User talk:EraserGirl/Archive 4

Hey, if you're still here sometimes...: I updated the "Asia"-section of the women filmmakers page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_cinema#Asian) a little bit; since I'm not a native english speaker or experienced with wiki it'd be great if you could have quick look at it and smoothen down my bad style a little. Oh, and on a side note, the reason why I specifically mentioned that Zero Chou is a "queer filmmaker" is because by now her films had a certain emphasis on queer topics, so I thought it was relevant to her work. Thanks! I don't have an account on wiki as I don't have the time but I just HAD to work on the "Women filmmakers" page a bit when I saw how empty it was...so in case just answer me here on your page, I'll take care to check it again. Cheers, Michael 92.225.52.162 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really interested in Helen Gibson I would suggest writing her article at Citizendium and then starting a Squidoo lens were you place your original research. Or somewhere else. Be recognized for what your value is regarding Helen Gibson.Dwindle dwindle (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the Massachusetts National Register of Historic Places articles. It is nice to see someone give them attention! Swampyank (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could remove/copy the Methuen NRHP listings from the County NRHP listing and create a new Methuen NRHP list by copying the format from another town NRHP list, such as: National Register of Historic Places listings in Concord, Massachusetts. Then you could put a link to it in the Methuen article. Hope this helps. Good luck! Swampyank (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was my understanding as well, i just wanted to be sure that was the right format, as few towns have those pages built as yet. It will look more better when i get images to fill in the table. EraserGirl (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or apparently, once you upload tons that you've already gotten. Looks great so far; eagerly anticipating more in the future :-) Are you certain that you have the right site for the Turnpike House? If so, you can place a picture of the site here, as it's better than nothing (the site is still listed, after all) — for an example, see my picture for the James F. Murray House in Chester on the Hancock County section of National Register of Historic Places listings in West Virginia. Thanks for all the work! Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I must report that i watched that house deteriorate over many years, with protests spray painted on bare clapboards. The owner was a nutter and deliberately let the building fall apart until it had to be condemned. (He was pissed off that the city wouldn't let him cut it up into apartments.) TRUST ME, i have the right site. I do have an image of the new building but i don't want to add it until i have a picture of the old building to plug into the infobox. I have also not decided what to do with 699 Prospect st. That building has been rebuilt to such an extent that none of the original building can be seen. I will look around for vintage images of that building as well. EraserGirl (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have turned this into a redirect to the correct spelling. Another time, if you find an article's title is incorrect, you can change it by means of the "move" tab at the top. That leaves the old title as a redirect to the new one; often that is a sensible state of affairs, but if the old title is such a gross mis-spelling that no-one is likely to search for it, you can get rid of it by putting {{db-r3}} at the top of the redirect page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's often said that "redirects are cheap", and in this case one can quite imagine somebody searching for the "Tenny" spelling - this way he gets taken to the right place. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow philatelist-who-is-a-stamp-collector! I'm assuming that you're correct on this spelling issue, but could you come up with a good source for it being spelled with six letters? I don't know where to look myself. Thanks for working on it! Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rational person would just give you what you ask for. I however am not. I have lived across the street from it for 46 years. Everything in the town that is named after the 'Tenney' family is spelled correctly, including the 1895 blue prints for my own home. Just because someone made a typo while creating hundreds of WP Pages for NRHP listings doesn't mean I have justify correcting it. If you simply look at Charles_H._Tenney you will see that i am correct and there is nothing in town spelled differently. EraserGirl (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. thanks for your message. It is the standard format. I am very impressed by your image of First Baptist in Methuen. I'm interested in Carpenter Gothic churches (which are really wooden Gothic Revival churches. There aren't too many in New England. This is the first one I've found in Massachusetts. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only person to notice coord problems. See WP:NRIS issues, where you can find other problems that have been fixed, and where you can log problems that you've found. I'd encourage you to post here a note about each error that you find and correct, because problems listed on this page are reported periodically to the NRHP for fixes. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have actually found more wrong that correct, so I have started ignoring them completely. EraserGirl (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i wouldn't bother noting coordinates correction changes at wp:NRIS info issues. The coords in Massachusetts are mostly off by about 100 yards to the east i think, due to a 1985 coordinates system change that left the old U.S. geographical survey quadrant maps out of kilter that much for Massachusetts, relative to current GPS systems. Also in Massachusetts there is a different, state initiative afoot that might get many coordinates updated. Just go ahead and fix a coordinate in the NRHP article and/or list-article whenever you have better knowledge. doncram (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do i FIX a coordinate in the article? how do i generate the correct one? Terence Dolan House is off by more than 100 yards, like 2 or 3 houses. EraserGirl (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Well, first you need to determine what are the correct coordinates using Google maps or some other tool. You may get them in Degrees-Minutes-Seconds (dms) format or decimal format. And then revise coordinates appearing in the NRHP infobox in the place's article, and also revise the {{coord}} template entry for the place in the NRHP list-article that covers it, too. I recommend using Geolocator tool to get the coordinates. Please see a write-up on getting coords and putting them into NRHP articles, at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide#Coordinates. (Shortcut to that Manual of Style (MOS), in draft status, is wp:NRHPmos.) I just updated the coordinates section with other info i've learned recently, in order to be able to point you there. Please ask further questions, let me know if there's anything unclear there, as I would like for that section to serve other editors too. And/or just edit it, if you find out better information. Thanks! doncram (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EraserGirl, welcome to WikiProject NRHP from a fellow member. Glad you're on board, and I gather u are taking pics of many NRHPs in Essex Country which is great. :) By the way, i noticed your move of Bellvue Cemetery to Bellevue Cemetery. I presume that is a good correction, the error probably being an NRIS data entry typo, so i opened an error report about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRIS information issues#Massachusetts: property names. It would be helpful if you could provide a reference to what is the correct name, to add to that report. Thanks and keep up the good work! :) doncram (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but it makes me grind my teeth when I need to justify a correction for a typo. If you just Google it, you will find I am correct. I don't know what kind of evidence you are asking me for. Getting a picture of the 12 foot high wrought iron gate with the century old signage was not on my immediate schedule, but i will try to make time for it. EraserGirl (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No teeth-grinding necessary, no problem, never mind about this one. I would just be happy if you would note corrections needed as you come across them, with a link if you have one handy or without anything extra at all. I am investing some of my own volunteer time into shepherding correction notes to the National Register, because I believe it will overall serve us well to get them corrected. One reason is that it may help avoid having future wikipedia editors change our corrected info back to the incorrect info, by reasoning that the National Register and/or private mirror sites like http://www.archiplanet.com and http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com show the other version. doncram (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, this situation is very different from my experiences elsewhere with WP. I have found that some WP denizens would rather live with innacurate data, than allow corrections they don't personally vet. I didn't know you were feeding correct data back to the source. I am not ready to start researching Lawrence places yet, I am still working on Methuen. All I can say is that there is a big ass brass plaque on the gate, which i see everyday that tells me how to spell it. or we could link to the phone book. EraserGirl (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. No more proof needed, just your assertion / local knowledge is enough to raise the question to the National Register staff, who will look it up in the original NRHP application documents on file, which would show it spelled correctly for sure. By the way, it seems a good number of typos were added in the NRIS database entry process, but the NRHP applications themselves are for the most part perfect documents, written by architectural historians and others. So, the situation here is that while for the most part the National Register is accurate, and their making their database public is what enables us to generate county-lists and infoboxes easily (and that we should be grateful and so on), on the other hand we can observe numerous obvious typos and also there are questions on the margin. It does seem best to proceed by making the correction that seems appropriate, but follow up with an error report. I am sure that we will get back confirmations mostly, but sometimes it will be our own error and then we'll know what to correct back to the NRIS version. Thanks for the informative error report you just added for Tenney Castle Gatehouse, that is perfect. You may notice that many other error reports are quite cryptic. From a working copy shared to me of the error corrections in progress at the National Register, it does help them to have the refnum and the typo and the correct info stated clearly like you did in the Tenney one. Thanks! doncram (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask you to cite your sources — please remember that moving Bellvue Cemetery to Bellevue Cemetery, without adding a source for that spelling, is in violation of Verifiability. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you even read the 4 paragraphs above regarding this topic? EraserGirl (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nyttend is correct that having a source showing the Bellevue name would be better. Having sources is always good. But it is obviously a typo, at least to locals, so I would hope that Nyttend is only suggesting that adding some sources would be better, not that it would need to be reverted or anything. Nyttend, please consider how sketchy is our support for most of the typos noted at wp:NRIS info issues, and the fact that they are so far turning out to be confirmed by the National Register. It's better to have not-explicitly-documented but known-locally-to-be-correct assertion in an article, than to have an obvious typo version with NRIS as a source. And, with our system for reporting obvious or probable errors to NRIS, we will eventually get back a confirmation that our report is correct, or info to reverse our correction. So, assertions which have an associated NRIS error report, as this one has, are "higher quality" than others. Also, in cases of pretty obvious typos, NRIS is pretty well discredited by its hundreds of such errors, uncorrected for years. In fact, Google thinks this Bellvue one is a typo, too: Searching on "Bellvue Cemetery Lawrence Massachusetts" yields hits only for the Bellevue spelling, besides the former wikipedia article, in its first 10 hits. I'm adding the Find-a-grave source, which comes up first, to the article right now, which should resolve this fully for Nyttend too.

EraserGirl, I happen to notice also that you noted Turnpike House, at 314 Broadway in Methuen, Massachusetts, has been demolished. That is a more substantive assertion, and it would be good to get documentation: either a news article mentioning the demolition, or a photo of the site (which is like Original Research but is allowable for photos), or both. I may add a fact tag / "citation needed" for that, which is currently an undocumented assertion in the article. Please don't mind that; I do think that is fair, and it is appropriate to ask any reader to come up with a reference that might give more of a story, too. I already just now noted it in the "demolished but still listed" section for Massachusetts in wp:NRIS info issues. doncram (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the Turnpike House, I haven't forgotten it. I am working on getting the info. The city historian hasn't replied to me, i will try the city planner. we don't have a local newspaper which would have documented such a thing. I just wanted to add the notation now to excuse why there is no image. I have an image of the new house on the lot, but i won't load it until i write the article. I would rather put an image of the OLD house in the infobox. As far as the previous house, you know those time lapse films of a dead body deteriorating until there is nothing left? imagine driving past one of the oldest houses every day for years and years and watching THAT happen. It leaves an indelible image.EraserGirl (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will upload those Bellevue images in a few minutes. EraserGirl (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Doncram's page, you wrote:

I have started adding proper summaies to National Register of Historic Places listings in Methuen, Massachusetts can you peek at the page and tell me if i am on track. i hate going over the same ground twice. btw Nyttend is not as understanding regarding Bellevue as you. EraserGirl (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at a few of your summaries. They look good. One of the things I look for is that the info included in the summary actually comes from the article (I have encountered summaries written before the article was begun, for example, that did not match). Yours look very good on that account. Beyond that, I think consistency is the key. If you use complete sentences, use them in all the descriptions (I usually do fragments connected with ;, but either way is perfectly acceptable). Always begin the description with a capital letter. Stuff like that. I'd say you're on the right track. Lvklock (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i note that Turnpike House's NRHP infobox mentions a "Methuen MRA", which is a "Multiple Resource Assessment" (or something like that) study of historic sites that would most likely have been carried out by Massachusetts state staff, towards determining NRHP-eligibility of many sites at once. Surely you want to get a copy of it; it will be a 50 page or more document with tons of info on lots of sites, a great source to use in many articles. All the MRA / MPS (Multiple Property Submission) / TR (Thematic Resource study) documents are available on-line from the National Register. But i think their search system is broken, so you can't get the URL for the one you need. (You can try at: http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrcover.htm ) So, instead, send an email request to the National Register (same place you would request any NRHP application documents, too) at email: nr_reference (at) nps.gov . Hope you get the Methuen doc and find it to be useful. doncram (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks tons, i am already on the trail of that and i picked up a Methuen Reconnaissance Report Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory Program. I am waiting to hear back from our historic planner but the new one is only part time now. Don't worry i got it covered, if it's out there i will get a hold of it. My habit is to process the documents i have at hand, which is these little snippets from the methuenhistory.org. As I get each document I work the contents into WP. 8)EraserGirl (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i don't know where the central discussion is, if there is supposed to be one, for your quest for a state parks infobox. I know you saw my response to your posting at wt:NRHP, and now i see you're asking User:Dudemanfellabra for assistance. I'm not complaining, but i wonder if there should be some central discussion, and where you could get some organized input of prolific state parks article editors such as User:Ruhrfisch and others. I noticed, beforehand, but didn't comment upon, that you were wanting for the infobox to include fields for visiting hours. Actually including visiting hours for state parks or museums is not usually done in wikipedia. I think that is regarded as directory-like (see wp:NOTDIRECTORY ) and is unencyclopedic, besides being problematic to maintain accurately and completely. So, I and probably others would not support your having a field for visitation hours in a new infobox. I expect there still is room for improvement in other respects. I think, offhand, the protected areas infobox should be amended to address what else you might want, and that you should seek central discussion at wt:PAREAS and/or at Template talk:Infobox Protected area. I watch the wt:PAREAS, as I believe does Ruhrfisch, too, and/or you or i could invite him to comment there. doncram (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks i had left a couple of posts elsewhere trying to find some input on this topic. but so far no one has answered me. If you are telling me that what i want isn't withing WP rules. that's fine i will drop it. but i still think what's available isn't enough. EraserGirl (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i just tried to respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#State Parks, hoping to generate other input too. Please do discuss further there. State what you'd like ideally, there. I'd like to support you getting some changes (though as i stated i don't think hours and fee amounts are suitable). Anyhow, wt:PAREAS is the natural central place for discussion, i think. doncram (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I am giving up, I will make what I need for the articles I am working on. The hours and fees were just a part of the additional stuff that should be added, not the sum total of my proposal but now I think the idea is now painted as frivolous. EraserGirl (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the USGS GNIS page for a place it lists both the decimal and degrees minutes and seconds coordiantes - see here for Ames Nowell State Park. You can also always just do the conversion calculation by hand: so 42.12025 North you take the 0.12025 and multiply it by 60 to get 7.21500, so it is 7 minutes, then take 0.215 and multiply it by 60 to get 12.9 seconds, so 42.12025 North is 42°7′12.9″ North, or if you rounded the minutes 42°7′13″ North. It used to be TopoZone would let you enter one set of coordinates and click a button to see it in another format - that website is gone, not sure if any others let you do this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This website, linked from wp:NRHPmos, permits DMS <--> decimal conversion. Thanks, Ruhrfisch! I didn't know how to calculate it by hand, myself. doncram (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My cat was run over right in front of me and i had to take some down time.... back now. and will keep plugging away at Methuen landmarks. the library gave me free rein of the non-circulation material. EraserGirl (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on People from North Adams, Massachusetts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you take requests. But, the citations of Sitakunda Upazila need real fixing style-wise. Can you lend a hand? Please? No one is really taking an interest in this obscure location. But, I have worked long and hard on this one, and I believe, once the citations are cleaned up we can submit it confidently to FAC. Please? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are you talking about converting them to this style used here? Anna May Wong where the citations are followed by a bibliography? did you have a previous example you have in mind? and out of curiosity why me? EraserGirl (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no clue. It has already failed an FAC largely because of inconsistency of citation formats. Since, I am not very adept at this, I am really pinning my hopes on someone with better knowledge (that's you, dear). Thanks for your compassion, and the reply. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what kiddo, I was trying to trace some of the comments back to their source, and found some of them went nowhere. example is Citation #79, which links to an article about a house fire, with nothing regarding the energy company. Unlike certain wiki administrators I am not about to go lopping statements out of an article of which I know nothing about. It is easier to find the proper source and correct the link. I can certainly help with the format, but most of those citations will need to be checked for validity first. You would have to help me with that since I know just about nothing about the subject. so if you take a stab at verifying that those sources that link to something on line are correct - I will help you reformat Wikistyle. EraserGirl (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something must be pretty broken here. Cite 79 should actually lead to Cite 76, which is about the energy company, and Cite 79 connects to Cite 82, which is about the fire service. Cant't even begin to guess how it could go so messed up. (BTW, did you just call someone born in 1970 a kiddo? Ahahahahha... I like that). Could you take a look at how cites got so messed up? I believe they were kind of okay (sans the problem with formatting uniformity) before a previous attempt to fix them. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That mess with cites 76, 79 and 82 looks like fixed now. Would you take another look? And, I really promise to be there if there's a problem with any verifiability or quality of sources, or any such thing. But, well, the formatting, uniforming and code fixing stuff still are a bit beyond my capacity. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you of this policy page — don't address me in an aggressive fashion. You attributed these sections to a webpage that said absolutely nothing about them, so I removed the text from the article and the bits on the list that depended on those sources. Now that you provide a link to a page that does source this, I have no complaints. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the links, then. Don't keep adding the POV bits, such as "rich agricultural history". And don't revert anything until you fix the problems. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i will admit to sloppily carrying over the POV stuff, which I had been trying to excise. But that was the stuff that the boys sent into the Feds in 1984. But they didn't seem to have any better material to fill in the gaps. Apparently they sent in about twice as many potential properties as was accepted, and some of the ones that are NRHP have very thin information. EraserGirl (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing me of bad faith — I ran a search for Emerson House and got nothing from that page. As I said on the town listing talk page, I don't know this website, so I didn't realise that some sites were listed only by address and not by name. Sorry for that mistake. And I'm not playing with you: I am doing my best to ensure that we comply with NPOV and V to the point that people like me, if they're paying attention, will have no difficulty getting the information. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually kiddo, i just think your a bully. You don't seem to want an outsider playing with NHRP. I am not going away. I have been trying for 2 years to get the town historian who's site that is, or anyone in city hall to DO THIS, but i couldn't. None of them see any value in WP. So instead you got me. and I do think you are messing with me, because it is far easier to tell me you think I making repetative mistakes, then I could fix all my links. Following me around to erase my work is tedious, petty and uncool. EraserGirl (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i've been on both sides of accusing someone else of being a bully, and being accused myself. I don't know if bullying can be defined, it is more of a perception, if you experience it then that is your experience. But, clearly sometimes bullying accusations stem from misunderstandings of wikipedia policies and what are usual practices for addressing problems. Anyhow, glancing at some of what went on, i don't think it's fair to go too far in imputing bullying here. Nyttend is pretty consistent in addressing issues of POV language and sourcing in NRHP-related articles everywhere, from my observation. On the other hand, i sympathize somewhat, and note that Nyttend has had (as I have) some similar testy situations with other editors. The POV and sourcing concerns could instead be raised by Talk page notes, and could be allowed a few days for fixing. It is hard not to take it personally when experiencing outright deletions of material with only brief edit summaries, and/or when experiencing reversions that are almost immediate in their timing. Some more communication, and slower pace of attempting to deal with the issues, would help, IMHO. Talkpaging more, and giving each interaction a day or so, has helped me in clearing up some situations like this, anyhow. Perhaps you have already solved any issue along those lines, that way? Again, i haven't looked at this in detail, these are just a few thoughts which I hope might be helpful. doncram (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with EraserGirl, Nyttend has shown consistently that he is a bully on certain wikipedia pages, and personally I think his administrative priviliges should be revoked for that reason. He consistently displays an inability to remain objective when he is editing other people's works, and has gone into the realm of petty several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.92.128 (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Skin of Our Teeth Handbill.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor already fixed the licensing issues. Thanks! (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the last months there hasn't been any edit on this web page Cape Verdean American if visited cape verdean american wep pages on google yesterday and saw a few things of cape vereans in rhode island since if followed wikiproject rhode island i wanted to ask you if you could edit somethings on cape verdean american (Questchest (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The article about Rodolfo Valentin has been in wikipedia from several years, rewarded with an star class and supported by the wiki project. For no reason, the deletion of the article has been nominated....Can you please help to "keep" it?. thank you very much!Nicole reutman (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki SPAM? EraserGirl (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've left a note on the one-person show talk page related to this, but then I noticed that you're changing categories as well, so thought I'd leave a message here. You need to restore the old category descriptions to plays that are performed by one performer. Monodrama is a term that means much more than "enacted by one person". I've given some starting points for research on that talk page. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you create Category:Plays for one performer when Category:Monodrama already existed? 209.247.21.77 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you are a recent large contributor to these articles (though perhaps have moved on). I have been working on the list and many of the articles, particularly continuing your infobox installations. Please don't hesitate to offer any guidance you may have. In particular, please see Dunn State Park where someone placed unsourced description and direct cut and paste from the DCR website. I'm uncertain as to whether it should stay, but so far have just copy edited for it. Best regards, OldPine (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to create a navbox for urban parkways in the Boston metro area, I have come to the realization that what is really needed is something that ties together the entire system first envisioned by Charles Eliot in the late nineteenth century. I feel that this should be a cooperative effort, probably created as a subproject of WP:MASS. However, initially I am seeking comments and/or assistance from several editors that have contributed in various ways to elements of the scope of such a project. This note is being posted to the user pages of Beland, CaribDigita, Denimadept, EraserGirl, Grk1011, Hertz1888, Jameslwoodward, Markles, NE2, Polaron and Swampyank. I apologize in advance to anyone who wishes to comment that I have left off of the list of users, as I may have unintentionally forgotten them and others. Please feel free to comment on my talk page under the heading I have created, linked here. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]