Stbalbach

I am at a loss to understand why you deleted the post

"The term Dark Ages has been used in other areas. For example some archaeologists use it to describe the Gutian period at the collapse of the Akkadian Empire; the First Intermediary Period and Second Intermediary Period of Ancient Egypt; the late Bronze Age collapse and associated Greek dark ages, the collapse of Mayan civilisation, the collapse of the Angkor civilisation after Jayavarman VII, and what happened on Easter Island."

Can you explain?

Regards John D. Croft 18:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would really like your help in updated the entry for the New7Wonders project. I made several changes last week and was disappointed to see that all of it had been reverted. I am impressed with your history of postings on Wiki and fully admit I am a newbie at this. That said, there are MANY details that need to be updated about the project and its scope. The language is a little misleading in several places also. I fully admit that I may not have properly linked and refed everything, but was disappointed to see that it had all been reverted. Please, especially that you have a history of editing this section, give me a hand as I update the text and clarify some of the details. I work on the web site (new7wonders.com) and have access to the project details. Thanks, AS

Hi, I see you started this (if I got the name right). I have added a few stubby existing articles from Cat: History of clothing (Europe) or whatever its called, but am not sure if I should leave the Cat: Medieval history some some have, or replace it with this? Johnbod 15:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure either. Medieval historians usually call it "costume", but it looks like there is an existing naming structure for Wikipedia (if a bit verbose in wording). -- Stbalbach 14:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Category:Medieval costume

Johnbod, I would suggest that Category:Medieval costume should be changed to Category:History of clothing (Medieval Europe) and made a subcat of the existing Category:History of clothing (Europe) for consistency. A redirect from Medieval costume would be good. I can make the changes but wanted to be sure you're okay with it before I do. - PKM 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll ask Stbalbach, who "does" the medieval history side - I think at the moment this is a history sub-cat, but i'm not good on categories. Obviously i think it ashould be in both fields. I'm now working on Byzantine dress - that seems rather under-categorised too. I'll copy these to his page. Johnbod 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great! Actually just adding Medieval costume as a subcat of Category:History of clothing (Europe) would probably do the trick and be easier for users to understand. The barebones history of costume structure is overly pedantic as the result of trying to mitigate an edit war (see Talk:History of Western fashion for the gory details). I made most of it up. I don't like it on sober reflection.

I have sent you an email.

Want to start a Project on History of clothing? - PKM 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing. I think I'm basicly done now anyway. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with your edits of my additions to "Kilimanjaro" that spoken word is not an adequate citation. These people do NOT have a written history, and by interviewing them WE create the reference. However I can't keep challenging you, since you obviously have way more time on wiki than I could have. I invite you to reply to my @yahoo address, same name. ThanksPabobfin 06:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability - there are only about 5 or 6 actual "policies" on Wikipedia, everything else is a "guideline" open for interpretation. "Verifiability" is one of those core policies. If what you say it true, it should be no trouble finding a documented source somewhere, so that other people can Verify it. Information received "word of mouth" fails the Verifiability test. Nothing personal against your or the people just one of the core Wikipedia policies. -- Stbalbach 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stbalbach, I notice that you removed my contribution to the woodchuck article which read thusly:

Because of the aforementioned tongue twister, the woodchuck is also widely known as the arch-nemesis of the fictional, collective-minded Internet Oracle. This fact is alluded to in the computer game NetHack where traveling on the Oracle Level while hallucinating may cause the following in-game message to appear:

You hear someone say, "No more woodchucks!"

I cannot but concur that the part about NetHack violates WP:Notability, but I am not so sure about the Internet Oracle part (I definitely could cite sources, that one could definitely argue as lacking WP:Verifiability). Can we find a middle ground (hog)? DomQ 13:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the change, because, believe it or not, 'billion' in Britain refers to a million million, or what Americans call a 'trillion'. See Billion (disambiguation). Those crazy Brits ruined the language again... Ral315 (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Didn't know that. BTW are we sure that the 20,000 number is sustained, or represents a peak load? Normally hits are not given "on average per second" (which takes some effort to figure out), but rather "peak loads"(which can be seen on a graph) - but it may be in this case. -- Stbalbach 14:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I got the number from the developers; I'm not sure to what they were referring. Ral315 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The next formal step is to file a report on WP:DRV. Once you have done so, I would be happy to comment. I am generally very open to reversing my decisions, especially when the result is controversial. Let me know once the listing has been made and I would be happy to contribute my views. Good luck and best regards, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to have helped. It's too bad there was such strident opposition from users who cannot see the problem. But I think this is the final curtain. Thanks for making the DRV request. I hadn't been paying attention after commenting on the first TfD, and I overlooked the fact that it had been kept until I checked several days later. RyanGerbil10 also helped me out by pointing out the policies that it violated (NPOV and RS), on my talk page, and I was able to incorporate that into my argument. — coelacan talk — 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hm. See this? [[1]] The blue list is a project list of articles not cleared. I'm not sure how I feel about this; I certainly hoped the matter was finished! btw I will clearly have to split poor old Castelseprio. Johnbod 00:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a note: you accidentally deleted one of my comments.[2] No worries. I'm not sure what happened, but if you're by chance using an external editing program, you might want to double check that it's not doing this elsewhere. Peace, — coelacan talk — 07:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was not using an external editor - I didn't see your comment when I posted either even though it was an hour before. It's a good suggestion. No idea what happened. -- Stbalbach 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stephen, I see you have a current interest in the Sutton Hoo article. Glad you just restored the Britannia link. I am planning a bit of an overhaul on this article (for which I think I am qualified) and thought I'd mention it in case you wondered what was happening. It may take a little while and might look a bit unbalanced at times while I'm doing it as I shall be putting in but not necessarily taking out all on the same save, since it is bound to be a fairly long article (and is already). I'd welcome your comments (on my userpage discussion, for ease of finding, if possible) as it progresses. I've read some of the content on the site page discussion so I can see what the previous arguments have been about. Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure, look forward to it. The edits you made so far are excellent. -- Stbalbach 14:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've written all I want now. Now exchanging thoughts with GDallimore on the discussion page re referencing, and would value your input on this or the text itself. Dr Steven Plunkett 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, my references seem to have run away with themselves! It needs a couple more in the Beowulf section, perhaps fewer (and trimming) in the burial description? Any suggestions, or glaring gaps in references? Its nearly at full wiki length now. Maybe when Raedwald of East Anglia is revised some of that part can go out. (67MB). Best, Dr Steven Plunkett 05:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lots of references are good. I have not done a careful reading top to bottom as your still refining. I'm trying to find free images to better illustrate - a map of the mounds would be great but finding a free version has been hard (still looking). -- Stbalbach 05:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good work! I think I've about done my bit now. What we really want is some free images of the treasure (specially goldwork, big hanging bowl, sceptre etc) but that will be harder (as all the official ones are BM copyright). I might be able to do something with the Ipswich Museum replicas. The article is already 64 MB long before you put the pic in btw: Wikipedia:Article length ########## 32 I see but allows for more...! But as I am using Firefox Mozilla toolbar and Google (supposedly weak) and am having no trouble loading this may be less of a problem now from the technical pov. Readability is another matter. Dr Steven Plunkett 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I think I have a place to get some free images, for some of the items, will look into it tomorrow. Don't worry about article length, no one pays attention to it if the article is good, and if this becomes featured it will be expected to be long. -- Stbalbach 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS if we put others in, possibly the Swedish helmet now at the bottom of the page ought to be relocated to its relevant article (Vendel or Valsgarde)? Dr Steven Plunkett 06:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just contacted about a dozen people on Flickr.com who have Sutton Hoo pictures - it will take a week or so to hear back from them; hopefully some will agree to release the images and then we will have a stock to choose from it should be apparent where to put things and then focus on obtaining any missing important images. -- Stbalbach 16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well done! the shield, purse and shoulder-clasp pictures are specially good. I've posted a picture comment on the site discussion. Dr Steven Plunkett 06:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Making Of King Kong is an incredible book because it was co-written in the late 60's (although it wasn't completed and published until the mid 70's) by Orville Goldner who actually worked on King Kong.

• He describes the Elasmosaur as being designed as more slender then the ones known to science and its swimming limbs are less prominent.
• The Stegosaur is a combination of two species the Stegosaurus ungulatus and the relatively unknown Kentrosaurus.
• The great sauropod Brontosaurus or more correctly Apatosaurus.
• The three horned Triceratops (none of which appears in the release version).
• The Arsinoitherium another casualty of the cutting room.
• The giant spiders and insects of the gorge were wholly imaginary although he said that a large reptile in the gorge was loosely based on the Cynognathus.
• The huge serpent that appeared in one scene and was later cut out of the film had its living prototype in Egypt. This was a giant snake that menaces Fay Wray at the foot of the tree. It was cut but you can see Fay's reactions to it below her. Look at Fay's reactions just before the T-Rex comes into the clearing.
• The curious reptile that menaces Driscoll during the gorge episode is largely imaginary. Although he said it was loosely based on the features of the Desmatosuchus.
• The giant vulture, Teratornis, and the flying reptiles, Rhamphorynchus are authentic. The vulture is seen eating the dead T-Rex and the Rhamps are seen flying around Kongs cave and one flies away as Kong put Fay Wray in the tree.
• He also describes the Pteranodon and the T-Rex. He explains in detail about the problem with the number of fingers, but that it was a T-Rex. (Although Cooper tended to call it an Allosaurus).

Hope that helps.

• Edit: I saw the book you citied on the King Kong (1933) page. That book is about PJ's King Kong film. The Making Of King Kong book I'm talking about was written by Orville Goldner and George Turner and was published in 1975. It was later expanded by Turner's son and re-released I believe in 2002 as The Spawn Of Skull Island.

Giantdevilfish 05:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, it's added to the article. -- Stbalbach 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. We may need to change few things, according to imdb http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0628579/filmoseries#tt0047705 Newton made 26 episodes, he just finished before he died. Now, on amazon and everywhere else i found there are 13 shows,volume 1 and 2, like article says, but the link above, 26 shows, but ???, meaning something is very screwy. But that is 8 shows, i was only able to find 13. Another thing we should add, when he died he left his 5 year old child, there was a huge custody battle over him, finally he was left in care of his aunt and his half sister, of course, i do not have link for that, but i found some info via old newspapers, i can not copy pdf file here.Are you a fan? What's the code to create archives and a rectangle, so my talk appears in a square?

What's your email? I can not show evidence with historical newspaper file, may be I can send it to you and you post it. -Boxingwear

Hello. I noticed that you have reverted my removal of commercial link spam in several articles. As you may know, teach12.com is a retail sales website. Such links are disallowed by WP:External links, which prohibits "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." May I ask why you have restored them all? Thank you for your time. -- Satori Son 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, you removed not only the links but everything else including any mention the authors have published works through TTC. Teaching Company is more than just a retail site they are publishers of university courses and their pages contain valuable information. In one case you even removed links that were being used as footnoted citations. -- Stbalbach 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I live in Bristol which is too far from Sutton Hoo for me to visit it (or the British museum). Shame!! - Adrian Pingstone 21:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask your help in the poll to dirime this edit war at Castelseprio (see talk:Castelseprio)? I've stumbled in somebody with awful style layout, nad probably one of those guys getting stuck like children in their version of any article. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any particular reason why you reverted my edit to the Frankenstein page? I've put a query up on the discussion page for that article, so it would be good if you could respond there. Obviously if there's a good reason then fair enough, but I can't see one personally. Phil PH 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see you've put it back -- thanks. Phil PH 19:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I left an edit note, your edit got caught up in a mass revert of a bunch of vandalism. -- Stbalbach 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

for your positive response on the Stern review talk page :D . Regards Sean Heron 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are two redlinks on your userpage. Just thought you might like to know. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ

Hi. The template in question has now been deleted but earlier this month its creator also added a link as part of the main Project:Catholicism template inviting editors to use the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia [3] (also see the discussion - or lack of it - on the template's talk page). Presumably the result of the deletion debate also covers this addition (obviously, I'm not referring to the Project:Catholicism template as a whole). We shouldn't need another debate to remove it but I wonder if there is a quick way of getting rid of these additions - or do we have to remove them one by one? Cheers. --Folantin 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow - that was quick! Meanwhile, I happened upon a rather neat illustration of just why these templates and maybe categories are undesireable here (2nd item) Talk:Agnolo_di_Cosimo Johnbod 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, this is really weird. Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to still be incorporating articles that contain a link to the deleted {{HistSource}}. I went into Talk:Fatalism and deleted the redlinked HistSource template and the talk page immediately fell out of the category. What the heck? — coelacan talk — 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It may be a delay in Wikipedia's cache. I've noticed similar oddities lately. Give it a couple hours. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the entire category be deleted per the debates we've already held? --Folantin 10:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Probably, the article was created for the Catholic-link template, which was deleted. I don't think anyone was aware of the category. -- Stbalbach 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. If it doesn't disappear of its own accord, maybe I should put it up at CfD. It should be speedily deleted per the previous debates we've held. --Folantin 15:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know about HistSource; I see that it has been speedied already. I hope we don't see any more of these things. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pardon me for asking, but is there a reason you have a link to an indefinitely banned spammer's business (centiare.com) on your user page? --Calton | Talk 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I added it as a reminder to myself. It's not a problem in terms of linkspam since external links on Wikipedia are not picked up by search engines for ranking purposes. -- Stbalbach 04:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Another admin actually beat me to the block, but didn't add the notices, so I filled in. I'm guessing we're dealing with a kid here. Never responding to a single talk-page message is odd, as if the user didn't understand what s/he was doing. Typical vandals usually like to start arguments with people who warn them, but this user's singular focus was really unusual, at least in my experiences. Anyway, good work, and please let me know if it resumes. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree it was very unusual, and persistent over many months, even adding red-linked images that had already been deleted, like a robot (but that would be too weird - incompetent more likely). -- Stbalbach 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

They are being deleted because they were almost all put in a a linkspam campaign by the site owner and in general were reckoned duplicates of gothenberg texts. If you are active on an article and think they are useful you are more than welcome to put them back there. --BozMo talk 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

seeWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Special:Contributions.2FRiapress_adds_links_to_riapress.com. Maybe I was a bit hasty. --BozMo talk 19:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I apologise, but given the problem we have with spam 75 links which land on WP like this: [4] is pretty much sitting in a field mooing so if I mistook for a cow that's life. Also about 25% of them were non sequitor drop in spam... --BozMo talk 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The site owner point though is contentious. Funnily I always argue that EVERY change to WP should only be done if it definitely improves it but I always get voted down in favour of WP:COI link campaigns should be reverted on sight. --BozMo talk 19:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gutenberg does not produce PDF's - PD books can come in a number of formats: plain text, HTML markup, text->PDF, scan->PDF, audio. At least one example from each is acceptable as people re-use the material in different ways depending on their intended purpose and preferences. Just because there is a Gutenberg version is not reason alone to remove other versions. -- Stbalbach 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. When two links are redundant to each other then we should prune them down to the most relevant & trusted. I can see where a visual and a audio copy would both be acceptable, but two visual formats would be redundant. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

nah, text and PDF are different, used in very different ways for different reasons. It is not for you to decide what format readers should or should not have access to. The "repository of links" argument only makes sense in the context of having multiple links to the same type of format (ie, multiple HTML versions, which is a common problem).

For example, many people are using things like the Sony Reader these days which supports PDF. There is no reason not to include a PDF version of a text if it is available. And BTW just doing a straight conversion from text to PDF is not what I mean, it requires skills and time to create a good looking PDF (book quality), it is an original work in its own right. Comparing text to PDF is apples and pears. -- Stbalbach 01:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Sony Reader supports TXT files. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

..and it supports PDF files. Have you ever tried to read a text file on a Sony Reader? I have they look awful. PDF has fonts and formating it is much preferred. -- Stbalbach 14:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stbalbach, the email read:

We have received the permission for the image(s) and have made the necessary modifications to the Image page(s).

Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to the Wikimedia Commons.

Yours sincerely, Bastiq▼e ^demandez 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 8#Template:HistSource. Anyway, was there any growing desire to take Category:Articles that could be expanded from the Catholic Encyclopedia to WP:CFD? I've seen no indication that it's intended to be used in any manner other than that which has already resulted in previous consensus deletions. — coelacan talk — 05:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Agreed I think we need to CfD it. -- Stbalbach 15:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Seen this? There's a possibility it might just be acceptable but check out the "debate" on the talk page. --Folantin 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good move. Thanks. I have it watchlisted just in case yet another debate arises on the talk page there. --Folantin 14:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would signal you the behaviour of user:Johnbod at Castelseprio: another personal attempt to put back the page at his will to a pre-Edir War version, when a large consensus had been reached to keep things as they were. He did an alleged splitting, but not the one discussed there. Bye and thanks --Attilios 01:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, sir. You left me a message on my "Talk" page that I was experimenting with Wikipedia. I was not. There was a factual error on the "Oliver Twist" page. Brownlow DID NOT induce Monks to give half of his inheritance to Oliver... Oliver gave half of his inheritance to MONKS.

Quote from Oliver Twist: "It appeared, on full and careful investigation, that if the wreck of property remaining in the custody of Monks (which had never prospered either in his hands or in those of his mother) were equally divided between himself and Oliver, it would yield, to each, little more than three thousand pounds. By the provisions of his father's will, Oliver would have been entitled to the whole; but Mr. Brownlow, unwilling to deprive the elder son of the opportunity of retrieving his former vices and pursuing an honest career, proposed this mode of distribution, to which his young charge joyfully acceded."

Please do not accuse me of experimenting with Wikipedia unless you are absolutely sure that I was placing a factual error in Wikipedia. Please respond to me on my Talk page.

VBKid

I'm going to revert the section life to the previous version, the way it was before it got touched by the sockpuppets (which includes the edits you just restored). I'm doing this in order to enforce WP:BAN, i.e. reverting a banned editor's contributions regardless of their quality. This aims to convince some banned, disruptive users that they're not welcome in wikipedia anymore. So it has nothing to do with the section's content. Miskin 15:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't do that, the content is fine. Consider it me who is adding it. If you have any concerns about the content I have added please work it out on the talk page. -- Stbalbach 15:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Or consider it to be mine, I will take responsibility for it. I have been making some tiny edits - my very first - and I have been rewriting it, but not posting it yet, since I want to make sure I don't accidentally screw up. I honestly do not now what to do anymore. On the page Miskin referred to, about enforcing bans, it says it's ok to revert work by sock puppets, as long as you take the responsibility for it. It took a long time reading up on it. Miskin, don't waste your time - I was about to edit the whole thing anyway. La Belle Aude 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help. I am a relatively unadvanced user, and appreciate your moderating my changes. All of the remarks regarding Twain that I posted can be supported from the actual text of the book. If I need to provide quotes (chapter and verse - which I can) in order to sustain the comments, I will.

Well, if you can cite someone else, a third party, who has been published, then we can use that. At Wikipedia we report on what other people say, not make original arguments (or in this case a counter-argument). I'm sure there must be critics of this author that can be cited? -- Stbalbach 21:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, i'm under probation, could you fix the category links (red ones) of the Huns article? Regards. E104421 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Appreciated. Thanx. E104421 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I think you know that I have been as active as anyone in protecting this article from casual and anonymous edits. But I thought that the recent anonymous editor's point about the lead's reference to the Commedia as a work "of the Renaissance" was pretty justified, as I stated in my edit summary. The designation would, indeed, not be universally or even very widely accepted, and the lead of an article is not the place to drop such a claim. I'm all for a section "Dante on the cusp of the Renaissance" vel sim. (with names and references), but that is what is needed in my opinion. Feel free to move this discussion to the talk page; I would have put it there, but I'm bringing it up here because I realized in practice that a comment on the talk page would have been meant only for the purpose of reaching agreement with you, and I didn't want to create the appearance of calling you out. Wareh 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi sorry didn't mean to just over-write you there, I didn't read the previous edit comments. Well, this sentence: "the last great work of literature of the Middle Ages and the first great work of the Renaissance", puts an emphasis on the work as being transitional between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance - it doesn't call it the "greatest work of the middle ages", which is certainly debatable, the period covers a 1000 years and seems kind of silly to say there was a single greatest work. I think emphasizing the work as transitional between two periods is a better way to go and more in line with how critics approach it. -- Stbalbach 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're right that "greatest" is probably not the best choice (though it would be easy to line up a long list of good sources agreeing on it). But "last great" is worse, because it's simply false (Chaucer's Canterbury Tales are great and Medieval and later). I'll change it to "one of the greatest," which should work better. As to the "Renaissance" claim, I'll leave it in for now, but I think the anonymous editor had a point there; it's a common enough claim, but it's dubious and would be more satisfactory if explained with references, at least so that the reader knows how much a stretch it is in some ways. Wareh 23:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just noticed "Twinkle" and I created my own /monobook.js file and I wanted to know how exactly to use it since you seem to use it also. Tell me, after I add the first bit of code what do I do next? Here's my monobook.js page. Can you tell me what i'm missing to make it work? User:Wikidudeman/monobook.jsWikidudeman ^(talk) 23:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, This is given a "main article" link in Migration period art yet, though old, it is a very poor stub & much less full than the section in Migration period art. Either the stub should be zapped, or the fuller text copied over - or some sort of swop even. What do you think? Johnbod 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to keep what is currently in the Migration period art article since it forms a full article. Copying the whole section to the Animal Style article is fine also - it would be a dup - over time the AS article may be more fully "fleshed out", then it may be possible to go back to the Migration Period article and re-write it so it matches up with the main article. Unless you want to re-write the AS article from scratch which is fine too. -- Stbalbach 03:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No - it's not an area I know much about. I'll copy it over, and delete the Main article tag for the moment, as it won't give the reader any extra Johnbod 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I might not be able to help expanding that Anglo-Saxon art though. Oh dear. Johnbod 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

"I can't tell what your up to with this article, creating a section title called "LiV" (what is that, a secret code?) and an edit comment of "1 + 2 = OR :)" it doesn't look like a good faith effort to improve the article. Just because you found some old pictures of people with two fingers raised doesn't mean they are giving a "two-finger salute" as it is described in the article. If you can find a source which says these pictures are of a two-finger salute then please do so. -- Stbalbach 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC) "Reply

I like to explain you, that "OR" - you asking is not a secret code but I wanted 'it' to mean WP:OR. I just do not believe, that you believe, that counting is OR. Do You? I believe research may start from counting, lets say, above 10k but not counting below 5 or 4. I understand you worry that the two fingers may mean something secret, but I hope, I did not reveal any secrets .... | /

Nasz 02:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

For the first time in well, over a month, we've put something together. We've been a little busy / the tubes of the internets crashed so apologies on the delay. We're finally back to normal, we hope....

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!

• Episode 11 MP3

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 03:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

"Western art" is an extremely broad catch - any category of that name should be composed almost entirely of sub-categories. For example I see you are adding very specific articles such as Ottonian art, which is already a sub-cat of Medieval art, which should then be a sub-cat of western art. -- Stbalbach 05:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. I'm work my way to that. Thanks for keeping an eye on things! [>>sparkit|TALK<<] 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (please respond on my talk page)Reply

Hi, I don't know if you are interested in the discussion going on at the IM talk page [5]. Any comments welcome. Johnbod 21:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 12:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm not sure the rock songs aren't a price worth paying to avoid a disam page, which I suspect is the alternative! A better section title is needed, as "derivative" is presumably over-stating it - "Modern works entitled AM" maybe. The article as it stands doesn't quite bear out your edit summary statement that it was a phrase in general use. What do you think?

Btw there is ongoing debate on sub-classifying Illuminated manuscripts here, if you're interested. Cheers Johnbod 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well there are two ways to look at it: derivative and adaptation. The first is a minor, perhaps even unintentional inclusion of a piece of a work in another work (the name, some element); the second is a re-make or adaptation of the work, keeping it mostly intact. I am fine with the second case, but derivatives are too open ended and indiscriminate per WP:NOT; without contextual description linking the derivative work to the original in some meaningful and notable way, it is trivia to even mention it. Most of those derivative works really had nothing to do with the original work, except in name only, which could be summed up in the article in one sentence: "Many songs, video games and other popular culture works use the same name." This whole thing is currently being worked out right now and is a hot topic of discussion, many "in pop culture" articles are being deleted. I have mixed views on it.

I read the IM category discussions above - I try to avoid category work as I find it confusing, overwhelming and frustrating, but trust you will come up with something, I will be happy to follow. I'm glad to see DMS involved as he is pretty knowledgeable. If you need a vote let me know. -- Stbalbach 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - it seems to be coming round ok I hope. Johnbod 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there a particular reason why my edit to the King Kong page was removed? Kong is no longer in the public domain. His rights are split up between Time Warner, Universal, and the Cooper estate. The book Living Dangerously goes into detail how the Cooper estate fought to get the rights to the King Kong character back, and how the rights are split up among 3 parties. Alot has changed since the early 1980's. Furthmore why was my pinball machine add deleted?Giantdevilfish 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I reverted vandalism and didn't scroll down to see there was a good edit in there. -- Stbalbach 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's Ok. Thanks for the revert.Giantdevilfish 22:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What I wrote eralier today about the term being applied by RFC fliers to their German foe as being friendly and not derogatory has been removed. Why? Regards, Skipper

Skipper, regarding this sentence:

"..the English Royal Flying Corps (First World War) referred to their foe affectionately as "The Hun". It is true that actually no offence was indeed intended on the most part by the British but the Germans did themselves find it offensive.

From everything I know about propaganda in WWI, the Germans were called Huns to stoke up hatred against the Germans - stories were created about Germans eating babies and other similar atrocities, particularly as they went through the low countries. Even if certain members of society were more enlightened, such as the RFC who used the term with "no offence intended", it seems like trivia to the main importance that the term was derogatory. We shouldn't list all the exceptions of people who used the term "affectionately" (anyway, how can one be affectionate towards someone your trying to kill?). -- Stbalbach 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Firstly thnaks for the response and I appreciate the point of view you are trying to put across. Nevertheless, I feel I must point out that while I used the RFC as a specific example, it was not just them that used the term without offense intended. Regrading your quetsion on how you can refer affectionately to someone you are trying to kill obviously I best elaborate. For me too it is difficult to understand as after all they were at war with each other but a strange bond existed between both sides as both new they could plunge to their deaths in a ball of flames. I speak from the British perspective when I say that they, atleast in the early years, treated it as a sport and were just as sadened to think of killing a German pilot as when they lost one of there on. In fact, some pilots were actually devestated on achieveing their first kill as, although they ahd achieved their aim, they did not actually hate their enemy as maybe the foot soldiers in the trenches did.

Therefore I request that perhaps it would be worth a dding a short paragraph explaining that not all of British Society felt this way. If neccesary I will type it and I can quote sources and give examples. Thanks again for your earlier response and I look forwrad to your reply.

Warm regards,

Skipper

Your edits on this are a bit problemmatic - the robed Christ is as much a Western type as Eastern, but in both areas it had been superceded by the loin-cloth by the C11th (with odd exceptions - the Theodore Psalter (Byzantine) of 1066 is the last Schiller shows). It was the West that had a concern over nudity; in the East the type was apparently designed to show Christ wearing the Collobium to show his royal status (not a feature of the original Volto Santo). There are numerous Insular examples including Muiredach's High Cross (other side from picture) and St. Gall Gospel Book, an C8th wall-painting in Rome & so on. The Volto Santo (when not dressed up for parading) shows more the Western type of plain tunic.

Also, I have not seen any examples of the lead figures & can't confirm they have survived. This was a very typical type of cheapish pilgrim souvenir & their existence may have been assumed - Hall does not specify. Schiller has pics of pectoral crosses, in gold, bronze etc. I don't like lumping the large wooden crosses with the small ones, as it seems unlikely the large crosses would have caused any misunderstanding, unlike the small ones. It would also seem more likely that the dealers you have removed caused the problem than pilgrims etc - another source I have seen in the past (Emile Male?) blames it all on them. I can't get the Volto Santo pic at the article to open btw. Cheers Johnbod 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Responded on the talk page and made some edits. Might be multiple views that need to be incorporated. If you think my sources are mistaken we can remove entirely, they are not authoritative or detailed. -- Stbalbach 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ok, I'll copy an edited version of this to the talk page too. In general Schiller is pretty authoritative & detailed - theres no question there was a Byzantine type of robed crucifix, but whether the VS is an example of it is questionable. 20:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This is a special episode we recored specifically dealing w/ the whole Essjay/Ryan Jordan situation. We recorded this before Jimbo's second comment, so it might be a little dated but still a good listen.

• Episode 12 MP3

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 08:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Hey Stbalbach,

Someone has taken down most of the article on Saladin. Can you look into what is going on?Mk26gmls 16:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

    Silverwhistle got it fixed a few minutes ago, though it might not last long.  Thank you.Mk26gmls 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 13!

We've decided to avoid the direct link to the audio file in an attempt to prevent any sort of audio format war. You can download whichever version you want (we have OGG, MP3 and AAC on the site.

The direct download to Episode 13 is http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/03/06/wikipedia-weekly-13/

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 07:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

I think you are in error so rarely, that it's worth contacting you. I have added this article to the Category:Historiography. I don't think the three paragraphs on changing perspectives in the history of ideas are any good, but I feel the subject of changing historiographic assessment needs to be available somewhere at Wikipedia, and linked from a concise version at Migration Period. I am sorry to have reverted your deletion, which seems like a coarse act. But Voelkerwanderung redirects to Migration Period. How should this be best handled? I'm not competent to write the historiographic account myself. You might well be, however... --Wetman 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem, it may have been a rash move. Thanks for the note. I'll keep my eye out for a source that discusses it. -- Stbalbach 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There'd be some bibliography in the second part of Hanno Helbing's Goten und Wandalen: Wandlung der historischen Realität (Zurich) 1954, and there must be coverage in Donald R. Kelley, Fortunes of History: Historical Inquiry from Herder to Huizinga. Some main historians of the Romantic Volkwerwandung view might be ranged in relation to Theodor Gaupp's romantic nationalist view and Felix Dahn's view of echt German political virtues, corrected by Fustel de Coulanges and by Paul-Émile Littré. But I haven't read any of the old texts. --Wetman 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 14!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 14 is at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/03/11/wikipedia-weekly-14/

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

   * We wrap up the Essjay affair, as the famous Wikipedian cuts ties to the online encyclopedia.
   * A look at the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year Competition, which finished earlier this week. In addition, all the Featured Pictures of 2006 are available as a bittorrent download.
   * The new “Username Usurpation” feature at the English Wikipedia.
   * Jimmy Wales travels to India for the recent Indian WikiCamp, and narrowly survives an attack of ninja monkeys.
   * One thousand Featured Articles at the German Wikipedia.
   * 300 Spartans.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Hrm, I thought I had only removed Gutenberg links when a link was provided that offered the identical texts at Wikisource as well - if I made a mistake, I apologise. However, if both sites do offer identical texts, there is no point to the redundancy, just like we don't provide a link to "every" site that also lists Mark Mcgwire's career stats Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's really a matter of opinion that the texts are identical. Even if they are clear cut and paste, some people prefer to work with Gutenberg because they often have multiple versions available, or even the format of a plain text file with no formatting. Also some of the links you deleted were author links which go to more than a single work. -- Stbalbach 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edits to Nat Turner, which were reversions themselves, and which you made without explanation or comment. I've explained my reasons at Talk:Nat Turner, and if you disagree I hope you'll explain why. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 15!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 14 is at [6]

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

This episode sees Liam, more commonly known as Witty Lama, catching up with Rama’s Arrow and Ragib to talk about contributing to Wikipedia from and Indian and Bangladeshi perspective. Topics include their growing collection of Featured Articles, the success of the Indian WikiProject, and the problem of Internet access on the Subcontinent.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 23:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Its Cappadocian, not Roman http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/early/stories/evangel_goths.htm LOM

Better to resolve this on Talk:Goths. Wulfila's own ancestors came from Cappadocia (Philostorgius says from Sadagolthina, near Parnassus) but other prisoners from other areas may have also brought Christianity. Jacob Haller 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi - why did you revert my edit? It was clearly relevant information. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Breadandroses 16:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Over two years ago you added a passage to the Consolation of Philosophy: "To quote V.E. Watts on Boethius..." Subsequently someone added a reference to the Oxford translation of the Consolation, rather than the Watts (Penguin) translation. Could you please straighten out the minor confusion here (preferably by citing the page). Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks for picking that up. -- Stbalbach 01:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

left some historical accounts for you on [7]. Jaakobou 11:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, you are close to a 3RR violation on Historiography. I just gave User:TallulahBelle a block for 3RR for reverting 4 times, and you are at 3 reverts right now. If the edit is truly undesirable, let the other editors revert it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert this article? I made corrections to correct inaccuracies. The Editor-in-Chief has changed. You can verify this information on the website if you would like. Please reinstate the changes that I made. Tckrtckr 23:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see my reply on my talk page. ●DanMS • Talk 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please address Talk:Encyclopédie#Beaten with cane?. `'mikka 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

William III seems to be a conquest to me. Rjm at sleepers 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted you to know (since the anon IP editor didn't sign his notice of the botched move) that it wasn't I who "moved" the Lucan article. Nevertheless, I still think that "Lucan (poet)" is the right place for it, per the most common English form of the name. Deor 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stbalbach, do you remember where you got the information for this edit. I know it was a long time ago, but we should either add a ref for some of this stuff or else remove it, particularly the part about the military service. Thanks. --Duk 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, I re-added one ref that had a dead link (found another url for it). But I still can't find a reference for your edit He left South Africa without his parents' support, in part because he wished to avoid compulsory service in the South African military. Do you remember where you found that? --Duk 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

All from 1999 Salon, page 3. -- Stbalbach 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw you responded to my message in the Wikiproject Books, and I'd appreciate it if you took the time to read my response to your message. My contribution to the book collecting page, I believe, was very productive, and I'm confused why it was reverted one minute after I made the edit (which took a few hours to make); so, I'd appreciate it if you helped me figure out why the revert was made and if it is appropriate to revert the article back to my edit. If you're up to it, check out the WikiProject Book page here. Thanks. --'oac' (old american century) | Talk 04:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (Resolved.)Reply

I realize that there are no fixed boundaries for these categories, and that sometimes the Renaissance is even entirely encapsulated within the "Middle Ages". However, for the purposes of Wikipedia categories, it helps to have some general boundaries; and "Renaissance" in terms of categorizing Latin literature and authors need not have the exact same meaning as it does in, say, politics or art or architecture or even vernacular literatures. 1300 is a vague boundary, and if a person or text is within a couple of decades on either side, one could justify placing the article into both "Medieval" and "Renaissance" categories. But 1400+ is rather late. You could have a stab at classifying texts by style of language, as being more or less classicizing or humanist-influenced, but a classification by dates is really much simpler. RandomCritic 16:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about "simple" but each work/author should be looked at based on how modern scholarship approaches it. Is it most commonly studied and used by Medieval scholars or early modern/renaissance studies? Very often both, sometimes clearly one or the other. Petrarch and the Divine Comedy is a good example, that is both a Medieval work and a Renaisscance work, depending on who you talk too. It would be jarring for someone on Wikipedia to see it in the Ren. category and not the Med. category, or vice versa, depending on what perspective they are coming from. -- Stbalbach 16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think you're placing an interpretation on the categories which they are not intended to have. The categories in question (Category:Renaissance Latin authors, Category:Medieval Latin authors) are not attempts to say whether so and so is active in the Renaissance or the Middle Ages, or whether they are dealt with in medieval studies or early modern studies departments. They are part of Category:Latin authors by era, which is solely concerned with classifying authors writing by the period of time they wrote in (see further History of Latin). Nothing stops Petrarch from being classified as an author of Renaissance Latin and being classified, at the same time, as a member of Category:Medieval writers, for instance. As Petrarch stands at the head of the movement for the revival of Latin letters, in both stylistic as well as chronological terms, he'd be classified as a "Renaissance Latin author", associating his Latin (not necessarily anything else about him) more with Erasmus or Piccolomini than with Aquinas or Abelard. RandomCritic 16:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 16!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 16 is at [8]

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

Lots of stuff, too much to list here.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in! Feel free to post to the mailing lists too.... apparently not many people know about us.... yet

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Stbalbach, See that you moved the Washington's Distillery information to the Mount Vernon article. Obviously, it could go there. Seems to me that the information is directly relevant to this American Whiskey Trail article, especially in light of the intent of the Trail (from the wikipedia article) : "...is a cultural heritage and tourism initiative of the Distilled Spirits Council in cooperation with historic Mount Vernon...". The existence of an operational distillery, and the uniqueness of the product sales at the gift shop, seems to me to be a sound case for that information being here. - Thaimoss 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) talkReply

In fact, now that I've read the additional commentary you placed in the Mount Vernon article (which is great additional info), I'm even more of the opinion that it should go in the Whiskey Trail article. I think it should go in both. - Thaimoss 00:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The trail article is about the trail. Individual distilleries have their own articles and are linked too from the main trail article. We should not replicate each distillery in the trail article, it leads to fragmentation and confusion as editors update one article and not another over time. -- Stbalbach 00:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I'm not much of a purist on the "fragmentation" issue, being more inclined to note that certain facts are sometimes relevant to more than one article, but I will acknowledge that specifics can become out of sync over time, as you point out. In this case, I hadn't concluded that the individual distilleries have their own pages, as Washington's clearly doesn't, and only 2 of the 7 on the list do. In any event, I'll leave it as it as you left it in light of your reasoning. - Thaimoss 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stbalbach,

Is the Encyclopædia Britannica now OK? I tried to amend the parts of the article proper that you cited in your review at FAC. Could we hold off on developing the other article, Encyclopædia Britannica Online? It would be a lot more work. :( Please let me know at least what I should do to win your support; thanks! Willow 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stephen,

If your concerns have all been addressed, could you please change your Oppose vote to Support? If they haven't, could you please say what's left to do? Thank you very much, and sorry for being such a pest, Willow 17:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article keeps changing so much I have waited to see what happens but it seems to be OK my major concerns are addressed, some content issues but that can be handled on the talk page regardless of FA. -- Stbalbach 03:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the Support and also for your good insights; I think the article is much better for them. I'll try to address any concerns you have whenever they occur to you. :) Willow 07:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stephen, Thanks for pointing me towards those comments by Ruhrfish, which are fair but based partly on his (understandable) lack of knowledge of the reasons for my failure to express myself more clearly! Im slightly out of action at present having recently sustained a bereavement (father) and soon afterwards a little cluster of heart attacks! And some medical intervention. Rather dramatic I know, but regrettably unavoidable so at present using internet cafe facilities in remote location. Some of R's comments (about the 'modern legend') are to stuff which I left unaltered from an older vsn in txt. The odd numbering of the mounbds is in order to deal with them thematically and chronologically, since these numbers are archaeological excavation numbers, not historico-sequential. Inevitably they are random. Thematically they are in a sound order as I have presented them. Maybe it needs to say so in a brief sentence. not sure how to proceed but Ill have another look when I get back home after my convalescence. FAS is not specially important to me provided the text is informative and useful, which i think it is. It is anyway generally impossible to please more than a few people at any one time, but I accept there is room for improvement and clarification, so long as it is not along the rather silly lines of 'deal with each mound by number!!!!' Dr Steven Plunkett 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your note and good wishes, points taken. I seem to be on the mend, slowly! Cheers, Dr Steven Plunkett 09:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why are you deleting the link to the school in the Mark Twain article? Burnedthru 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have you read any of the "Crusades" journals published by Ashgate? Volume 3 (2004) has an amazing article by Hebrew University history Prof. Benjamin J. Kedar about the siege of Jerusalem. It discusses every single European, Muslim, Jewish chronicle/letter (past and present) that you could ever think about in regards to that event. There are several that I have never heard of, but are still very important. (Ghostexorcist 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC))Reply

I noticed that the first crusade page barely mentions that Raymon's account of the blood flowing up to the horses' bridals came from Apocalypse 14:20. I would like to expand this. I took some info from the above journal and wrote the following paragraph:

In 1969 John Hugh Hill and Laurita L. Hill descovered the chronicle of Raymond IV of Toulouse (as well as all other sources) which mentioned the blood of fallen saracens welling to the horses’ bridals was taken directly from the bible verse Apocalypse 14:20 (“And the press was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the press, up to the horses' bridles, for a thousand and six hundred furlongs.”^[1]) In 1974 the Hills wrote “We cannot understand why writers of modern textbooks repeat this story without indicating its source, unless they are ignorant of it.” Hebrew University Professor Benjamin J. Kedar later asked the hypothetical question, “But is it not more likely that blood puddles in the Mosque of al-Aqsa were indeed ankle-high at some points and that the ecstatic Raymond—and only he—chose to lend grandeur to the scene by using the words of the Apocalypse?”^[2]

I would like to insert it into the page, but I'm not sure how. Do you think you could help me out? (Ghostexorcist 03:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC))Reply

Since the ip address feels so strongly about this, I've reverted the edit back to his version. Do not change it back yet, but put your arguments on the talk page of the article, and hopefully he or you will be persuaded. I've warned the user not to make personal attacks so there is no worries about that happening. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I see he personally attacked you as well. I wouldn't be so forgiving of that kind of behavior because it will just continue and get worse, but I added my comments and rationale and we'll see what happens. This is not the type of "expert" we want on Wikipedia if they can't behave with some professionalism, or even common courtesy. -- Stbalbach 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't do this again. We have barely discussed the issue, you have provided no arguments about the actual article content and I'm sure you know that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Solve issues by providing arguments, not by seeking support through voting. And, no, it doesn't matter if you call it a poll or not, it's still going to be seen as voting on the issue.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi Stephen,

I just wanted to thank you for your good insights on the Encyclopædia Britannica, which reached Featured Article status. Your suggestions and insights were critical, and made some of the most significant structural improvements in the article, such as the rearrangement of sections and the addition of the criticism section. Collaborating with you was a pleasure, which perhaps we'll repeat sometime? As you probably remember from courtly love, I've a soft spot for medieval love poetry, especially the Minnesänger: Der Drake Tag, Sine klawen durch de wolken sint geslagen, Er stiget uf med grozer kraft... So beautiful. Willow 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stbalbach,

You may have a greater familiarity towards this topic than do I. And if so, if you would be so kind as to add where several statements throughout the article originate within the references listed below, that will greatly help towards the integrity of the article. I may be in error, however it upon first and second glance appears to have several original (uncited) statements that seem to merit an unreferenced tag. Apprecitate you time. Mister Fax 18:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice link, and well tagged in the raw text. Thanks! Teke 05:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you had posted a concern on the Wikiquette page about feeling threatened on Wikipedia. That is a serious concern, and not a mere issue of etiquette. As such, I recommend you seek out direct help from an Admin at WP:ANI FrozenPurpleCube 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I too noticed your report on Wikiquette and I agree with the above note. I want to mention another point. You are using your real name as your user name. It may be a good idea for you to change your user name to something more anonymous. There is a procedure for this, described at Wikipedia:Changing username. It requires help from a higher-level administrative offical, but if they agree with your concerns, you can have a new user name and still keep your Wikipedia identity and edit history, etc.

The articles you've been editing seem to have a lot of anonymous edits from IP users who have not set up accounts, and many of them don't sign their posts. That means there it's difficult for much to be done to affect their behavior since they are not acting as part of the community, so community sanctions would not be important to them. The IP's could be blocked, but they change all the time so that's only a temporary solution. The best thing for safety would be to protect your anonymity by removing your real name from Wikipedia.

If you change your user name, you would have the option of informing your wikipedia friends of your new user name so you don't lose your community connections.

I agree about also reporting the threats at WP:ANI (Administrator's notice board), but when you do, it would be best if you can provide more recent examples. The ones you showed us were from February. The Adminisrators will be more responsive to your request if your incident is happening right now.

In the meantime, even with your current user name, you should remove your full name from the introduction on your user page. --Parzival418 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re: Slocum's book

The man wrote a BOOK; he didn't write "travel literature". He was a crusty old sea-faring bastard who wrote a BOOK. He wasn't a fairy-assed travel agent or brochure-writer for Conde Nast. Got it? Now if you want to put "see also 'travel literature'" at the end, well, so be it. Otherwise, get over yourself, and quit "fixing" what isn't broke.

Another thing: What is this "standard date technique" bilge you're selling? Until you show me where this is documented, I'll assume that it's something you've made up to sound "authoritative". PeterHuntington 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The simple facts that Paris coined the term amour courtois (the single occurence of cortez amors in a medieval Provençal poem [not "one or two extant sources"], of which Paris may well have been unaware, doesn't negate this) and that all English usages of the term "courtly love" descend from Paris's coinage suggest that you're stretching a bit to state that "the term existed before Paris was around." I'm not sure what you're trying to claim, but there's no evidence that the concept of "courtly love" (so named, and with the characteristics defined by Paris) existed before Paris set them forth in his essay. Deor 01:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I felt the article was pushing an opinion of the work and tried to do a little clean up. Did I cut out too much text? 68.49.91.17 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I made an attempt at a WP:Lead as you suggested. Please see if it works, can be fixed, or whether it needs to be reverted. :) DanielDemaret 06:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Text from my talk page). Thanks for the comment. I try to keep an eye out for vandalism on this (Rousseau) page and will continue to monitor. On the substantive issue between us, I think the point you wanted to make is actually dealt with later in the relevant paragraph (namely the fact that the "natural goodness" doctrine doesn't imply moral goodness). Bristoleast 11:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to ask, but is it the case that the Witzel article name-checks the Decameron and traces a direct ancestry? If so, a quote would be nice, because it seems like a tall-ish claim. Hornplease 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you have been active on this article for years and would like to catch up with the discussions and maybe help get things moving again. I posted to the talk page a couple of times with no comments. I am new to the article and think that I can add and help with the article but I have to figure out how to catch up with things. Would you mind telling me the easiest way to catch up without having to read two years of archives? Also, when you get time, would you pop in and see if I just made a fool out of myself with suggestions that may have already been discussed and dismissed in the past. Can you tell I'm a pretty new editor and slow at that! :) Thanks have a good day,--Crohnie 12:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to disclose, which I like to do on articles like this, that I am anti-Bush and would be happy to have him impeached. I am telling you this so that my POV is known though I think I can still be helpful and telling both sides of the story. --Crohnie 12:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This is just a friendly notice that Wikipedia Weekly episode 19 has been released!

In this episode:

• New Mission and Vision statements for the WMF
• The Chaser springs Jimmy Wales
• new uses for categories
• vandalism studies
• Unreferenced BLPs.

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/05/05/wikipedia-weekly-19/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 20:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

I'll seek other avenues. Sorry. --Ronz 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discuss it on the articles talk page. Not to happy with you right now. You have people from all sides of the political spectrum who agree and disagree with the article saying the article is pov and you go off on saying we are attacking the articles content. Then you ever so hintingly say people are sockpuppeting. Stick to the issue on the talk page. The issue is the pov slant of the article and its utter lack of any views of the opposing side. --Xiahou 21:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

lol, well sock puppets are nothing new to the article, and *your* issue of lack of "opposing sides" is not other peoples issue or reason for the pov tag. Nor is it clear that such an article would even be appropriate for wikipedia. Lots of hand waving going on and not much specifics. -- Stbalbach 11:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why you remove the graphic representation of homage off the homage page, without comment? --David Shankbone 13:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah the general modern English meaning and the specific historical meaning are different subjects. Moved to a new article for better organization of cat's, see also's and of course pictures. -- Stbalbach 14:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's been some major removals of text from the page, especially in these three edits by Ckenniss. Just thought you might like to know. Geuiwogbil 01:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:Daniel Defoe to be renamed to Category:Works of Daniel Defoe. As you created the former, I welcome your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_20#Category:Daniel_Defoe. Tim! 09:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Template:LBT backlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Quiddity 17:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Goliards entry states that: "The Goliards faced retribution from the Church. In 1227 the Council of Treves forbade them from taking part in the chanting service. In 1229 Goliards played a part in disturbances at the University of Paris in connection with intrigues of the papal legate. They were the subject of numerous Church councils, notably in 1289 where it was ordered "no clerks shall be jongleurs, goliards or buffons" and in 1300 at Cologne when they were forbidden to preach or engage in the indulgence traffic. Often the "privileges of clergy" were withdrawn entirely from the Goliards." As you first wrote the 1129 strike article, I wonder if you had heard about that, or if you knew about any references about it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Steven, I wonder if the text I have just written on The Dig (novel) might be of interest to you? Someone has kindly suggested it for a DYK, though unfortunately the Wikiproject Novels folk don't rate what I have said much... I certainly don't want to get into a dispute with them, though the person who posted the Project template on the article discussion page gave me a ticking off for thinking I owned the text (see mine and their discussion pages)! Do you have any suggestions perhaps? I wonder if I should relocate the entire text of this new article into a different article called something like 'Sutton Hoo in Fiction' or (better) 'Sutton Hoo Fictions'. Then it would not be exposed to the fair criticism that it is masquerading as a description of a novel, and would fall outside the concerns of the Wikiproject.

Apologies, I forgot to sign this post a cuple of days ago Dr Steven Plunkett 00:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Dudleydoright.gif. 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 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This file may be deleted.

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ilse@ 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Utrecht 15v 2.jpg, by Sailko (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Utrecht 15v 2.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Utrecht 15v 2.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Utrecht 15v 2.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cheers, Steve, it was fun while it lasted. Thanks for your real positive support and encouragement over the months. I'm leaving the room now, but I hope you will keep the article we worked on together under your scrutiny - I'll be watching but not joining in. Whatever the peer review guys thought (and frankly that doesn't always get it right, for or against), it was (and is still, by the skin of its teeth) a good article and a useful one. Best wishes, the other Steven Dr Steven Plunkett 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Maryland, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Based on your work on book-related articles you might be interested in contributing to this discussion on the creation of a book-arts-stub --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd thought I han't seen you on the watchlist, & happened to see you on a history just now, & checked the contributions. Hope everything ok. All the best Johnbod 02:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. No problem, just became consuming and too much time from other parts of life. There is a lot of freedom on Wikipedia, it's an honor system, and the community behaves more like a culture of honor (ie. the Wild West, the Scottish border regions, Appalachia), than a culture of law. Cultures of honor have advantages, but also disadvantages, mainly it encourages people to quick to anger, quick to fight, to form cabals, to defend honor by their own wits because of the lack of law enforcement, which is self-destructive for the individual and ultimately the community. Wikipedia is also egalitarian which again has its advantages, but Communism was egalitarian, and it bred certain types of people who were bullies and abused power, self-important ideologues with little talent or knowledge. Cultures of honor and egalitarianism are the opposite of modern Democratic states, the appeal is great for many of us stuck in a ridged culture of law and professional authoritarianism, but history has shown that communities based on cultures of honor and egalitarianism don't last, and often go down in spectacular ways.

It may just be me who is tired of it, but there are many like me who worked for years and eventually dropped out, or became less active - as Wikipedia or something like it becomes more important over the years these issues will have to be resolved (anonymous editors, expert editors, rule enforcement, etc...) I just don't see how a "Wild West" Wikipedia can ever be taken seriously - it's anti-intellectual. Anyway, I still make occasional edits here and there. I hope you don't mind me using this chance to express my thoughts after a few months away from Wikipedia to reflect. Thanks for your note! -- Stbalbach 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a super quick note, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 21 is out and can be downloaded at the usual places (if you've forgotten, WikipediaWeekly.com works wonders. -- Tawkerbot 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

A couple new episodes - we're posting the infobox to save duplicating info.

 

Wiki Loves Monuments

Fuzheado, Gamaliel, Effeietsanders, Nikikana, LilyOfTheWest, and SuperHamster discuss the annual Wiki Loves Monuments worldwide photography contest

---

Onsite · Offsite
Subscription · Feedback

For the podcast crew -- Tawkerbot 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article The Teaching Company, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. —G716 <^T·_C> 03:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Smurf.Unicef.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 1 != 2 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pinocchio hug.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shaylaren (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The.Battle.of.Dorking.cover.art.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Crstsk (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get this Information? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Biblia.pauperum.jpg I need the artist, the date made, and the medium. Thx for all the info. I dont know if there is a pm system in place here, sooo if there is sorry. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biohazard103 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

& will return! All the best for 2008 Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. Just this note that Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42 is out.

You can download the episode or listen to the streaming audio at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/03/03/episode-42-the-question-of-muhammad-the-wikiand-everything/, and you can hear past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/ too.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Charles.S.Roberts.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Stbalbach, I don't know if you are still around (I'm guessing not), but if you are, I've created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject. I'd appreciate any help in getting it started! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey stballacbh, I don't know if your going to read this since you've been gone for a while. I know this was more then a year ago, but after reading our argument on the Talk:Hormuzd_Rassam, I would like to apologize for my strong (and unhelpful) tone. Please accept my apology. Chaldean (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! Just a note that WikipediaWeekly Episode 45 has been released. Listen and comment at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/04/14/wikipedia-weekly-45-blps-revisited/. Cheers, WODUP 20:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODUP 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48, Wikipedia Weekly's third talk with Jimmy Wales, is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Maryland. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!

Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!

Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!

Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 00:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hello,

About eight thousand years ago, you asked a question on the page for Les Rougon-Macquart; I have finally noticed and answered it. The nine Rougon-Macquart novels with modern (i.e. post-1980) translations in print when you asked the question were L'Assommoir, Nana, Pot-Bouille, Au Bonheur des Dames, Germinal, L'Oeuvre, La Terre, La Bete Humaine and La Debacle. Since then, OUP have issued new translations of La Curée and Le Ventre de Paris for a total of eleven. (And Therese Raquin also has a modern translation in print.) Sorry for the long (long!) delay. Fosse8 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.

 

I have nominated Art of Dying (band), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art of Dying (band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 09:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

I have tagged Image:The-story-of-a-shipwrecked-sailor-cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Stbalbach I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Stbalbach. I added a request at the Magna Carta talk page. Please take a look. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sword.style1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Stephen, Thanks for your kind words about my addition to the Travel Literature WP section.

I would recommend you contact Tim Youngs at Nottingham Trent or check out his books on travel writing criticism--they have fairly solid bibliographies (feel free to Google-Book the bibliographies). In general, the rule of thumb is to go to the latest book of travel writing criticism and turn to the bibliography. There you should see the updated list of works in this bourgeoning field.

Yes, I do think Tourists With Typewriters is one of the best books available on the subject of travel writing criticism. It is indeed notable. As for prominent travel writers, the WP entry on travel literature is a good start. Your best bet, however, would be the Encyclopedia of Travel and Exploration edited by Jennifer Speake. Take care, Westiana (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm planning to delist this article son, due to lack of sourcing. It was promoted in 2005, and the criteria are applied more strictly now, and imo this doesn't pass a number of them. Please let me know on the reassessment page if you disagree, or plan to do the (large) improvements needed, then i'll wait longer. Thanks!Yobmod (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Anglo-Saxon literature has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

In the article on Homage you have created :

The oath known as "fealty" implied lesser obligations than did "homage". Further, one could swear "fealty" to many different overlords with respect to different land holdings, but "homage" could only be performed to a single liege, as one could not be "his man", i.e. committed to military service, to more than one "liege lord".

Not entirely correct, for example:

County of Flanders streched acroos the river Scheldt, which was the boundary between Holy Roman Empire and France.

Thus Count of Flanders took oath of fealty and homage to both HRE Emperor(lands on the west bank of Scheldt) and King of France(lands on the east bank of Scheldt)

Can you explain this ?

Siyac 18:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.198.82 (talk) Reply

First Crusade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OpenSeven (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The 7th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, June 6th, starting at 5 p.m. The event will be at Bertucci's, near George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom metro station. It will follow the Apps for Democracy open source event at GWU. For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 7. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.)
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) to report errors, please leave a note here. Reply

Frankenstein has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have conducted a reassessment of the artcile as part of the GA sweeps process. The article needs some work to meet WP:GAC so has been delisted. You can find details of issues that need addressing at Talk:Treasure Island/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting an all-day Academy at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, on Thursday, July 16. The team that will be teaching at the Academy, a mix of paid staff and volunteers, is looking for four more volunteers to be teaching assistants, providing one-to-one assistance in workshops whenever a workshop participant has a problem following the instructional directions. (We currently have two editors signed up as teaching assistants, and are looking for a total of six.)

The NIH editing workshops are only for two hours, but volunteers are asked to meet the Wikimedia Foundation team at the hotel in Bethesda at about 7:15 a.m. (time to be finalized shortly) and to stay for the entire day, which ends at 4:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided. (The full schedule can be found here.)

The team is not necessarily looking for expert editors (though they are welcome), just people who can help novices who might get stuck when trying to do some basic things. If you've been an editor for at least 3 months, and have done at least 500 edits, you probably qualify.

If you're interested, please send John Broughton an email. If you might be interested, but would like further information, please post a note on his user talk page, so that he can respond there, and others can see what was asked.

(You have received this posting because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland or DC. --EdwardsBot (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC))Reply

 

I have nominated Medieval, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Patchy1Talk To Me! 04:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply