3 Jan. 1-Mar. 3, 2007 4 Mar. 5-May 12, 2007 5 May 16-Sept. 18, 2007 6 Sept. 15, 2007-Jan. 25, 2008 7 Jan. 25-Sept. 4, 2008 8 Sept. 9-Dec. 31, 2008 9 Dec. 28, 2008-Jun. 9, 2009 10 Jun. 10-Dec. 31, 2009 11 2010 12 2011-2013 13 2014-2019 Current

Dear Sir:

I have worked to update the Indiana State Police Department page revealing corruption concealed from public knowledge. However, my entry has been deleted, and I receive notification cautioning me not to update article. This creates a bizzarre arrangement that leads me to request reconsideration.

While examiining the New York City Police Department Wikipedia page, one notes that that page contains a section titled: "ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT AND THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD." While reading this section, all find three subsections with one of the three proving as the Knapp Commission exposing the work of Detective Frank Serpico. Another subsection has 12 titles of specific corruption cases involving New York City Police Department. Those revelations prove unflattering to the New York City Police Department and its many members. However, it is the documented truth of which Wikipedia and its contributory authors are Constitutionally protected in publishing. Yet, this standard is not applied to the Indiana State Police Department.

While reading the Wikipedia article titled: "Indiana State Police Department" there is no section titled: "Police Misconduct..." Is police corruption limited to New York City? Are the citizens of the world entitled to know about police corruption within other police departments such as the Indiana State Police Department? While considering this challenge, I have worked to expose documented corruption within the Indiana State Police Department, and I have performed my work by exposing actual Indiana State Police documents allowing all to form their own conclusions. With this understanding, I wish to reveal purpose.

The documented corruption involves a [Marsa Gipson's] murder investigation which is the only crime in Indiana allowing the State to execute a person. With the potential seriousness of the corruption documented understood, a purpose exists to provide the public knowledge of prior actions should the conduct repeat with hopes that the public is better enabled to form a conclusion. The goal is to prevent conduct from repeating with hopes of avoiding the potential of an innocent person being arrested, prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned, and maybe executed. This endeavor upsets many within the Indiana State Police Department.

I have authored and copyright protected a four part electronic book series in PDF format for distribution across the Internet expense free while including actual Indiana State Police records within the work for all to view. The work includes four documents titled: Affidavit for Probable Cause as well as many Indiana State Police Supplemental Case Reports, arrest documentation, and letters while including language directing readers' attention among the many records allowing readers to discover the facts on their own with least guidance possible. My work is the Indiana State Police records exposed with me narrating the reader through the maze of deception. I placed my work and the many government documents within a website having URL: http://www.govexposed.com while receiving no compensation for that posting. With this knowledge, I ask one to consider the length of time my website has been active revealing news that many within Indiana government does not want known publicly.

On September 19, 2007, I opened my website offering the first title: The Grand Jury: Phase I - THE MURDER OF MARSA GIPSON expense free. Nobody within the Indiana State Police Department or Hoosier government contacted me challenging my work in exposing government papers. Nobody has contacted me threatening libel either. If my work posted on the Internet was incorrect, is it reasonable that someone would have sought to advance claim naming me in civil court? Why would government officers named within my work fail to advance action if my work is truly believed to be libelous?

First, any action would allow me to introduce the records in court before a jury. Secondly, any action would allow me to call forward many government officers to verifiy the records posted. Third, any action would place government officers into position of verifying the records or committing perjury. I wish to reveal additional information in consideration of my efforts exposing police corruption within the Indiana State Police Department.

Earlier, I reported that my work is copyright protected. I hold certificate numbered: TXu001259846 which means my work that includes State of Indiana records is on file within the U.S. Library of Congress Copyright Office which means anyone may read my work in print. It seems the Wikipedia would wish to compete with the U.S. Library of Congress offering similar information as a service to the world. Since I hold copyright for the material presented, it seems to me that Wikipedia would wish to accept the information recognizing that an author producing the material would not file action for copyright violation, and that author is available for first person citations should challenges arise.

Before closing, the corruption exposed advances with more concerns. The very basic concern involving the Indiana State Police Department's misconduct regarding Marsa Gipson's murder investigation is the fact that officers concealed known exculpatory evidence and circumvented Constitutional protections contrary to two rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite this history, the members of the Indiana State Police wished to continue its pattern of activity.

On August 8, 2008, the Indiana State Police Department performed a re-enactment of Marsa Gipson's murder while withholding knowledge of documented corruption distributing the re-enactment to Hoosier video news outlets. As a result, I contacted WTHR television in Indianapolis, Indiana offering myself and the documents I hold for examination in revealing the fully story. Sandra Chapman of WTHR performed a lengthy interview with me while offering officers from the Indiana State Police Department opportunity to respond. Those officers refused to answer Chapman's questions with the reporting broadcasted on November 6, 2008. One may confirm this knowledge by entering "Marsa Gipson" within many search engines on the Internet discovering WTHR reporting transcript.

In closing, I ask for the inclusion of a section within the Indiana State Police title page matching that of New York City Police Department with section titled: "Police Misconduct..." I ask that I be allowed to reveal corruption in concise manner meeting specifications of Wikipedia exposing the corruption involving Marsa Gipson's murder investigation, and I ask to reference the writing to the URL: http://www.govexposed.com allowing all to view the actual documents that many within the Indiana State Police Department do not want known publicly. Should members of the Indiana State Police Department object, I ask all to accept recognition that my website has advanced more than 40,000 downloads with 27,000 downloads to servers across the World Wide Web to include foreign countries.

I thank you! One may email me at gsc@tds.net with response if one wishes.

Garry A. Clark 96.60.193.35 ( talk) 02:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I will finish removing the color, but in return, restore the medium text. This makes them similar to the Infobox_University format. Rhatsa26X ( talk) 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That will work Rhatsa26X ( talk) 04:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to briefly explain why he changed the spelling of his name. When he was drafted, he went by "Akeem". I'm sure readers might be curious why he now goes by Hakeem, and that little footnote can quickly clear up any confusion. (And that's all it is: a little sentence in a footnote. It's not disrupting the flow of the main text, or anything like that.) Zagalejo ^^^ 17:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Then they can click on the link to his biography. The Arabic meaning of his name has zero relevance to his draft pick. And that's not why he changed it, it simply said what it means. This is a featured list; sentences in footnotes matter. Reywas92 ^Talk 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic meaning is why he changed it. The University of Houston misspelled his name as Akeem, which doesn't mean anything in Arabic. Olajuwon didn't make a fuss about it at first, but eventually decided that he wanted to use the spelling that had actual significance.

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. How does a brief sentence in a footnote, which can immediately clarify something for the reader, detract from FL quality? No, the spelling of his name isn't directly relevant to his draft pick, but since he was drafted as Akeem, and not Hakeem, it's natural for readers to wonder why he later added a letter to his name. The footnote can provide instant gratification. It's something I would have actually asked for in the FLC discussion. Zagalejo ^^^ 18:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The template header is still too small. As for the other, You may know that many schools in Indiana are known by two names, the Local Name like say Benjamin Bosse High School and the IHSAA designation used outside Evansville. To anybody in Gibson or any other county, the school is called Evanville Bosse. Its the same way with the schools in Indianapolis, even the ones outside of Indy but are in Marion county are often called Indianapolis ... High School. Indiana just has that peculiarity to it. Trust me, the so-called "Native Names" are nothing more that what the school is referred to by local residents whether it is english or not, while the larger bolder name is what the school is referred to by the region or the IHSAA. It may not be standard, but it is consistent. The IHSAA uses this system because there are at least 15 schools that if you did not add the city name to it, would have the exact same name and some even have the same namesake. Thank You for your concern. Rhatsa26X ( talk) 04:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposed edit process is pretty backlogged right now. If a user refuses to cease editing in favour of proper dialogue, I think taking the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring may be warranted. -- Paul_012 ^{( talk)} 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you merged the shipwreck article into the memorial, but there is more work required to better integrate the two articles. I'm unfortunately working on my pet project and dont have time to open up a new can of worms, but since you already did ... Thanks dm ( talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As a participant of WikiProject U.S. Congress, please consider placing {{ Project Congress to do}} to the top of your User_talk page. Thank you.— Markles 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Reywas92, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I believe I have sufficiently addressed all your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of First Ladies of the United States. If you could return to comment, I'd appreciate it. Thank you! Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just reverted your leonardo changes, with slightly different headings. Yes, the whole lot does fall under the broad heading of "Biography". But the first four sections in the body of the article trace the man's history. The remaining sections all deal with thematic aspects of the man's personality, work and study and the regard in which he is held. The four historic sections need to be collected under a suitable heading, separate from the others and which is indicative of their chronological nature. The heading now in place is Life. If you look at the table of contents, the arrangement is clear. Amandajm ( talk) 04:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. And I think that they should also be included in the other 110, if they haven't already. I've done some of that, but it's a big project. Think about what we should include, and maybe we can try to do it systematically. Happy editing! Best regards. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 22:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Stan

Could you point me to a guideline or policy which demands the removal of quotes around "Nannerl" and "Bäsle" as you recently did. I would have thought that nicknames in a foreign language are two arguments for using quotes. Michael Bednarek ( talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Michael Bednarek, keeping threads together)

Quotation marks are used for nicknames when used within a sentence, such as Maria Anna "Nannerl" Mozart, Jennifer "J-Lo" Lopez, or "Maria Anna Thekla Mozart did this..."Bäsle" often did that." It's different when separated into parentheses. And being a foreign name has no impact; you would use italics. Sorry for any confusion I caused. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped for a pointer to a guideline or policy rather than a mere assertion. Michael Bednarek ( talk) 04:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support at the FLC. The List was promoted. Kensplanet ^T _C 07:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to have started the GA review of Currencies of Puerto Rico. However, you name is not on the list at WP:GAN, and I cannot see that you have done anything since 21 January. Will you be completing the review? I have singed up for doing it at GAN, but I would like to be on the safe side. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, in one of your recent edits on the national monuments, you put a version of the photo for Pipe Springs into the Pipestone row. Easy mistake to make with the similarity in names, which I believe I've fixed. Feel free to double check... dm ( talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

re FL status, you've added almost as much text as I did back in September. I'll help out where I can. dm ( talk) 01:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello! There is a discussion started at WPIN Talk about standardizing the List of high schools in Indiana. You are welcome to comment. Thanks Charles Edward ( Talk) 15:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew Germans were strange, check out this link. It is featured!- [1]    World    ^{t c s} 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to, but I'm a bit busy right now both in real life and on Wiki. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 20:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as someone who previously commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth, you may wish to revisit this page, as the FAC has been restarted and additional content to meet the concerns expressed has been added.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a lookover, see if there are changes to be made(if any). I'll keep you posted. BTW, I have been doing mainly WikiGnome work so far, so it might be some time before I can make an article for you to proofread. That being said, I do have an idea for an article to create. All I need to do is research, finding references and sources, write the darn thing and pray that the new page patrollers don't put it up for CSD or AFD. It's just that simple(and that hard)!  ;) Alvin Seville ( talk) 23:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm too busy to have a look just now. It looks like you've got other folks to help, though. Good luck! Scartol •  Tok 12:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to give it a look. I'll let you know when I'm done. Any significant changes will be addressed in the Discussion section! AikiHawkeye ( talk) 13:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it didnt make FLC, I think there's a lot of good work there. Let's keep working on it, maybe we can resubmit in a while dm ( talk) 07:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting, however, I think you were looking at a version that had a very large chunk of it removed. I added it back in; could you take a look and confirm you still support, please? Regards, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 07:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Worked your issues. Pls revisit. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Worked your Astro and CNO issues. Pls look over. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated "I" NOVEL ~Page 5~ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. --  Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated "I" NOVEL ~Page 6~ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. --  Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on many of the arguments. Are you close to supporting the article. I don't see any suggestions, but I don't see a support either.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 18:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You may need to look at this page, various grammatical errors: Harlequin type ichthyosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holoeconomics ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the extensive commentary from other reviewers at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inauguration of Barack Obama, I'm trying to understand upon what you based your Support? Have you fully read the fAC? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you decided if you are supporting List of winners of the Chicago Marathon yet?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You can vote here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_9. Thanks. Aaron charles ( talk) 23:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope u value or at least don't mind my comments in the FLC for List of National Monuments of the United States. It's sometimes hard to understand how to interpret critical comments. I do mean for my comments to be constructive, and I do want the list to pass this FL nomination. The list-article does look very good. I worry my complaints about the agency table may be taken badly, for example. I do appreciate it is hard to get a table to look good. So my attempts to create alternatives linked from the Talk page are meant to take on some of that burden, to try to create a viable alternative, not sure my efforts succeeded. Hopefully you could work with one of the alternatives?

Also, I appreciated that you gave me a heads-up about the FLC starting. Actually i was a little surprised that the peer review had closed, see now that it was you closing 6 days after my last comment. I had the impression peer reviews stayed opened 30 days after last comment, and i did have it on a personal to do list to get back to it. Not complaining, just noting. Good luck with the FL. doncram ( talk) 23:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I specifically said that I didn't think it was, though he had views on them. It is trick sometimes to know what article best to add information to. GBS was not a pedant particularly about the aposttrophe but about changes to the spelling system-- how is that relevant to the apostrophe? I would love to quote it but don't have the books on me right now since I traded in all my Orwell to get Collected Works.

Since I have found that bugger all happens until you make an edit, I tend to Be Bold and do so. Then magically people pop up who have not been seen for years doing anything on it. SimonTrew ( talk) 16:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Posting to several FLC regulars, maybe this program would work, see [2] — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

On the David H. Murdock article, shouldn't the See Also section be included as it appears to me that it is universally used to show other articles within Wikipedia that are directly related to this topic? I agree that the external references are already there, but direct topic links to Wikipedia should appear in See Also. Harvcahoon ( talk) 19:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs (my estimate is somewhere between 50 and 75) that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You broke Mount Redoubt on the discussion. You moved the discussion from the actual page to the disambig and then you wiped out the histories entirely. Alyeska ( talk) 01:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know I undid the punctuation changes you'd made at Four color theorem — the quotes around "proofs" and "counterexamples" were there because they are not really proofs or counterexamples, respectively. Regards, Shreevatsa ( talk) 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks should generally only be used for quotations. In these cases, it would be better to reword it. And even if they are invalid, they are still proofs and counterexamples, otherwise those terms should not be used at all. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Reywas. You may not be aware, but the new Featured list criteria was implemented Sunday 5 April, 00:56 (UTC) following two weeks of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#New criterion discussion.

I've gone through the nominations and have noticed the following have received reviews from you, but no indication whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL:

1. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E/archive1 ( List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E)
2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille/archive1 ( List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille)

Please could you take the time to revisit the articles and candidate pages, check them against the new Featured list criteria, and indicate whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL. It would be much appreciated as the nomination will not have to be kept open any longer than necessary.

Finally, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness of this message; the same wording is being sent to everyone who has outstanding reviews, with only the names of lists being changed. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear User:Reywas92,
Regrading your recent edit to The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie, I put that confusion tag there because people misinterpret The Naked Brothers Band with The Jonas Brothers.
Camp Rock is a movie starring the Jonas Brothers. So that confusion tag I put makes sense.
If you can, please respond.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 23:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I must've miss interpreted the use of that tag.
Okay, I will add a "See Also" section.
Thanx!
02:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you redirected this article to Denmark and the euro. I have undone this; there are articles on all Danish referenda, and there is certainly more info in the referendum article - and there could be lots more! So a redirect is not uncontroversial. If you still believe that it would be better to have a single article, please propose a merge of the two articles on their talkpages and using the {{ mergeto}} and/or {{ mergefrom}} templates so a consensus can be established first. Cheers! - Lilac Soul ^{( talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 08:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you have just started to create tables for this article. I wanted to let you know that I, too, have been working on that very same project. Please take a look at this sand-box page of mine (which is still a work in progress): User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page28. I just thought that you might want to know ... as it would seem silly to have two people both doing the same work. Your thoughts? Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

That looks great! It could potentially save a lot of time, though depending on what we want to do mine could actually be quicker. Although you've got a to do list for the Additional notes column, it may be simpler to just use footnotes for most of them. Also, since there are so few movies with special awards, that column could be replaced by notes. It's great to include best picture, but I was even considering using a colored background rather than a separate column. And unlike my list it should have both year and ceremony, though those could be combined. What do you think? Thanks, Reywas92 ^Talk 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. Well ... let me offer a suggestion. Tell me what you think. Why don't the two of us discuss this and come up with some decent-looking chart / article? Then, after we have done so, we can add it into the current article. In other words ... I would rather complete the chart and then add it ... as opposed to adding it in piece-meal, a little at a time. This is my reasoning. When you start to add stuff in, you tend to get 8 million suggestions, changes, edits, agreements, disagreements, arguments, etc., etc., etc. That is what tends to happen when "too many cooks" spoil the broth ... when too many people get their fingers into the mix. It tends to slow down the progress and to be more counter-productive than productive. That is my experience. If we add the "new" chart in after it is done (assuming it looks good), then we avoid a lot of the bickering ... which usually tends to be about minor nit-picky details. So, why don't we revert the original article to remove the charts ... so that it looks like it always did in the past. Then, you and I can brainstorm and get this new Chart going. Then, we can add it in later. When you start to add a Chart, little by little, piece by piece, too many editors go in there and it tends to "mess things up". Plus, everyone has ideas about things to add to, subtract from, and/or change the chart. And, as you are trying to complete a work in progress, all of this input bogs the project down. What do you think? Please reply at my Talk Page. If you agree with my general approach, then we can talk specifics about the actual new chart that we will create. I am sure that you have some good ideas and that I do too. I am sure that we can come up with something good, without a whole lot of input slowing us down. Then, after we add it into the main article, people can edit it as they choose. Let me know if you agree. Please send your message to my Talk Page. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Sounds fine; I've reverted my testing of the first section on the main list. In my sandbox I've finished getting the whole table to work. Tomorrow hopefully I can work on converting the best picture winners from a note to a colored background. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay, I have been meaning to get back to you for quite some time now. I noticed that you finished up the charts / tables for the article on List of Academy Award-winning films. It looks great. Good job! Thanks! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

I wanted to let you know that the Olympic Games article is back up for FAC. Your previous review was very helpful in pushing the article forward. I have made a lot of changes and if you have a minute to take a look and make comments I would be genuinely appreciative. All the best. H1nkles ( talk) 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! I just happened to run across this today! I did not know that this debate had been going on. I suspect that the article will not get deleted, just by looking at the current comments. Even if it does get deleted, our revised Table in that other article ( List of Academy Award-winning films) will cover all of these bases. Do you agree? ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi. Sorry for the delay, I have been meaning to get back to you for quite some time now. I noticed that you finished up the charts / tables for the article on List of Academy Award-winning films. It looks great. Good job! Thanks! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Are the external links really necessary? Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no violation, I just wanted to trim the external links that were unnecessary, and it seemed that you added them again. Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 22:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Favor, can you review Insects for GAN or find someone esle? Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 22:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering, I think the only problem with it was that it needed references, and I adressed it, so do you think I can just change it to GA myself, or do you still want to look it over? Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 00:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I believe that all the bare refs have been changed to cite temps. What now? Do you think it is ready? Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

? Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 12:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• sigh*, now I think it is done, you know, I feel like I am beeing a real pain, but that is how I am really life too. Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 19:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That sucks, you know... it failing and all, but I believe I did everything you said. Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you are adding See also sections to the Seal of articles. While there is nothing wrong with that, there are a couple problems. First, the link to State of Illinois, for example. You should not use State of because that is excessive, and the link itself is unnecessary because it is already (ar should be) at the top of the article. See WP:SEEALSO. Second, it's great that you're linking to the relevant List of state symbols of article, but it is unneeded to instead link to Symbols of the State of. Not only is the State of part not required, it is silly to link to a redlink and have to create it as a redirect. Just link to the proper article itself. You don't need to go back, but in the future, just keep it simple. Cheers, Reywas92 ^Talk 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The official name of each of the 50 U.S. states begins with either "State of" or "Commonwealth of". It is common to refer to states without these prefixes, but all statues and legal actions are required to refer to the official name of the state. Unlike many European states, many U.S. states did not have an existence until the U.S. Congress enacted an organic act. Indiana for example, was first declared to be a part of the United States Territory Northwest of the River Ohio, commonly known as the Northwest Territory. In 1800, the United States created the Territory of Indiana including all of what is now Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and parts of Minnesota and Ontario. In 1809, the United States created the Territory of Illinois, and the Territory of Indiana shrank to the confines of the present State of Indiana plus a portion of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the Door Peninsula of Wisconsin. In 1816, the Territory of Indiana, minus the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the Door Peninsula of Wisconsin, was admitted to the Union as the State of Indiana. Speaking in historical terms, the word "Indiana" may refer to a portion of the Territory Northwest of the River Ohio, to the entire Territory of Indiana of 1800, to the reduced Territory of Indiana of 1809, or to the present State of Indiana. While brevity is a virtue, preciseness is also. In many contexts, precision is required. While I am a Hoosier, I do not live within the State of Indiana. -- Buaidh ( talk) 22:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think precision is important here. Indiana unambiguously refers to the State of Indiana, and Illinois unambiguously refers to the State of Illinois. No American would ever confuse that with the territory; if refering to the territory, it would say so. If distinction from the territory is necessary, then why doesn't Indiana have a hatnote pointing to Indiana Territory? (And no, that's not a suggestion). In most cases the mention is not historical and completely excessive. When in a see also link it is especially unambiguous; it's not necessary to say State of Indiana when it just redirects to Indiana; anyway, what if you mean both in general? The creation of redirects is style and has nothing to do with the naming. Why make new redirects when you can just use a piped link? ([[List of state symbols of Indiana|Symbols of the State of Indiana]]) And can I have a reference that all legal statues must refer to states with "State of" or "Commonwealth of"? If that's true, it's interesting; I think it may just be a formality. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you completely. -- Buaidh ( talk) 12:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, - down load ׀ sign! 01:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be a little careful with your edit summaries. 1000s is the way 1000s of us were taught to write it (And I even grew up near the Dunes.) It isn't the way Wikipedia has chosen for its own Manual of Style and so needs to be changed but that doesn't make it wrong. Also specie is a word - it just means something completely unrelated. Rmhermen ( talk) 17:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed a bit of a compromise to Rambo's objection. Lemme know what you think. Geraldk ( talk) 20:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit of List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War was gramatically correct and even sound better when read; however, you didn't finish the job. Your edit was on the "A" section. Go to the article and scroll to the "B" section and the "C" section.... see what I mean. If you are going to remove the word "about" in one section, shouldn't you do them all? I could do it, because I do agree with your edit as far as it went; however, I'm not an "edit count" freak. I watch the article for edits because I'm a Vietnam Veteran and can relate to the material. I want the article right, if you don't have the time, I will continue what you started. You decide. Cuprum17 ( talk) 16:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanx, mate! Cheers! Cuprum17 ( talk) 21:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't prod an article which has had a speedy template removed from it - the reason the original template was removed was for its notability, as the edit summary clearly stated. In any case, the reasons for the prod are invalid - it has references (albeit not independent ones at present), and clearly states the company's notability. In any case, given that a quick glance at the article links will show that this article is a candidate for a collaboration of the month project, surely there must be some inkling that it's notable... Grutness... wha? 01:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

S'alright - that makes sense - didn't know that about the way twinkle works. It's been a busy morning for this article - speedy notice, notice removed, prodded, deprodded, three different editors adding references and nominated for a collaboration project - and it's only existed 65 minutes! Grutness... wha? 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

On Roberto Clemente Award. You mind doing Hank Aaron Award too?   iMatthew :  Chat  17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Good luck at FLC! Reywas92 ^Talk 18:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!   iMatthew :  Chat  18:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. The rhenium article lay on the way through the transition metals, so it got upgrade. The FAC is difficult and the elements project has to few members to get all good article to featured, but if you have a look on the periodic table by quality from last year and now the improvment will yield several FAC in the next time. -- Stone ( talk) 14:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for my short revert, but the reason I set it back to the old format was your change gave a funny looking TOC, ie

Early life

1.1 Later life and artistic independence

2 Works

ie early life is a sect heading with later life as a sub section. I sould have explained this in my edit summary, I know, but there it is. If you want to tak this up on the article talk, I'll certainly engage. Best. Ceoil ( talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry for the remark, not because it was meant as an insult (it really wasn't), but because it was conceivably possible for it to be read as such. Since I suppose you refer to this edit summary, let me make my exact point stand out: I am sure there are better things you can contribute on wikipedia, outside of imposing a personal preference into various articles (based on what is at best a technicality, and going against years of differing consistency). Regards, Dahn ( talk) 10:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I started a discussion on the WP:WPIN talk page about creating articles on historical elections going back a couple centuries. Any input would be appreciated. — Charles Edward ^{( Talk |  Contribs)} 02:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me. I haven't visited the articles, but I definitely think info about the NRHP house (is it named William Conner House?) should be either in an article about the house or in a section of an article about a town or other place or area such as, I guess, Conner Prairie. The NRHP name could be a redirect to that section. The NRHP place could be broken out to be a separate article later, if a lot of material is added so that it is no longer appropriate there. If the NRHP infobox is not wanted in the prairie article, then i myself would choose to break out the NRHP article already though. But if u don't care to add the infobox that is okay. My main general feeling is that a NRHP house name should not redirect to a person or an event (as sometimes has happened for NRHP battlefields). Hope this helps. doncram ( talk) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I just added a table at National Register of Historic Places listings in Hamilton County, Indiana. Perhaps you asked me about the Wm Conner Hs because i had split out the county article that covers it? Another entry there is Daniel Craycraft House, which currently redirects to an article about the person. I'd rather that a stub article was created about the house, even with just the NRHP infobox and just a sentence or two (linking to Daniel Craycraft of course). Each NRHP-listed place is definitely wikipedia-notable: there is plenty of documented info available in the NRHP applications and other documents. Do you use the NRHP infobox generator already, by the way? It is very handy. Just cut-and-paste from http://www2.elkman.net/nrhp/infobox.php. regards, doncram ( talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You stated: "I agree that the places are generally notable enough for an article, but that doesn't mean they always need one if there is another appropriate article it would fit into." I fully agree. By the way, all the other counties in List of RHPs in IN will also get tables soon, too, which allows for pics and descriptions, as part of a last push by wp:NRHP to complete out tables nation-wide. doncram ( talk) 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you revisit to check if your oppose still stands? The nominator has added several new awards to the list. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the suggestion.-- Jerzeykydd ( talk) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes no worries. I have basically gone thru all the medical good articles. All the rest look fairly good. Just maybe another three to delist but will go thru the community rather than individual reassessment for those one. Cheers.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)