Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Master E. S.

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Israhel van Meckenem

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Israhel van Meckenem

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Bull Stone House

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Ancient Egypt#Article ancient Egypt under section 20, Article ancient Egypt

Moved a discussion about a photograph of Alice Prin that went missing on September 10 from her article - to user_Talk:TheParanoidOne

Copied a discussion re article Dinosaur concerning popularity of Jim Gary 1990 Smithsonian exhibit to User talk:Firsfron

Moved a discussion here to the article being discussed, Talk:Deity

Moved a discussion here about Alexander the great to the user talk page, Enric Naval and to the article

Moved a discussion here about Nearchus Map inserted into Alexander the great to discussion at Alexander the Great

Moved a discussion here about images and edits for Karl Benz to that page

moved a discussion here begun about a nickname for Sarasota to its talk page

moved a discussion here begun about Chandos portrait and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust site to the article discussion page, Talk:Chandos portrait

Moved a discussion begun here about Alfred Lee Loomis to the discussion page for the article Talk:Alfred Lee Loomis

moved an inquiry from pdfpdf to that talk page

I've removed this user's edit to [{Engraving]]. I agree with you its clearly WP:POV and not sourced from reliable sources. That edit was made nearly two months ago. I will keep an eye on the user and any further infractions will be met with a block. In general its perfectly permissable to remove an edit like that one, and invite the user to discuss matters on the article's talk page. Good luck, Gwernol 20:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the excellent additions to the Great Trail article. You did, however, include info that doesn't belong in this particular article and I will have to cut it back accordingly. House of Scandal 04:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your note about your edit at Great Trail, have noticed a word left out that I will replace. I'll also take up a little further discussion at Great Trail under "discussion", Talk:Great Trail so it is available at the article. See you there... 83d40m 16:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goddess Elizabeth, invincible virgin, always (forever) queen, also (even more) Caesar(ess) of England and France, and powerful Empress of Spain, strongest fighter in defense of the Christian faith, wisest patron of all scholarship*, most fortunate* victor* of the immense (wide) oceans, founder of the College of Jesus (Christ College?) at Oxon.

* Literarum should be Litterarum; Faelicissima s/b Felicissima; triumphatrix is not classical Latin (oh well)

Hope this helps!. •Jim62sch• 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Click on "show" to open contents.

Thank you. 83d40m 14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We already have an article concerning Virgin Birth. Parthenogenesis is not the place for it. —Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your efforts cleaning up ancient Egypt. I removed an image you put on the article because it is really low quality and does not really reflect wiki's best work. I would like to include images in the article that exemplify more than a single idea at once. For the art section, I was thinking of having an image of Hatshepsut, which would show the distorted 2-D perspective and the use of art for a political purpose all at once. I am hoping we can find a really good quality image on the commons for this purpose. This same logic should hold true for other images on the article, but we don't want to end up with too many, or it will seem crowded.

I appreciate your efforts, and don't hesitate to ask questions or to discuss content. Jeff Dahl 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to see you have been doing some work on the religion section of ancient Egypt. Do you have any books we can cite for this section? Thanks, Jeff Dahl 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved discussion of content to the article talk page, Talk:Ancient Egypt#Article ancient Egypt 83d40m 15:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there. It's been quite a while since I've looked at Wikipedia, let alone edited it, so you'll have to refresh my memory. Exactly which image/article are you refering to? Looking at the revision history of the Alice Prin articles, I've never made an edit to it. Please elaborate and I will see what I can do.

(Despite your request, I'm responding here as it seems unlikely that you will still have my talk page watched more than a month after your comment there). --TheParanoidOne 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I am moving the discussion back to your page User_Talk:TheParanoidOne to keep it all together.--83d40m 13:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Howardduck-b.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guess I need help with these two images -- I have read the instructions and thought I was following the directions for fair use since the article into which I was placing them is about the film. I interpreted the instructions to be that this was a fair use. I made a statement in the summary to that effect. Will pursue the help pages. 83d40m (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see whether the fair use statement for the two images is adequate. I have inserted a statement for each image, the image description page and the image description page, and removed the tag that had been placed on -b alone.

Thanks for the help 83d40m (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 83,

Thank you for your contributions to Dinosaur. Your input into the content of this article is appreciated. However, I did again revert your changes to this article. It reads like an ad: "The director of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., Larry O'Reilly, stated that the clever and appealing dinosaurs created by sculptor Jim Gary, put on exhibition by the museum for four months during 1990, attracted the largest attendance on record for the museum." and is supported by this reference, which does not say anything about four months, or (more importantly) the statement that "the exhibit attracted the largest attendance on record for the museum." That part is not cited, and since it's probably the only part that could be used in a section discussing the popularity of dinosaurs, I have removed it.

Dinosaur is a Featured Article, meaning it represents the best of Wikipedia's articles, with good citations from reliable sources. The sources need to confirm what we say in the article. The obituary you used does not do that. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I felt that it was extremely germane to the article because of the indication of popularity and was rather dumbfounded by the reason for removal. I must have used the wrong reference for this aspect because one of the sources I had found quoted the director about the draw. Perhaps it was in the Smithsonian magazine article published in 1990. I'll track that down and come back to the article when I can provide a reference for that evaluation of the exhibit. Will copy this to your page also. 83d40m (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 83,

Thanks for your understanding. I look forward to your further contributions on dinosaur-related articles. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are most welcome -- I think we are here to help one another create the best articles we can for our readers -- nice to have someone take the time to explain a terse comment that could be misunderstood, positive reinforcement and all that...! -- 83d40m (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your note. That's a great attitude, 83. :) Sorry for the terse comment. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nat geographic world premier edition 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) 14:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I have inserted the rationale at the image and hope that I have fulfilled the required information correctly. 83d40m (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for your excellent work on Boa Island. If you have a lot of information about the Janus figure, you might want to create a new article specifically about it. All the best, Bláthnaid 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your compliment. I would like to avoid the "Janis" implication and stress that it is the Boa Island figure... in order to let this unusual statue have its own recognition as a Celtic figure and I will pursue it as time allows when I have more details gathered about it and the similar stone carvings of its period. There are other two faced statues in other cultures and it is a shame to relate this to the Roman one just because a poet was familiar with that one... I'll let you know when I tackle it and am copying this discussion to the page itself for future reference. 83d40m (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I look forward to reading the article. :) Bláthnaid 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of the text you introduced to Deity:

"Tantalizing images of what may be tens of thousands of years of worship of deities who seem to have been unchallenged and essentially unchanged, therefore easily suggesting that perhaps, humans believed in a single deity initially"

This seems very non-neutral ("tantalizing"?), and feels like original research. Can you cite it? Ilkali (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am moving this discussion to the page Talk:Deity to keep it related to the topic.83d40m (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 17 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Two Ladies, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reply posted on Carabinieri user page: Thanks for the heads-up about Two Ladies being chosen for an entry in DYK. I looked at the column for today, but did not see the entry, will it be posted later, or did I miss it? That is a nice reward for the work putting the article together. 83d40m (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have worked heavily lately on editing De mulieribus claris. Also added many new biographies of the list that were previously red links (they are all blue now). Found the main picture in the right corner of the article and added it. Also put in all the pictures on the right next to the names of the biographies. Also did a lot of work on De Casibus Virorum Illustrium. Lately one of my articles also was featured on DYK of Westinghouse Time Capsules. --Doug ^talk 16:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:LionChaseZebra-cropped.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. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Replied on Kla’quot talk page and at the discussion about it and two other images tagged for deletion at Lion. Agreed with the proposal to delete them. 83d40m (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) which reads:Reply[reply]

Replied at the discussion about the image you listed for deletion and two other images tagged for deletion at Lion. As you can see in my discussion at each, I agree with your proposal to delete them. Thanks for the notice and am glad someone took action about these images. The one you notified me about was one that, in order to prevent an edit war, I cropped to remove the copyright notice when another editor insisted upon inserting the image. Think there are plenty of appropriate images freely available for the article. Thanks again, 83d40m (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) moved to show complete discussion ---- 83d40m (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Briggs Cunningham Time magazine cover April 26.1954.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Karl Benz and Bertha Benz gravestone - vdetail2.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

inserted and tag removed - thanks - 83d40m (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done a lot of work on virtually every article for each of New Jersey's 566 municipalities. Most articles are straightforward in terms of title and content. But there are a few oddballs, and it's not just their existence but their solution that is problematic. Should "Township" be included in titles of municipalities that rarely use the term in common use, as I just saw suggested for Springfield Township, Union County, New Jersey, which does not commonly use "Township", whereas Springfield Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. There are many borough/township pairs (plus a few non-boroughs), and the question of how to distinguish between the two individual municipalities is often a challenge. For a mythical place called "Foo", we often have pairs of "Foo, New Jersey" and "Foo Township, New Jersey", sometimes supplemented by "The Foos, New Jersey". There are multiple pairs of "Foo Borough, New Jersey" / "Foo Township, New Jersey". The question being what does "Foo, New Jersey" refer to, the borough or the collective. For example, there is Borough of Princeton, New Jersey / Princeton Township, New Jersey for the two municipalities, with Princeton, New Jersey covering the collective. Often, sources are unclear as whether a person or place is from/in the borough or the township, which makes the "Princeton, New Jersey" article useful. In the case of Chatham, clearly the Township stays unchanged (as it almost always should). I agree on moving Chatham, New Jersey to The Chathams or The Chathams, New Jersey (joining The Amboys, The Brunswicks, The Caldwells, The Oranges, The Plainfields, The Ridgefields and The Wildwoods). The fit isn't perfect, but "The Chathams" is a term in use, as in the title of the school district. So what to do with the borough? I have been baffled and I think other people become confused by the absence of the "borough" as to whether the usually small municipality at the center of the pair is being referenced or the combined borough/township pair. Even the borough's web site refers to itself alternatively as "Borough of Chatham" (in several places in the title), "Chatham Borough" (in the opening words of the first paragraph) and as "Chatham" (perhaps referring to the pair). As the site states, "Chatham Borough and Chatham Township share a common heritage and both are often referred to by their shared name, Chatham." I understand your efforts, and I hope that we can reach out to other members and participants of WP:NJ to reach a conclusion. Thanks for reaching out. Alansohn (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moved Chatham discussion to talk to continue in one place 83d40m (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I reverted your edit to Chandos portrait where you removed the link to the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust's page on “What did Shakespeare look like?” with the edit comment “rmv link identified as an attack site - until proven otherwise -”. I have no idea what an “attack site” is, but I'd judge it has negative connotations; and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust — the foundation charged with maintaining the various Shakespeare related buildings in Stratford — could hardly be more unassuming.

Could you perhaps elaborate on that edit summary? --Xover (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, here is the warning I receive when making a link to the site, http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/16/16,

Reported Attack Site!

This web site at www.shakespeare.org.uk has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences.

Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.

Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.

I find it most curious because when I tried the link from another computer in another location, I did not receive the warning. Perhaps it is my virus control software... who knows. I have never received that message during many years of protection by the same service with a perfect track record for me... one computer is on a dial-up connection, the other is high-speed, broadband connection.

I removed the link and put in the notation to alert others to the risk reported to me.

If you have any insight into the notice I received, please continue discussion of it here --- I will not suppress the link again, although I continue to receive it from this machine. -- 83d40m (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

just went back to the link and looked further into the options for the blocking and received this,

Advisory provided by Google Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/

What is the current listing status for www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 14 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 5 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 07/17/2008, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 07/13/2008.

Malicious software includes 5 trojan(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 2 new processes on the target machine.

Malicious software is hosted on 1 domain(s), including 61.155.8.0.

Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?

Over the past 90 days, www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/ did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites.

Has this site hosted malware?

No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.

How did this happen?

In some cases, third parties can add malicious code to legitimate sites, which would cause us to show the warning message.

Next steps:

• Return to the previous page.
• If you are the owner of this web site, you can request a review of your site using Google Webmaster Tools. More information about the review process is available in Google's Webmaster Help Center.

Perhaps this can give you more information --- 83d40m (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I am going to stay away from the site the link takes one to, and I think a warning to others is reasonable... its your choice as to the action to take. --- 83d40m (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're absolutely right. Good catch! I've commented out the relevant link for now and sent an email to the SBT to let them know about the problem. In the future, putting a note on the relevant Talk page, rather then relying on the (limited) edit summary, is probably a good idea in order to avoid confusion. Also, you were absolutely right to remove the link and I reverted it only because I didn't understand your edit summary (which puts it under the heading unexplained deletion). Do, please, continue to be bold (and see also WP:BRD)! --Xover (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks -- I'll use the talk page (as well) if I do this again and will read the pages to which you referred me. Please note to SBT that the warning appeared only on one system, I don't understand the dynamics of the difference, but the broadband connection I used that did not display the warning when I double-checked it after your reversion, has a highly secure connection that just might disable such problems...

I fixed the weird effects caused by the indents above so it will be more useful for others. -- 83d40m (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

moved some of the above to this page so the entire discussion is together. ---- 83d40m (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you making some good contributions to these articles. It would be helpful if you could add references to the sources you are using for the information. ike9898 (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, cool. I'm interested in many of these same subjects. I'm waiting for some books I ordered to use as reference material. Do you have any interest in George Lorimer/Saturday Evening Post? These subjects are also intertwined with Curtis and Bok. ike9898 (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for helping to fix up and expand the Nell Newman article. I would ask you to please cite the sources you're using for information so that problem can also be fixed. I'm going to be replacing the ((orphan)) tag since the usual cutoff for the orphanage is three or more incoming links. Thanks again for your help! —Ashanda (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cut in the reference for the two quotes, apparently, while you were typing to me... it will take time to assemble some of the others. Should the template remain until others are provided or is that enough to justify removing the tag? — 83d40m (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Once a reference is added, ((unreferenced)) no longer applies. Others such as ((refimprove)) or others may still apply, depending- I haven't looked at the article yet since I got your note. —Ashanda (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provided another link in as well, so perhaps that can be removed as well. Thanks for the notes and if you do not get to it soon I will remove the reference tag. Don't really understand how you are using the talkback links, but am following my old format of double entries. ---- 83d40m (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm an it.wiki user, Austroungarika. I'm translating Bat (goddess) and I thought that "Image:Nagada figure.GIF" might be useful, so I wanted to upload it on commons. Are there any reasons why I shouldn't upload it there? Thank you very much in advance for your help. --Austroungarika scold or call 13:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austroungarika (talk • contribs) Reply[reply]

Hi again, I don't mind writing here, so if you prefer answering me here, I'll just have to check my messages in this wiki. Don't worry, I was going to write in English anyway, you should only be patient with my grammar mistakes :). Uploading on Commons makes the file available on all the wikis, so you see it's very useful; I intended to do it myself, but since I am not so expert on the subject of licences, I just wanted to know if there was any particular reasons (licensing restrictions, or things like that) not to upload it there. Since the image is public domain, if you want to upload it yourself click here and then click on the appropriate link; instead, tell me and I'll upload it. Thank you very much. --Austroungarika scold or call 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I'll do the work. When it will be uploaded on commons, the file on this wiki will be deleted, but you'll be able to wisualize it anyway. Thanks for your help.--Austroungarika scold or call 12:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome. Please note that the goddess Bat needs to be identified correctly to lead readers to her article. Some links at the image file are not properly linked. Please let me know if I can assist you in the translation. -- 83d40m (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, again. I see here, that another one made the job, probably it was you. The translation is complete now (see), though I am still doubtful of my translation of Praise in the iscription. Could you explain me what does it mean that she is the praise? Thanks for your past and future help. :) --Austroungarika scold or call 15:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes -- sometimes my connection is lost and my log-on does not register when it reconnects. "Praise" is in the quote from R. O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Oxford 1969, p. 181, as Utterance 506... I am Praise, I am Majesty, I am B3t (Bat) with Her Two Faces; I am the One Who Is Saved, and I have saved myself from all things evil. I do not know what the meaning is and unfortunately do not have any source for you to check. A search on the internet might locate information for you. I tried a Google search of R. O. Faulkner - Utterance 506 and there are many discussions about that part of the poetry, such as http://thepyramidtexts.blogspot.com/2007/09/famous-pyramid-texts-herein-translated.html -- seems likely that it is a special religious term for the deity, as "Hosanna in the highest" is in Hebrew and Christian texts. Often such things are translated literally, without any understanding of what the contemporary meaning was in the religious rituals. Usually, religious names are cryptic, intended to conceal the true name of the deity from those who do not belong to the cult or, taboo so therefore forbidden to be used and always represented by other names and titles. One site has a quote, 288: The Praise-Serpent is on its Da(m)-scepter, the Tefnut of Unas, she who supports Shu, she makes his seat wide in Busiris (Ddw), in Mendes (Dd.t), in the necropolis of Heliopolis. She erects his two supports (jA.tj) in front of the Great One. at http://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/translation.html. Others are, Utterance 282, 423: To say the words: "O this country (xAs.t) Mouth-of-the-River, this is the place of my overthrow. This country, Mouth-of-the-River belongs to me, the Gold of the Praise, It is xaj-tA.w of the praise, this your ox, the renowned one, against whom this has been done." and 454: so that you shine forth thereby among the [deities], in this your name of That-which-sparkles (THn.t), that you may be pleased with it in its name of Oil-of-Praise. The rnnwt.t-goddess shall love you.

My best guess is that Praise would be a shinning golden aspect of the goddess -- which the speaker (the king) wants to "be" now that he is dead and crossing over to become a deity or replacing the previous king as the son of the goddess and therefore a deity. The king often was considered the calf of the great cow goddess, and when male, grown into a bull (of course early on, most probably the king was sacrificed in a sacred ritual that eventually ceased to include the sacrifice -- but vestiges remained in the religious ceremonies). That is my best guess. The topic is intriguing and might be worth lots of research to see if anyone ever attempts to clarify the meaning. Perhaps these results from the Google search can lead to an explanation. I will copy this for your other location. ----83d40m (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your detailed answer: it means you spend time to compose it, and this was very, very kind of you; please forgive my delay in replying but I was very busy in it.wikipedia and in general, and simply forgot half the answers I had to give, and the things I had to do. I suppose that the translation of Praise as a noun (in Italian, lode) is the best way to keep the original meaning. It will look cryptic, but no one expects Egyptian inscriptions to be easy to understand, right? By the way, I was considering adding a pair of lines about it if possible, but I do not think if I'm competent enough, I don't want to make a mistake. So, I wish you a nice day, and thanks for everything. If you need any help, I'm always available to return the great favour you did me, if I can. --Austroungarika scold or call 14:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20230702 adding preferred image from commons to be able to demonstrate figurine

and to be notified as well if removal is initiated. Placed at the top of this topic rather than the current end in order to facilitate economy of space. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20230702 also adding image from Egyption heiroglyphics article (left) that shows a similar figure on pottery that discussion includes of possible origins of the heiroglyphics, this may have evolved into the ankh. This image appears to be the earliest image of a deity among the cultures of the pre-dynastic period of Egyptian prehistory.

The same image appears in the lower left hand portion of the prehistoric Egyptian mural painted on a Nekhen tomb wall c. 3,500 B.C. with aspects in the Gerzeh culture style that also is discussed below in another topic.

_ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Nagada figure.GIF is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Nagada figure.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Nagada figure.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image now is lost.

It was deleted from the commons and is not available to anyone.

Another image is available that I had not seen before.

I am posting here in order to be able to locate it.

At least I would be notified that it is slated for removal, if that happens again.

It is a good image of this sculpture from an early time of Ancient Egypt and worthy of an article of its own in order show research into its import.

Keeping images local in WP does not prevent them from being entered into the commons, but it assures that the uploader is kept informed if there is a move to delete it. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posted in retrospect on December 11: The notice above had been relocated by me to the location linked in the header created by the editor issuing the notice. A notation at the beginning of this page was inserted to indicate that as well.

As well as my discussion at each edit summary, the following was provided to the editor to indicate the reasoning involved: The editor above seems to have put the shoe on the wrong foot and, unfortunately, I decline the invitation to enter into an edit war over the edit I made to St. Kilda, Scotland -- the name Saint Kilda has been used since the 1500s apparently and the Dutch may have been wrong in publishing the name as it exists in the 1600s, but many names have just such errors in their origins. Extensive discussion of the issue already exist in the article and as the discussions above indicate, there is consensus regarding the name of Saint Kilda, which commonly, is abbreviated to St. Kilda. 83d40m (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Later my attempts to discuss the issue were deleted by the editor who issued the warning stamped, 19:12, 6 December 2008 and the warning was reinserted in its original location in the chronology of this page, making the record here appear as if the warning had been ignored.

In an effort to have the record just and clear, I am inserting the deleted information into this discussion so it is available to any interested in the chronology. Fortunately, the editor below initiated a discussion that exists on his and this page that explored the issue and achieved some mutual understanding about my entries at St Kilda, Scotland.

Although it is acceptable as a cartographic notation, I still believe that the creation of a new English word, St, in Wikipedia is an error that could be corrected or at least explained to our readers, however, I am reluctant to reenter the fray at this time. ---- 83d40m (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on St Kilda, Scotland. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS I now see you have been warned about this before and moved it to Talk:St Kilda (a disambiguation page), not Talk:St Kilda, Scotland. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note the title the editor used originally, Edit warring at St Kilda. It was found to have extensive discussion that appeared appropriate for that editor to learn more about the topic. The issue raised had been hashed out quite thoroughly on that page. That is why the discussion was moved to the page cited by that editor.

When editors with a long history, who are listed on the “safe’ editor lists take the time to point another editor toward some information that should help them become better editors, why are you approaching it as you have?

The misguided objective of the editor even was discussed thoroughly, and explained as inaccurate, in the original article under the heading of origin of names. Why are you supporting an attempt to reverse edits that agree with all of the references cited in the article?

After I had made an extensive and time consuming edit of the entire article, that editor reversed my entire edit because of an already resolved single issue -- over the denial that St. means Saint -- when that name also is used in all hard cover encyclopedias, such as Britannica. The entire portion of the article discusses the accuracy of what I edited, yet my entire edit was reversed because an editor disagrees, without any basis in fact nor any reference to cite.

When someone's earnest efforts to make long and productive edits are tossed aside to support inaccurate and single-minded editors by other editors such as you, I begin to have concern about our administrators. Why is there reactionary concern about policies quoted by inaccurate editors -- without concerned about the issues and the accuracy of the edits being reversed by them? I am the one who should have posted a warning! I have no interest in these wars… I have too many things I want to make better to waste my time in edit wars for dominance of personal opinions that have nothing to do with accuracy.

Why aren’t you examining issues with the objective of promoting the benefit of the encyclopedia? A little more attention to the issue and the discussions involved at the very page to which the response was transferred might have guided you to react differently and to the benefit of Wikipedia. That was the only reason I responded instead of moving on to another topic where I could make a positive contribution, leaving the error to embarrass the publication.

I will place this on you talk page as well, because I will remove it after seeing whether you respond -- in my mind the issue was directed back to the editor who raised a false alarm. It is obvious to me now that the editor is not interested in correct entries, the error remains. 83d40m (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you for the reply at my talk page. What error are you talking about? The official name for the islands is "St Kilda" (see for example the official British ordnance survey map here). Your change to "Saint Kilda" does not seem to be based on any official sources. Please see WP:V. No one is saying the "St" is not pronounced "saint", and the article itself makes this clear (pointing out there is no saint named Kilda). You also made changes contrary to the Manual of Style (such as spelling out miles). The article has been through peer review and passed WP:FAC, and as such has been identified as some of Wikipedia's best work. Three different editors reverted your changes and you did not bother to discuss or explain them on the regular article talk page (where you were making the changes), and you reverted to the point of risking a WP:3RR block. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, glad we are communicating (and not just reverting ;-) ) I look forward to hearing from you, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for your detailed response. My reply will be briefer. First and most importantly, it is always a good idea to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle when not dealing with vandals - the time to discuss things on the article's talk page is after the first reversion. Second, when making major changes to a Featured Article, I would always discuss it first. The article is the result of consensus from many editors via the peer review and the WP:FAC processes, and had recently had additional scrutiny from being on the Main Page. Third, when I came to the dispute, you had already been reverted twice by two different editors I know and respect, at least one of whom is also an admin. As I noted before, I saw two previous reverts without an obvious response by you, and I noted on a quick read that several of the changes you made (not just one) were either errors or did not improve the article. For example, the reliable sources used in the article point to the name "St Kilda" (as the article's name reflects). There was at least one WP:MOS problem introduced (spelling out miles). It also seemed to me on a quick read that you replaced more nuanced language with more direct statements (like saying in the lead that the name comes from the Dutch, when the article makes it clearer that no one knows for sure where the name comes from. In such cases, it is easier to revert than dig through all the changes and keep some. I hope this makes my reasoning clearer and apologize for any misunderstandings, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I forgot to say since it was just on the Main Page, it had also had more than the usual share of vandalism, so I was probably a bit faster to revert than usual. Take care Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I am glad this turned out well, I hope our paths cross again (with less initial friction ;-) ). Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Al Loomis on Tuxedo Park cover 83d40m p2croped.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the error, have made the corrections following your instructions -- hope that is adequate. Will copy to your talk page as well. ---- 83d40m (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belated thanks for "light edit" of the article. A definite improvement. Pity the culture of historic Africa below Egypt is not better known. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the recognition. I intend to work on some of these topics and have a similar hope that these cultures become better known. ---- 83d40m (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice mosaics. And well formatted in the article. And well captioned too. All this is rarer than you'd think... Thanks!--Wetman (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the complements -- takes some time, but I try to make images fit well into the articles and hate captions that are meaningless, one should learn something from them as well or be led to the details in the text. I often find images without details and can't even find any in the text. Will carry this to your page as well. 83d40m (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC) correction with missing verb ----83d40m (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC) added images ----83d40m (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have updated the article of Tethys, if you could take a look at it and see if you might like it. Did you know Tethys is an aspect of Native American calendar, she also was venerated in Phoenician maritime culture. Have added new information about Tethys such as; Mistress of rain, rivers & sea navigation; Tethys makes the waters calm, or makes it surge; She makes the navigable unnavigable, when ever she so decides. Phalanxpursos (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I do not think the changes make the article better -- suggest you consider reverting to the previous as well as initiating a discussion of this with Wetman (talk) who complimented the previous edit and format... please keep me in the loop. 83d40m (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People I work for the genuine Intergalactic Federation and have been assigned to represent Tethys, so you are now appointed as the personal bodyguards of the Tethys page the way I have updated it. Or face dire consequences, because Tethys is also mistress of Warfare and the Thunderbolt. Please don't worship me, worship a system when it is good for the people. The way I represented Tethys, is indeed the Goddess of chief Rivers.

So thank the Space Aliens for showing me how to reincorporate ancient cultures into modern society in way which is morally-correct.

Thank you, I also write constitutions for the sake of Law & Order.

Please don't oppose me because I also believe in the Draconian Serpent with 7 heads.

Protect this info; "Did you know Tethys is an aspect of Native American calendar, she also was venerated in Phoenician maritime culture. Have added new information about Tethys such as; Mistress of rain, rivers & sea navigation; Tethys makes the waters calm, or makes it surge; She makes the navigable unnavigable, when ever she so decides."

Please don't delete anymore of my work, because I am your boss so don't confront me with disobedience.

Thank you. Phalanxpursos (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phalanxpursos (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smoking funny stuff, perhaps? Makes you seem foolish! I shall delete your gibberish if it continues. ---- 83d40m (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before making any edits to this article, you ought to take a look at its talk page, assuming you haven't already. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did not, will take a look tomorrow and get back to you. 83d40m (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what's that? 85.74.232.130 (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be Philipopolis -- misspelled on label for image -- thanks for the heads-up. ---- 83d40m (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image is great, and I had a look at your edits - really good. I'll come back to the references you inserted and re-work them to fit into the format of the other references within the article, but wanted to say thank you. Do you have a special interest in American fashion history? Mabalu (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, I have an interest in topics related to New Jersey (among many others), think that images almost always enhance an article, and try to be thorough in researching topics I choose to edit. Often, I have personal experience that enables me to find sources readily or contacts for photographs and relevant materials. (Placed this discussion on your page and the article as well.) Maybe you can begin something on the editor, Martha Stout, who worked with Clare Potter. My initial research led me to a clinical psychologist article that needed work! ---- 83d40m (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I would be much use with Martha Stout! I'm British, (makes it all the more ironic that most of my fashion-based editing work here has been on American designers!) but if I have a chance I'll have a poke around, see what I can turn up. Mabalu (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little while ago you did a light edit of this article. I've just reverted this to an earlier pre-OR version, adding back as much of the good referenced stuff as I could (the OR editor is now indefinitely blocked for OR). I wonder if you'd like to look at it again? Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the inquiry -- I will, a quick look indicates some areas I would rework or restore. Hope to get to it soon. ---- 83d40m (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes the image of the males is used, even when the female is intended, because the distinctive mane differentiates the species from other large feline species.

83d40m, if you can find scholarly references for this material I'd be most appreciative. I never came across any when I was working this article up for Featured status, and WP:OR is something that takes a while to take on board. Ditto the Singapore note. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a recent edit to the page Roundabout, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Jenuk1985 | Talk 05:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have struck this warning, as it appears you were not the only editor switching to American English, and it would be unfair to single you out individually. Apologies! Jenuk1985 | Talk 06:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see this. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have posted a new reply here for further discussion -- not sure whether you saw that and I will look there for your reply. Would prefer to keep discussion at v-j talk but saw directions on your page the could be interpreted to make note here. Just making sure... ----83d40m (talk) 22:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kafi Benz - 83d40m - ccc newsletter 2004.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied on your user talk page... publications of the government are not copyright. ---- 83d40m (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please keep the discussion at the discussion page response there Skier Dude (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have responded to your comment regarding the Sarasota map on my talkpage. Shereth 14:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, will continue there. ----83d40m (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Howardduck-a.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Howardduck-b.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks -- they should be replaced in the article from which someone removed them and I will do that before the deadline. ----83d40m (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if it/they do get deleted they can be restored by any admin, so no need to worry about timing - just remember the image name! Skier Dude (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, as you had expressed a concern previously about the quality of the script-generate map being used at Sarasota, Florida I would like to keep you up to date on the status of the upcoming replacement batch. There is a visual comparison of the old version vs. the new version at User:Shereth/2009_Mapping_Project#Image_comparisons. Please note that the "new" version is a raw image and has not been edited to remove some minor imperfections (such as the stray lines in the water) and is not a final product. Shereth 17:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much better -- will post to your comparison -- thanks for giving me a look, please let me know if I can help you. ----83d40m (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 83d40m. You've recently moved Bastet to Bast (mythology) simply by copying and pasting its contents. I don't know if you're new to this sort of thing, but performing a copy/paste move is not done around here as it messes up the edit history. Further advice can be read at Help:Moving a page. Also, you may not be aware that the page had recently been moved from Bastet (mythology) to Bastet, following a request and a discussion at its talk page. I've reverted your edits, but if you're under the impression that Bast is the commonly preferred name in reliable sources, you're free to propose a move at the same talk page. Thank you, Cavila (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 83d40m, regarding this edit [1], I would appreciate very much if you did re-engage; if there are errors in the page I would very much like to know. Any partial revert of your earlier edits,[2] [3], I suppose was carelessness and not intentional. I was impressed at the time, and likely going back over the page I reinstated earlier statements which might have had weak founding. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Luxor Sekhmet New Kingdom.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All that was deleted was the Wikipedia page for this image. It's hosted on Commons, so it's not supposed to have a page here; accordingly, I've deleted it under speedy deletion criterion F2. Go to the image; you'll see that it still displays as if nothing had ever been done to it. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two notes about your recent edit summaries for these articles.

Firstly the coding for hidden comments is still there, but it is in the "wikimarkup" menu below the edit summary box. It looks like this:<!-- -->

Secondly, as for the content, to categorically say that "mayor"s in council-manager systems are never elected is incorrect. Montclair, NJ for example has a mayor who is elected to that office specifically. (In practice, he serves as an at-large council member and presiding officer.) That's almost as common as a rotating mayorality. As no two states have the exact same laws regarding local government, to state absolute categories is problematic. oknazevad (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks -- I found the old format for hidden comments by going back to old edits... perhaps a heads up to the designers of the new format would provoke them to list this among the tools. It is so very useful at times.

I have rewritten the paragraph in council-manager government to include exceptions and used the community you pointed out as a link to demonstrate that, thanks, distinct exceptions are good and I did not have any to identify. ----83d40m (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What statistics are you unable to view? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ruby Woodson - 83d40m - poster - Florida Acacemy of African American Culture.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you -- the file is a duplicate file and should be deleted. An error was made in the title of the image before uploading and was not acceptable (a spelling error), correction was made by uploading a new image with a corrected file name, which remains published at the article with all of the complete copyright information. When I realized the error, I could not find a method available to delete the image, but made note of the need to delete the file with the error in my summary. Perhaps a method of deletion should be available to editors who upload files in case of error -- after all, it is their upload. If there is a method for that please advise. Will copy all of this to your talk page for your convenience also, thanks again.

83d40m (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC) updated ----83d40m (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wrote you at Talk:Kitsch#Decline_proposal_to_merge_to_new_article. Goochelaar (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found three orphan issues on my user upload gallery. This is the only one for which I could not find a resolution -- to remove the orphan status. All of the images are in use on articles. This one had its extension changed by another editor and had entered some ether hovering above Wikipedia land. At least it is here to prevent impulses to delete it. ----83d40m (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, are you interested in this? Either remotely or in person? Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Hoxne challenge? Sorry about the edit1 Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 83, I saw you restored the criticism section. It isn't policy compliant as it stands, so it really ought to be removed until you can find good secondary sources for it. I left a note for you on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please could you provide a reference for your recent addition to the Briggs Cunningham article? Thanks! Writegeist (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll look that up and give the reference in the next day or so. ----83d40m (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 83d40m. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

synopsis of response - Thanks for your reply. I am an established editor here. I have no expectations of "ownership" and I have no problem with evolution, just with devolution. Improvements are to be sought, cowboys marching off to change things without taking the time to understand them, usually results in chaos, and that is how I see what has played out. The article has been turned into a discussion of one version of a statue, not of it as an aspect of a kitsch debate in contemporary culture in a city well known for its status in fine arts, as intended. The current article also has become disjointed and now even is launching off into discussions of other versions in other states. 83d40m (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

really useful -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_guidelines -- keep here for reference ----83d40m (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

continue from Hoxne horde AgTigress (talk) ----83d40m (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a pretty photo that you uploaded of the building in Basel. I noticed a very similar one that was used on a commercial web site http://www.inpharm.com/pharma_company/novartis , but that site didn't give any credit. Is it also your photo? Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thumb|080px A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jim Gary 83d40m Triceratops NJ200911postrztnminusm.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked for restoration if necessary:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Owen Burns Week 83d40m Sarasota city commission proclamation 2010.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lillian Burns 1913-2003 83d40m aboard her sailboat on Sarasota Bay.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Owen Burns 83d40m Sarasota Florida.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

Thanks for uploading File:New College 2005 campus master plan 83d40m day 1 - Stefanos Polyzoides et al.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

Second upload is

summary saved in case of deletion summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Map Seagate campus 83d40m University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sarasota Municipal Auditorium - 83d40m - post cards inclasid.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sarasota municipal auditorium 83d40m - dance 1950s truss system shown.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Municipal auditorium 83d40m recreation entrance 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Municipal auditorium 83d40m art show.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MunAudImageHP 83d40m ciWeb capes.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Municipal auditorium 83d40m social.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ThomasReedMartin 83d40m 2ndfromRight shc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Municipal-Auditorium-Townsend 83d40m shc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iron Tail - 83d40m - model for indian head nickel SarasotaHistoryCenter crop.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lake Underwood driving 83d40m Porsche 904 Sebring 12 Hours 1964 2psharp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clare Potter 83d40m fgi founder 1939.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

summary data parked in case needed for restoration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_August_23

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_August_23

File:Jim Gary 83d40m Triceratops NJ200911postrztnminusm.JPG

File:Map Seagate campus 83d40m University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee.jpg

Possible derivative uploads by User:83d40m

Hello, 83d40m. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, 83d40m. You have new messages at Anomie's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I moved your question from User talk:AnomieBOT to my own talk page. Anomie⚔ 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead and just reupload that file, and I'll add it to our current discussion. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just getting back today after having to patch what I could (perhaps out of proper order) and log off until today. I have seen your further discussion at possibly un-free page and believe that the image remains a public document nonetheless. Will reply there. Thanks, and my apologies for charging ahead yesterday -- I had received no advice on the tags and I was running out of time yesterday while fearing that the images would be deleted without my having received guidance. All I envisioned was having to upload all of those images again! I followed what I thought might be appropriate. ---- 83d40m (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 83d40m, ................ (Duplicated using the same title at User talk:For7thGen.)

I'm sure the WP readers and viewers very much appreciate your excellent work, and I do too. But I and they now very much need your further expertise about the following quote, from the article Pharaoh:

"The royal lineage was traced through its women and a pharaoh had to be from that lineage or married to one of them if coming from without the lineage. This was the reason for all of the intermarriages in the royal families of Egypt."

This contribution of yours (16Sep07) may be too long ago for you to recall, but I and other readers do need whatever help you can give us toward a source reference for the quoted first sentence. I don't think we need to worry about the second sentence. Here at Talk:Matrilineality's section called Source references about Ancient Egypt, you can see how I got involved in this – and see other good things that can be done on WP, if a source reference for the first sentence is found and inserted in Pharaoh.

Your WP users hope that you (or your Ancient Egypt co-workers) can find and insert a source that meets WP's needs, and we all are prepared to wait quite a while for that helpful information.

Please notify me on my Talk page to alert me (if you succeed), For7thGen (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

if needed this may be used as a replacement for the info box map and to keep it from being deleted from gallery as orphan.

I have started a discussion about changes to Sarasota, Florida, an article you have contributed to substantially here. Any comments, suggestions and/or criticism you may have are welcome. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_at_Talk:Jim_Gary.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding that discussion, it'd be best if you left the entire issue to us at OTRS and the WMF office, and not contact User:24.187.152.112 or edit the Jim Gary article for a while. Doing so would make it much easier for us to solve the problem. We don't want to involve you unnecessarily in this! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you -- already decided that leaving it to admins now was the best course of action and have been hanging around waiting for the cavalry to show up! - - - - 83d40m (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I saw that you've been editing a few of the horse jumping articles recently. If this is an area of interest for you, I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Equine. We've lost our specialist in the H/J stuff (I have some background, but I also have 1500+ WPEQ articles watchlisted, thus I've painted myself into a generalist corner) so if this is your thing, please join! Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will reply at your talk page, will look at the project, might be able to help. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 83d40m. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks for uploading File:Michaelvanbeurenretrospective poster 83d40m franzmayermuseum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a fair use poster of a museum exhibition and it is attached to an article. Think this is a mistake noted in the middle of the upload and the completion of the edit of the article. Please let me know how it could be different from similar uploads that have not received such a notice. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh dear, we seem to have had an ec. But I've finished now. Sorry! Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw, seems we had similar changes as well... I figured I would wait for your completion and look it over before resuming. Thanks for the note, I'm onto something else, but will return to it today. Love the gallery... _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D. is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a stub to which more detail and references will be posted. It is about a recognized historical figure and family from the early history of Manhattan (from Dutch colonial times. before the revolution, and afterward) through today. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Michaelvanbeurenretrospective poster 83d40m franzmayermuseum.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for you note. This image is a poster. I have uploaded several previously without issue. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a messy situation, because what you are editing there is the result of a cut-and-paste move which has lost the edit history. We are required by the license to preserve that. I have restored Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. complete with history, on request from Novangelis (talk · contribs), and I can put them back together, but can we agree which title to use? Please reply on my talk page at User talk:JohnCD#About a speedy delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Normal procedure here would be to use just the name, unless and until an article was written for another person with the same name. If you see some good reason against that, "Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., (physician)" would be the usual form - we don't put postnominal letters in bbiographical article titles, but use profession as a disambiguator if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, all fixed, the history-merged article is at Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr. (physician) and the others redirect to it. When you make any more, you will have to do some disambiguating. I suggest you put a note on the talk page to say why you want "physician" in the title, to discourage anyone from trying to take it out again in line with normal practice.

For future reference: cut and paste moves are a no-no because they lose the history. The license terms under which people contribute are that anything can be done with their contributions provided only that attribution is maintained. You can change an article's title with the "Move" tab, as long as the target doesn't already exist: if it does, it needs an admin because the move involves deleting the target. In that case you can apply at WP:Requested moves, or put ((adminhelp)) on the talk page with a request. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies in advance for the rambling of this message. I seem to be even less able to write succinct and coherent messages in the age of Twitter. I am not trying to cast aspersions or insults, so please forgive if it appears that way. The real problem with the internet for me is that I'm more accustomed to arguing face to face.

The verb "titled" means exactly the same thing as the verb "entitled" within the relevant use of the article "Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc". I don't like edit wars, and will not get into one, but I feel your insistence upon the use of "entitle" in preference to the verb "title" is unnecessary.

You believe this is an improvement; I feel it is just a change, and that there is no cited reference that shows "entitled" is preferable. In fact, the latter has come about within the last generation due to its misuse. Dictionaries do not prescribe usage. They merely describe what is used, and the change has indeed come about within a generation. The use of "entitled" was not only considered incorrect by English teachers, but was specifically mentioned as incorrect in my student days (1970s), on the same list as misuses of "comprise", most of which have become acceptable. Such is the evolution of our language, but just because one is now acceptable because misuse has become use, it does not mean that the previous correct use has become incorrect.

If you wish to use "entitled" here, go ahead, but understand that I feel that your claim that it is an "improvement" is not correct. It is merely a change, and we do not make things more correct by insisting upon a own personal taste in phraseology. I feel your reasons given for the change smack of excuses instead for doing so. Either word is correct by today's reduced standard, and there was no reason other than personal taste to make the change, and no reason to insist that such a change is in any way necessary.

I think that your rewriting of the sentence that now starts "Because the copyright has expired" is more than a bit redundant, as most works of literature that are in the public domain are there for just the reason of copyright expiration. It would have been more relevant to state the reason for it being part of the public domain had there been a different reason. It is like saying, "because he had the most votes, he was elected."

However, I will not fight this, if you really want to insist upon it. -- Couillaud (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

. . . .

No need to apologize for length of your note to me, I often find it essential for clarity. Sorry for the delay in reply, I’ve been engrossed in several other matters. I too, avoid edit wars, similar to you, however, I will assert my argument (and engage in back and forth) with another reasonable person when I believe I am correct – so long as the discussion remains a rational exploration of our differences. If you had simply reverted my action without an inquiry, I would not have followed suit. Thanks for opening a dialogue.

I do not believe it is to the benefit of our readers (many of whom are not native speakers of English or who are reading translations of our works, but all of whom are seeking learning) to write our articles using "today’s reduced standard" (your term). That is the basis of my comment, "correct use of the language improves the encyclopedia and benefits our readers" and I will attempt to explain my reasoning.

The verb entitle dates from the fourteenth century as a verb meaning to give a title to, it is derived (ultimately) from a Latin verb that has the exact same meaning. Merriam Webster indicates - Origin of ENTITLE - Middle English, from Anglo-French entitler, from Late Latin intitulare, from Latin in- + titulus (title) and its first known use was in the fourteenth century so it is not of recent origin as you imply.

One should chose the best English word in writing. Used in our example, is entitled, is a form of that verb, meaning that its object is the title the author gave to a work (Twain gave the title to the work).

For clarity, one should use words that have as their first (primary) meaning that which is intended. That is the case with the verb entitled – it means to give a title to something (not a person) and usually by the person creating the work.

People who prefer to drop the first syllable derived from Latin. en or in, fall into the category that includes those who use flammable instead of inflammable because they fail to understand Latin and the root of the correct word, which means able to burst into flames – perhaps that came about through a failure in education and people whose limited understanding of in as meaning not.

Title, on the other hand, has three definitions, 1) noun 2) verb 3) adjective.

The noun title means, 1 a obsolete : inscription b : written material introduced into a motion picture or television program to give credits, explain an action, or represent dialogue —usually used in plural 2 a : all the elements constituting legal ownership b : a legally just cause of exclusive possession c : the instrument (as a deed) that is evidence of a right 3 a : something that justifies or substantiates a claim b : an alleged or recognized right 4 a : a descriptive or general heading (as of a chapter in a book) b : the heading which names an act or statute c : the heading of a legal action or proceeding 5 a : the distinguishing name of a written, printed, or filmed production b : a similar distinguishing name of a musical composition or a work of art 6 : a descriptive name : appellation 7 : a division of an instrument, book, or bill; especially : one larger than a section or article 8 a : an appellation of dignity, honor, distinction, or preeminence attached to a person or family by virtue of rank, office, precedent, privilege, attainment, or lands b : a person holding a title especially of nobility 9 : a usually published work as distinguished from a particular copy <published 25 new titles> 10 : championship.

The origin of title as a noun is Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin titulus meaning an inscription or title Its first known use was in the fourteenth century as well. It no longer has that singular meaning.

As a secondary meaning title is a verb that is derived from the noun, title. There is no verb root in another language as a precedent for this use, yet it is a common act to give a title to works. This is an important clue. This use as a verb resembles the contemporary creation of transitioning from the media-chop-speak eliminating a few words with a neologism instead of saying making a transition. Other contemporary examples of this process are phone (sound) rather telephone (transmits sound) or photo (light) rather than photograph (making an image through exposure to light) – the abbreviations of which leave off essential understanding of the meaning of the words.

I believe that the richness of our language is lost as we abandon our linguistic roots and believe that much of it occurring recently is the replacement of intelligible words with slang – because of the influence of mass media and advertising uses that arise from those lacking a proper education. Such declines in linguistic skills have led to widespread repetition that may be occurring frequently in "popular" use, but that does not mean that standards are abandoned among the better educated. I will remind you of your concession that correctness of earlier forms is not invalidated by contemporary changes in use. Furthermore, "popular" use does not necessarily persist. I believe that an encyclopedia is an appropriate place for standards to be maintained. Aren't we attempting to educate? Dictionaries establish meaning and often, do discuss use. Style manuals usually have a logic that is based upon data derived from just such sources.

This is why my change of is titled to is entitled is not merely a personal preference, as you suspect. I grant that the title of the work is—, is correct. I assert, however, that the work is entitled—, is a more correct verb form to chose than the one that existed in the article and, thereby, is a better use of the language. Not of great import, but one of those sticking points writers encounter when they are fond of language and its cultural origins. Although I won't "war" over it in writing that does not bear my name as author, I will continue to make it as a correction while editing here for public education and argue for its use, if necessary. Perhaps this gives you a better understanding of my edit summary. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

. . . .

While generations of 20th century English teachers all turn in their graves . . .

I understand your argument, but still respectfully disagree. "Title" was accepted American use for at least most of the 20th century (Mencken used "title" as a verb in preference to "entitle").

"I believe that the richness of our language is lost as we abandon our linguistic roots"'

Our linguistic roots include British spellings that we abandoned a century ago, e.g neighbour. gaol, & whilst. You did not argue that these should be reverted as well. Perhaps you do, and I missed it.

You have presented your argument why "entitled" is superior, but it is still your argument, and (in my opinion) still your personal preference. We both have our reasons, but I do not believe that either is superior. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Let's agree to disagree on this. You increased the size of my user talk page by nearly a quarter with a single post, so please let's not do it again. :-)

--- Couillaud (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay _ _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you'd be OK with that image being deleted, feel free to mark it with ((db-g7)). I'm not sure what technical problems you were having before, but the image should be properly showing and non-orphaned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the inquiry, but no thank you -- I do not upload my images to the wikimedia commons and prefer that they not be taken out of where I upload them, as many of my images have been without my agreement. If I wanted them there, I would have chosen that option. I consider the deletion of images from my gallery and the location chosen by me as a loss of the recognition users -- supposedly -- are guaranteed by Wikipedia and never have understood why that oversight occurs. I would prefer that you return to my gallery all of the images so transferred out of it and into the commons.

As long as we are on this topic, one of my images of Tethys (different from the subject you inquired about) was renamed, apparently, by another user and has disappeared without appearing in the commons as my upload. It now bears recognition for the user who took it from my gallery. I would like a rectification of that as well.

Can you help with these requests? - - - - 83d40m (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That oversight is because of WP:CSD#F8. If you don't want your images to be deleted after they're moved to commons, you can mark them with ((KeepLocal)). In the meantime, let me clarify: you want all your images that are on commons to be undeleted locally as well? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright I've done it. I looked at both of your Tethys images, and they are both attributed to you on commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you -- I'll look at the commons and my gallery and, yes, I would like all of the images I have uploaded to remain visible in the gallery of my uploads so I presume that means "undeleted locally". I'll begin using that tag, where does it go in the template when uploading images to work properly? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at my gallery, I can tell that some others in the commons have not returned to my gallery. As soon as I have time, I'll note their titles and give you a list. Once they are returned I will follow your directions to alter my uploaded files in order to insert the tag needed to keep them local. Perhaps within the next week I can make the comparison. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont' know what you mean by your gallery. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If one looks at "my contributions" and selects "uploads" a gallery of all images uploaded by that editor is presented in chronological order. I did the comparison last night and my images in the commons that also need to be returned to "local" from deletion are,

• File:Thutmose I Family-83d40m-highContrast.jpg
• File:GorgonSheild3p from Mourning of Akhilleus Louvre E643.jpg
• File:10 luxor museum - Mut - dated 19 dynasty c 1279 to 1213 BC.JPG
• File:Patentmotorwagen mit Karl und Bertha Benz.jpg
• File:SobekhotepIII-DualRelief BrooklynMuseum.png
• File:Trees to transplant from Punt to Egypt - Hatshepsut Mortuary Temple c.jpg

although I am not sure why, the rest my images in the commons remain in my gallery.

Once you return these six for me, I will place the "keep local" tag on all of my images (experimented last night with one and it seems to be a simple tag above "Summary" in the file). I will use it routinely for new uploads. I never knew of this and, as you are aware, resented the deletions I never authorized. Now I have a new tool to prevent that because you were polite enough to ask about the deletion instead of just doing it (as I have experienced previously), thanks again. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK; I'll deal the issues one-by-one:

• File:Tethys 83d40m AntakyaMuseum Turkey-fix2.JPG is indeed in your uploads.
• File:GorgonSheild3p from Mourning of Akhilleus Louvre E643.jpg, File:10 luxor museum - Mut - dated 19 dynasty c 1279 to 1213 BC.JPG and File:Patentmotorwagen mit Karl und Bertha Benz.jpg are all files you uploaded on commons. Although its images are visible here, commons is a different project, and you will only see it in your upload gallery there, not the one here.
• Regarding File:SobekhotepIII-DualRelief BrooklynMuseum.png and File:Trees to transplant from Punt to Egypt - Hatshepsut Mortuary Temple c.jpg: neither of these images were uploaded by you at any point. I'm not sure how you came up with them.

One thing a lot of users do to store a list of their files all in one place is to make a subpage. For example, you could make User:83d40m/gallery, and it would include all of your English Wikipedia uploads, and you could include your commons as well. Additionally, you could avoid the hassle of not allowing them to be moved to commons, and they would still show up on your subpage (as long as the deleting administrator does his job correctly; most admins are pretty good about that; and even in the unlikely case he didn't, then you could just fix the link and it would be good again). Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

regarding the trees -- the file itself states, "Author: Trees_to_transplant_from_Punt_to_Egypt_-_Hatshepsut_Mortuary_Temple.JPG: 83d40m (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC). Original uploader was 83d40m at en.wikipedia" and I am displaying them with their respective dates. JMCC1 states clearly that his upload is a derivative of mine in which a color adjustment was the only edit. I must note that Egyptians were not depicted in their art with such dark skin tones as the derivative displays -- they reserved depiction of that dark of a skin tone for cultural groups (farther to the south) -- and the adjustment makes their hair seem green.

I will check my upload records on the other and get back to you on it much later today... _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Satis worshiped by Sobekhotep III - 83d40m - Brooklyn Museum.JPG was uploaded by me in 2008 -- that is the correct name of the deleted file that should be reversed -- sorry, I do not know why the other file name appears in my gallery as well as mine (except that the subject is the same).

Will you be able to move the files that were not uploaded to the commons back, as you did with the first one? I will proceed with tagging to keep local. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding File:Trees to transplant from Punt to Egypt - Hatshepsut Mortuary Temple c.jpg - you originally uploaded File:Trees to transplant from Punt to Egypt - Hatshepsut Mortuary Temple.JPG, which is a different file entirely. The latter shows up in your automatic upload gallery history on English Wikipedia, but for the former: the software has no way of identifying that it's a derivative (it just isn't programmed that way), so you'd have to add it manually to a gallery page like I mentioned earlier.

I've already undeleted File:Satis worshiped by Sobekhotep III - 83d40m - Brooklyn Museum.JPG on Thursday [5], so it's appeared in your automatic upload gallery as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the left is the file Thutmose I-83d40m-highContrast, which was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons as an edited version of another image there. It shows Pharaoh Thutmose I of the eighteenth dynasty of Ancient Egypt, with his royal chief wife Queen Ahmose and daughter Neferubity. They were the father, mother, and sister of Hatshepsut. She became one of Egypt's most successful pharaohs.

To the right is the file GorgonShield3p from Mourning of Akhilleus Louvre e643, which was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. The Gorgon was one of the earliest Greek deities whose importance always remained in the changing pantheon.

In the second row, the image on the left is 10 luxor museum - Mut - dated 19 dynasty c 1279 to 1213 bc, which was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons.

On the right is Patentmotorwagen mit Karl und Bertha Benz, which is an edited close-up from a historical photograph taken of the couple at a celebration for the inventor of the automobile, Karl Benz, and his daring wife, Bertha Benz who made the invention better through suggestions, making adaptations, and by becoming the first person to drive an automobile on a road trip (deliberately intending to market the invention and demonstrate its safety). I may have uploaded this image inadvertently to Wikimedia Commons while editing an article in the German Wikipedia, but that also may have been my only logical option if I introduced it there before into the English Wikipedia.

Because of the original upload location these files must remain there. Magog the Ogre suggested in the Tethys image discussion just above, that only by creating a special gallery page could the 83d40m images in the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons be merged for a complete directory. This documentation at my talk page seems sufficient at the moment. As long as the originals are kept where I uploaded them (and seek them as references) and attribution is correct, creating duplicates in Wikimedia Commons retaining that attribution should facilitate use in other Wikipedias, if needed. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi - Your aerial photo is simply spectacular. I was wondering if by any chance a high-definition version would be available to print for personal use. As a member of the Sarasota Sailing Squadron living up North, I am looking for a large, framed reminder of how beautiful this area is. There are several really nice aerial pictures of the bay, but this one is the nicest of all in my opinion. Thanks, Erik Enicefield (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the compliment -- I have released this low-res version to the public domain for non-commercial use as one may see in the files here, but have no intention of releasing the originals of my work. Sorry that this version would not be useful for a blow-up. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have addressed a question that I believe you have been involved in here. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, with Modernist wandering in, and me now fencesitting, you might consider reintroducing Gary in a slightly different way and see what happens. Carptrash (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to reconsider and especially for your patience to explore further with an open mind. I was going to drop the objection to the elimination of the sentence... just to avoid conflict. Figured that since the sentence had stood for so long, it would be foolish to try a rewrite. I will if it doesn't sit well... _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I have sought additional opinions by posting a question at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts page. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I presume that I may join in if I feel it is needed. BTW I am posting today about the listing that Gary's fine art garnered for him in Who Was Who in American Art, 1564-1975. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with your edit here and I have explained why on that article's Talk page here. Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

83d40m—you are saying here that my post here is "confusing". I am not sure what is confusing but would you instead prefer that I initiate a new section at the bottom of your Talk page? Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the addition of Jim Gary's sculpture. Can you possibly include the location. Is it on permanent display? Or is it privately owned? Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim Gary's life-sized figures entirely of stained glass are all in private collections, so I did not include a location. For the same reason, I also didn't want to include a full view. There are Gary sculptures on public display that include stained glass, but the glass is incidental to the larger metal sculpture in those works (such as his centerpiece of the Colts Neck memorial garden). I consider these life-sized figures by Gary as among his finest works. Being free-standing works so well executed that they may be displayed in the round and as beautiful from any view, they are exquisite examples for the use of stained glass (and his well-lauded skills). Some day this one may go to a museum collection, then a full image would be appropriate. Will expand the caption. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 15:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just add the words "private collection". Amandajm (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already expanded it, too much? Feel free to chop. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's fine. It came out at the same length as the Leonard French caption. Now we need a couple more. Do you want to do a bit of a search on Wiki Commons to see if you can come up with something that isn't ghastly? It's 3.25 AM in the land of Oz, and my bloody Blue Cattle Dog keeps woofing at fruit bats. My neighbour will to chuck his steel-caps at him if he doesn't shut up! Good night! Amandajm (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Love it! Go to sleep and I'll look for some more examples tonight or tomorrow... on my way off-line right now. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mission impossible... nothing listed under "stained-glass sculpture" and no good examples found in related categories. Lots of "ghastly" works as you noted. Did find the work of Joseph Ferguson on the web, but not copyright free. Will keep it in mind, however, and will come back with other examples if found. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[edit]

The article Signature artwork has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

"NOT" wiktionary, just a term definition. original research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I backed out your edits to Cincinnatus. Please see the manual of style for dates and for abbreviations. In summary, CE, BC, etc should not have periods while US and U.S. are both acceptable and therefore articles should not be edited to flip-flop between one acceptable style and another.

Cheers, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know -- do not understand why you reversed all of the other edits, however, along with the abbreviations. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It takes less than one minute to do a search on "organic canola" and see that it is available (including from major manufacturers). Please stop adding the unsourced false information.Novangelis (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

transcribed from editor Novangelis's page for continuity

canola oil does not equal organic canola oil

It takes less than one minute to do a search on "organic canola" and see that it is available (including from major manufacturers). Please stop adding the unsourced false information.Novangelis (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note indicating that there is organic canola "available" on the market. I readily concede that there is "organic rapeseed" that now is being referred to as "organic canola", however, I was not editing about "organic canola" -- I was editing about "products labeled as organic" and noting that if they contain "canola oil", food products may not be labeled as organic -- which remains a fact. Only if a food product is labeled as containing "organic canola oil" may it be included -- because "canola oil" _is_ a GMO (93% of the crop in the U.S. is GM canola), a genetically modified organism, and the wild plants quickly are becoming contaminated. Every organic item in a food product labeled organic must be listed as "organic ..." and GMOs are excluded by definition. After allowing for some banter with you, I intend to reinstate the edit, but will be more precise. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Will wait a while before posting again at the article, if no reply, will presume that there is no objection. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No objections if you have a reliable source. 93≈100 is not a reliable source.Novangelis (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I noticed this edit of yours where you inserted some spaces in front of reference tags. I have removed the spaces per WP:REFSPACE. Cheers and keep up the good work! - DVdm (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Neil deGrasseTyson quote 83d40m need for science literacy 2.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• File:Neil deGrasseTyson quote 83d40m need for science literacy 2.PNG is nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 31. Please note that I have nothing against Neil deGrasse Tyson. It is just not necessary to make an image when simply typing words on the page is the appropriate method. You can use some sort of quote template like... ((cquote)) or .. choose one from Category:Quotation templates... I like the boxy ones better; they look less childish than the cartoon quotation marks.. anyhow, choose a quotation template. let me know if you need help. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your direction to the format and templates, that is all that would have been necessary in the initial notice, since the image was created in order to create a graphic design device that would set the quote off to the side of text. I'll create a quote box to replace the image. I'll let you know if I need help. Suggest inclusion of such helpful guidance as a part of the official notice process when a simple solution is available, it would save time for several people at the same time. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm confused, are you saying that having a comma before a conjunction is incorrect? or that you are making the article consistent? MOS:SERIAL states that the usage of "serial commas" is acceptable, as long as it is used consistently in the article, not across Wikipedia. Just curious.--UnQuébécois (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not consider it "acceptable" -- quite the contrary, I believe it is "essential" to use serial commas in order to prevent confusion and misunderstanding. I use serial commas consistently. So I think you may have misunderstood my edit. I inserted serial commas that were missing prior to conjunctions throughout the Wallenda article. Please note that the MOS states, "A serial comma... is a comma used immediately before a conjunction (and or or, sometimes nor) in a list of three or more items: the phrase ham, chips, and eggs includes a serial comma, while the variant ham, chips and eggs omits it..." (not using it is the variant, I use the standard). I hope that resolves your confusion. I did not edit the entire article, did I miss some places where they are needed? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that this article should only address the direct influence of the Osiris myth itself, and not the worship of the deities related to the myth. The two subjects are closely linked, of course, but in the "Influence" section I thought it best to describe in broad terms the effects of the Osiris myth on the worship of the gods involved. Otherwise, the section would come perilously close to duplicating the articles about those gods. References to specific practices and images, I think, should be limited to things directly tied to the Osris myth. For example, the magical healing texts are specifically based on the episode of the myth in which Isis heals Horus.

Osiride statues, in contrast, make no direct reference to the myth, except perhaps in the mummy wrappings that Osiris wears—which are a standard part of his iconography. Therefore, if the image you keep adding belongs anywhere other than at Deir el-Bahri, it belongs in the article on Osiris. It really isn't that relevant to the myth. A. Parrot (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that is a good suggestion, I'll look to see if there is a good place in these articles. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Gerald Massey 1856.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Reply[reply]

transcribed for record

Hello, Sfan -- Regarding your note to me: ... Why are you challenging the copyright status of an image that was taken in 1865 and threatening to remove it from WP? Since he died in 1907, any image of him should be copyright free. Please note that this is the lead image on the article on the man. Although I am listed as a user of the image, I do not find the image on my upload file, however, it is noted as a duplicate, "File:Gerald Massey 1856.jpg from Wikimedia Commons". _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for your fine copyediting at Homo rudolfensis and, it appears, many more articles as well. Your attention to detail is appreciated. Khazar2 (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

they are so cute

Stylishsummer123 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	been here for years
	so cute Stylishsummer123 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the generous expressions of appreciation. Is Wikilove a new WP policy? _ _ _ _83d40m (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions. Please note that numbers over ten are written as figures, not written out in figures. See WP:NUMERAL. Also common words are not linked. See WP:OVERLINK. Thanks Span (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have deleted this file since it was an obvious violation of copyright. The content of that website is copyrighted and they have a disclaimer that fair use of logos and banners is excluded with prior permission. You should know by now that we cannot simply take screenshots of other websites and publish them under a free license. De728631 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mea culpa -- hastily, I looked at the New York Times article and saw that an image of its front page was posted there. I failed to look carefully enough to realize that it was from the early 1900s and therefore, copyright free! I presumed that it was a fair use and proceeded to create the image. I'm usually much more careful. Thanks for your prompt action._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. There might also be a chance to restore the image or use another screenshot under a fair use rationale. The article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:ANI#The Sarasota News Leader and apparently it's not even possible to exclude fair use, no matter what the News Leader writes on their website. Let's wait how this turns out. De728631 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, will await further information from you and can post the image again if it is allowed. _ _ _ _83d40m (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Sarasota News Leader has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

New online publication with no clear notability other than someone sending out a prank issue. Currently a topic of drama and threats from the publisher at ANI (see talk page).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Am waiting for completion of discussion with another editor on this. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has nothing to do with the image in the section above. It is a general notice that the entire article is has been proposed for deletion, a notion that I have already supported. The reason can be seen above, there is no indication that this fairly new online newspaper is notable enough to be included here. You may stop the deletion countdown by removing the deletion tags from the article's page, but then there's a big chance that a formal deletion discussion will be started afterwards. The only way to keep the article would be finding a few reliable and independent sources that have covered this website in-depth. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said, I've already voiced my support for the deletion of the article. Notability is not measured by users subscribing to their page but by other sources reporting about them. So while we may now delete the article it could later be recreated when appropriate sources exist that establish the notability of this website. De728631 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarasota News Leader is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarasota News Leader until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have made a point at the article talk page but you might also want to present your arguments at the deletion discussion proper: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarasota News Leader. That's where the decision will be made of keep vs delete. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks -- I did. Let's see what comes of it._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree with your edit here and I have explained why on that article's Talk page here. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the meaning of your note to me. I am aware that we disagree, I think that was explored in 2011. I rely upon the immediate international coverage of Gary's death to indicate his status as a sculptor and believe it qualifies him for recognition for our readers. He was memorialized by the NYT, Time, ABC-TV, and most other prominent media. The numbers of people who attended exhibitions of his work while he was alive, could exceed some of the sculptors you list readily. His fine art is privately held internationally and never is cast off and sent to auction.

Without a doubt, he is the best example I have seen for the use of diverse materials in his work, so I have placed him among those being discussed in that vein. I suspect that you focus too closely on his whimsical works for a value judgment that might just be very personal. That is like focusing on Calder's circus and disqualifying him from discussion as a serious sculptor. The subject matter of dinosaurs was followed by Calder when he created a Stegosaurus after he met Gary and saw his. Chamberlain worked with automobile parts. Picasso often chose animal subjects in his sculpture. Gary's works are a thousand times more complex than Picasso's Bull head, yet are easily as effective a use of unchanged existing materials to create another image and they are created with the highest of skills. Our readers deserve to see not merely academic judgments, but works identified as notable in their lifetimes by everyday sources. As a fellow editor here, I will persist in placing entries where I see this as fitting and I would hope that you do not take that personally, as I respect your skills even though we do disagree on this point. I would prefer that the entry not be deleted. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your light-editing of field research. It was a mess that really needed clean up. danielkueh (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not completed, but will return to edit the rest. I'll let you know when I have completed it. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take your time. Thanks. :) danielkueh (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not "Lioness" but "Lion" and the name was sourced to the Museum site itself. Please do not change the name again, especially since it was sourced. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition "Lioness of Menecrates" yields zero ghits. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All those lionesses at Corfu

Thank you for the courteous notice of your reversal of my edit. Please clarify in the caption that "lion" is a part of a title that you can cite with a reference. If you mean to imply a formal title, please use a format, such as italics or initial caps, which makes that clear. I am comfortable with that formality. Many museums catalogues have items that are misidentified in long-standing titles. While recognizing the title, clearly, clarification is within our mission of providing correct information to our readers.

Beyond that, I see no logical reason for any of the other edits that were reversed (seemingly because of the one word in a caption not identified as a formal title). I will repeat the other edits which point out the presence of lionesses where misidentified as lions and the inclusion of that information for the reader, if missing.

The lioness has some distinctive physical characteristics that ancient artists were explicit in portraying no matter the ignorance of modern collectors, who often misidentified the subjects. Perpetuating such an error ignores potential cultural ramifications that may be quite relevant to understanding past cultures. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am afraid you cannot repeat the other edits either because they happen to be your personal observations. So you cannot call any animal depictions "lionesses" if they are not described as such by reliable sources. That would be WP:OR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2011 cathy gallatin 83d40m SarasotaChalkFestival.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entry made at discussion _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see File:"Forever Tall" CITYarts, Inc. mural.jpg which also is public art and the article on Public Art. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2011 kobraMural 83d40m SarasotaChalkFestival.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not remove these tags! If you dispute the deletion, discuss it at the cited page. Eeekster (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entry made at discussion including note that a correction of the entry on the upload form had been corrected and was reversed by editor challenging the images _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see File:"Forever Tall" CITYarts, Inc. mural.jpg which also is public art and the article on Public Art. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2007 lori escalera 83d40m SarasotaChalkFestival.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Entry made at discussion _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see File:"Forever Tall" CITYarts, Inc. mural.jpg which also is public art and the article on Public Art. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussing it here won't help. Go to the deletion discussion page and talk there. Eeekster (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not introduce spaces before refs, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add to BMK's comments, figures over ten are given in digits and we usually write that 'she graduated from university', not 'she was graduated'. Thanks Span (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 83d40m. You have new messages at Alansohn's talk page.
Message added 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

- Thanks for uploading File:Queen Tiye - cropped - probably with her husband Amenhotep III - 34 louvre - egyptarchive.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - Now send the e-mail you left on my talk page into the e-mail queue linked to above.

sfab00 img -- Not sure what you are asking for, but this is a stab at what I think you mean...

This is pasted from discussion at the talk page of sfab00 img:

Even though he states on his web site that none is required, I have the written permission of the creator for the use of his copyright-free low resolution images.

"From: Jon Bodsworth <post@egyptarchive.co.uk> Date: Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 2:11 PM Subject: Re: your photographs To: 83d40m coresp

Hi

Yes, that's fine. Use in any way you like.

All the best

Jon

.................

On 16 Nov 2007, at 02:48, 83d40m coresp wrote:

I would like to use your photographs in Wikipedia -- you have indicated that the low resolution images are copyright free and requested an e-mail if used. Please let me know whether you need any other information. Thanks for the availability of your great photographs. -- 83d40m"

Is this a new procedure? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please confirm that what you requested has been followed correctly. If not, please clarify what you want me to do. _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slate isn't valid a reference for that? You deleted the reference. --occono (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, it should be in the previous versions, let me look. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been moved over to another sentence that said the same thing, no worries. Just wondered why it wasn't valid.--occono (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify it was the line about Amateur videos. Doesn't matter now. --occono (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Benjamin R. Jacobs - March 15 1954 - 83d40m - 75 years old.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is unclear whether the uploader meant that he took the photo himself in 1954 or if he just scanned it. Stefan2 (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Convert to fair use the subject is dead (for 50 years), so no new free image can be created. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wonder how many scanners there were in 1954? The answer is, I took the photograph with a camera. A scan is necessary to put a photograph into a digital form and the digital image was uploaded to Wikipedia on October 25, 2008. The author is 83d40m. There is no reason to delete the image. The summary reads == scan of photograph of brj taken on 3.15.1954 on his 75th birthday (anniversary, of course) - from personal collection==, a quick look at the article identifies his birthday as 3.15.1879 and the file name clearly identifies the date and age of the subject. I believe that the summary identifies the source as "self made". (You guys have too much time on your hands to be debating what "is" "is"... but thank you for patrolling for the safety of Wikipedia!) _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for your recent contributions. Just to flag that numbers under 11 are written in letters (nine, four, one etc). Above ten are written as digits - 20th, 15, 44th, 1941. It would be appreciated if you could make the minor alterations needed to the articles you have edited where the format was changed. Thanks very much. Span (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Chatham Borough, New Jersey again. I've waited a while, but it seems to be deteriorating. I have been formulating a poll in advance of a move request that will standardize all of the paired municipalities, the Chanthams, Boontons and such. After reviewing the Encyclopedia of New Jersey and the naming convention it uses for articles, the titles of "Chatham Borough" and "Chatham Township" would be the model for other such municipalities. I don't see any justification for any other scheme, but this can be discussed further. Alansohn (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

83d40m opened up an offer of quoted dialogue in the Chatham Borough article, which I cut and pasted below. It is more convenient to reach resolution through a Talk page rather than internal notes in the article.

• "This is the name of the government rather than the place. Even though I believe your change is redundant with "Borough" identified above it as the type of settlement, I am willing to accept this compromise at the moment -- would you be willing to change the title of the article to Chatham (borough), New Jersey to reciprocate the compromise?"

I believe 83d40m and I have now reached consensus on the original issue that would allow a settlement's official name and common name to be included in Chatham Borough Info box as has been done in other Wikipedia articles. Any new issues regarding renaming of the Chatham Borough article, which I do not recommend, has been previously addressed by others. See end of this communication for further details.

I would first like to provide clarification for anyone with a further interest in this official location name issue in the Info box.

It is not simply the name of the Chatham government. There should be no doubt by anyone that it is an undisputed fact that "Borough of Chatham" is also the official name of the location that has been assigned by the town as per their website, town signs, and official documents, all of which is documented research. Town road signs, which indicate "Borough of Chatham", do not welcome visitors to their form of government. They welcome visitors to their location's name. I do not consider it redundant.

Polling of Wikipedia users will not change this fact.

If anyone is going to challenge the official location name, they need to provide documented research.

I worked with 83d40m to provide a compromise, which shows both the common name, Chatham, which 83d40m prefers, and the official location name, Borough of Chatham, which I added. I have gone further to identify documented research to substantiate these changes and provide better understanding by 83d40m.

I also noted that Chatham officials, who best know their town, state that "Borough of Chatham" is their official location name and not just a form of government. While this is not documented research, it should give anyone pause since Chatham officials might be in a better position than outsiders.

If this practice is OK for Wikipedia's New York City article, it should be good for Chatham article. No one is arguing that the frequently edited and viewed New York City article should delete their official name of City of New York from their Info box, which is in addition to the common name, New York City, even though the form of government is shown as "City".

Summit, NJ (City of Summit) and Hackensack, NJ (City of Hackensack) similarly list their official names (shown in parentheses), along with their common name.

While this issue can help provide clarification with paired communities, it is really part of bigger issue that has nothing to do with paired communities. The bigger issue that needs to be addressed:

• Is it acceptable to show both the common name plus the official location name in the Info box of a Wikipedia article for a settlement location if it is documented on the town's official website and town signs or in any other documented research? So far, various editors of individual articles have answered in the affirmative.

Just because another article does not use a certain practice, does NOT mean that it is not correct to use this practice in this article if Wikipedia guidelines do not advocate against it and other articles are already implementing a specific practice, which in our case was adding an official location name, along with the common name.

The issues noted above should be addressed completely separate from the naming of the Wikipedia article, which is currently Chatham Borough, New Jersey. Naming of this Wikipedia article has already been vigorously debated in extensive details over an extensive amount of time on the Talk page of Chatham Borough. I would NOT want to open up this Wikipedia naming topic again. If the Wikipedia article naming topic were ever opened again, which I would advise against, it would need to be publicly addressed on Chatham Borough's Talk page. 83d40m and I could not simply reach any agreement between the two of us on this separate Wikipedia article naming issue.

I welcome any further consensus and feedback.Wondering55 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I have reach consensus with Wondering55 regarding the info box. It involves a compromise by both, but is a reasonable solution for the time being. Thank you, editor Wondering55.

My apologies to editor Alansohn for raising this issue again, however, it has remained unresolved and considered in error by me all along. Because I have a passion for making the article correct, I believe I am justified in pursuing that objective, as tedious as it may be to other editors. I have researched for many aspects of articles of communities in this area and biographies of people born in this area. None of the subjects of biographies who were born in Chatham ever list their birth place as "Chatham borough", drivers licenses, birth and death certificates list the place as "Chatham", historical markers list the place as "Chatham". The basis of my argument is the difference between a place name and the type of government (which may change over time as in this case). There is a reason that maps do not list City of Summit, Borough of Madison, Borough of Florham Park, or Borough of Chatham on maps, they are giving the place names people seek and which reflect common use. When they do, one may take that as common usage.

Maps of this area identify Madison, Chatham, and Summit along the southwestern line of route 24 and farther to the southwest is Chatham Township.

There is a reason that the 'officials' asked about official names identify the government in which they function, create the signs mentioned, and sign the governmental papers. Regarding signs found in the town, note that the railroad is identified as "Chatham" the fire station is identified as "Chatham", the post office address is "Chatham". From the website are the following, "Living in Chatham", "Chatham Emergency Squad", "Chatham Joint Recreation", "Chatham Senior Center", "Explore Chatham", "The Minsi group of Lenni Lenape occupied the northern section of New Jersey, including the area of present-day Chatham.", "The trail became known as the Minisink Trail and followed a route that includes what is now Main Street in Chatham.", "In 1680 Sir George Carteret paid the Minsi the equivalent of $55 for land that included the present area of Chatham.", "Names associated with Chatham appear: Samuel Lum, Nathaniel Bonnell (also spelled “Bonnel”), and David Vanderpoel. These men settled in the area by the time of the Revolutionary War and made substantial contributions to Chatham’s early history.", "On November 23, 1773, the following notice appeared in the New York Journal or Advertiser: “Whereas the inhabitants of a certain village, situated at Passaic River, on the main road that leads from Elizabeth-Town to Morris-Town, found themselves under a considerable disadvantage from the place’s not having a particular name....the principal freeholders and inhabitants assembled together on Friday, the 19th inst., and unanimously agreed to call it Chatham.”, "Chatham’s citizens proved to be staunch revolutionaries and joined with leaders from other villages to form committees of observation and correspondence. Chatham citizens erected a liberty pole at what is now the corner of Main Street and University Avenue.", "Throughout the war Chatham was the scene of much troop movement. For two long winters Chatham served as a buffer...", "Shepard Kollock, an artillery soldier with a newspaper background, started the New Jersey Journal in Chatham...", "The army quietly left Chatham, heading south for Yorktown, Virginia.", "The trains that brought vacationers to Chatham also transported residents to city jobs. The “Chatham Accommodation” left at 7:15 a.m. and returned at 6:00 p.m.", "John T. Cunningham, in his preface to Chatham: At the Crossing of the Fishawack, states “I doubt that any other community of Chatham’s size in this country has ever taken such a detailed look at its history.” More information about the history of the Chathams can be found in the following books, available at the Library of the Chathams or the Chatham Historical Society.", and it lists the following books,

1. History of Chatham, New Jersey. Ambrose Ely Vanderpoel. 1959 Detailed, scholarly work, dwelling heavily on the War of Independence.

2. Chatham: At the Crossing of the Fishawack. John T. Cunningham. 1967. The story of Chatham from its beginnings through 1966.

3. Shepard Kollock: Editor for Freedom. John R. Anderson. 1975. The story of the New-Jersey Journal and its publisher in Chatham, 1779-83.

4. A Village at War. Donald Wallace White. 1979. A story of the people of Chatham, New Jersey, at the time of the American Revolution.

5 Memories Entwined with Roses. Ruth Pierson Churchill. 1984. Pamphlet “Washington’s Ruse de Guerre.” Ambrose Ely Vanderpoel. Reprint of Chapter XVI of History of Chatham.

For more information: Chatham Historical Society

On the website the address of Borough of Chatham is listed as, 54 Fairmount Avenue, Chatham, NJ 07928

"Explore Chatham is aimed at providing trails and descriptions that residents and non-residents can use to experience Chatham's natural beauty and historical importance."

Note the location stated in the published works of Shepard Kollock. While his press was located there, his books, pamphlets, and newspapers were printed in "Chatham, New Jersey"

Two historical markers displayed in the town identify it as "Chatham", including the "Chatham Historical District". If any group hones in on "the place" being designated, it is during historical designation.

What is the name of the community garden, "Chatham Community Garden"

I will quote from one of the first discussions raised on this topic,

:The point that the name of the government is not the name of the town is well made. In fact, I believe we confuse city governments with cities in Wikipedia, and, actually, all kinds of governments with places. As to how to find out the real name of the town, it's common usage. Normally, they are the same as "official usage", so it's not much of a practical problem. --Serge 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Common usage regarding Chatham since 1773 has been Chatham, New Jersey (except for the activities of its government, which is to be expected).

I'm afraid that I must sign off until tomorrow, but will continue my discussion then. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested the renaming of the article on "The Chathams" (in which a joint school district and a sharing of the Chatham library with the residents of Chatham Township are discussed) to just that "The Chathams, New Jersey" and returning the title of "Chatham, New Jersey" to the article we are discussing that has been identified as Chatham, New Jersey for hundreds of years. "The Chathams" article was created by short time resident who for personal reasons wanted to be identified as a resident of Chatham, New Jersey when he lived in an apartment and attended secondary school in Chatham Township, New Jersey (after the creation of the joint school district and the expansion of library services that responded to the explosion of population in the township following WWII when open lands and large farms were converted to housing developments without any 'town' being developed—this was purely, classical suburban sprawl) and he created a new article on "The Chathams" and switched the title from the original "Chatham, New Jersey" article to his new article—renaming the original article as "Chatham Borough, New Jersey". He usurped all of the history related to the village that existed for hundreds of years and applied it to the article on the adjacent township where he lived. That township was a distinct rural region that was a remnant of the initial governmental organization efforts made after the revolution. It had few residents until the 1960s and only a small grammar school for the children who lived on the farms and in remote houses. By the time he became a resident the population explosion of the township had precipitated an increase that exceeded that of Chatham. The changes to the school and library system were in place by the time he resided there and it is obvious that he had no idea that the histories of the two communities were so different. He did not follow any suggestion I made about his incorrect assumptions. He striped the article on the original settlement down to nominal discussion. This editor was not a native of the country and his family had no history of residence in the community whose article he chose to alter for personal reasons that are complicated, and perhaps unnecessary to explicate. He had no sense of the local history. As I opposed the changes he made things escalated and by the time other editors became involved, it was no longer possible to understand readily the ramifications of his edits, nor was it an issue that other editors were want to plumb. Some of his changes were intended simply to muddy the waters enough that other editors might merely consider it a petty edit war. The changes he made have never been corrected adequately.

Residents of "Chatham, New Jersey" are passionate about their history. The number of houses displaying the date of their construction in the 1700s is remarkable. One author stated that "Chatham,, New Jersey" had studied its own history more than any other community in the country. Having to avoid articles in Wikipedia that often are driven to use the borough title to link to an incorrectly titled WP article is untenable to me as an editor with deep historical appreciation of subjects. The borough and township pairs that exist in New Jersey municipal governments compounded the entire issue. They had become problematic in a scheme chosen by WP that confused governments with the places they govern, introducing the subjects by defining them as the governmental name. Reaching a uniform resolution of that and making all of the corrections needed could entail a lot of work. That may dampen any enthusiasm for resolving the issue with three articles.

The common usage of "Chatham Township" as displayed on the map given above for an example is as a place name as well as a government organization of the place. The map displayed on an Internet Google search for "Chatham Township" clearly identifies the boundaries if it at [6]

Likewise, the map displayed on an Internet Google search for "Chatham, New Jersey" clearly identifies the boundaries of it and shows its relationship to Chatham Township [7]. The argument for common usage is rather clear showing that the two places are commonly recognized by those names.

As requested, continuing documentation of common usage in media of note that supports my argument includes the following,

• "Aaron Montgomery Ward was born on February 17, 1844, in Chatham, New Jersey, to a family whose forebears had served as officers in the French and Indian War as well as in the American Revolution." [8]

• "Ben Bailey is a young comedian on the rise. In the fall of 1992, Ben left his home in Chatham, New Jersey and flew to Los Angeles with only forty dollars and a backpack full of clothes. Ben Bailey profile

• "Reagan to Nominate Former Interior Aide As Labor Secretary, Mrs. McLaughlin was born in 1941 in Chatham, N.J." - The New York Times, November 3, 1987

• Kafi Benz..."[b]orn during 1941 in Chatham, New Jersey" and the 1940 United States Federal Census lists the residence of her father and mother as Chatham, New Jersey

• "Mr. Shipler was born in Chatham, N.J., graduated from Dartmouth College and joined The Times as a news clerk in 1966..." - The New York Times, April 17, 1987

• "Alice Louise Waters, one of four daughters born in Chatham, N.J., is no longer just a restaurateur..." - The New York Times, August 4, 1996

This is how natives of the town identify themselves. That is common usage.

The post card displayed in the article, clearly declaring the location as Chatham, N.J. dates from 1911 and confirms common usage.

I list these because they are all from long after the borough form of government was adopted.

The notice at the top of the WP articles for the township and the town clearly direct readers to the WP articles on Chatham Township, The Chathams, and Chatham in New Jersey. Although I consider it an expendable article, if the title of the article on The Chathams were corrected to "The Chathams, New Jersey" and if the title of the article on Chatham, New Jersey were reverted to its original title the existing notices would clarify the differences for our readers and accurately reflect common usage. I am, however, amazed by the reluctance to adopt common usage in WP and the insistence on allowing an ill-advised change to stand for an article that merely covers a joint school system and a library service extension that easily could be covered as a paragraph in the articles on each of the real communities.

I have a long history as an editor in highly technical areas that require an understanding of very detailed nomenclature and precise use of language and, in contrast, this is so fundamental an issue that has such a simple solution, following the common use that has prevailed in language and geography for hundreds of years. Does WP identify an article on Paris or Toykyo to identify the name of its current form of government as the title of the article? They have changed governments dramatically in the last century, yet the place name is the same. Although I consider it less than professional editing and confounding a simple reality of having articles that are entitled with the place names. I could even accept the compromise I suggested of "Chatham (borough), New Jersey" as long as borough is not capitalized. It would be closer to an accurate title for the article.

The curious reality is, that an article entitled, "Borough of Chatham", could be written to discuss the government of that place in great detail. Of course, such an article would be better focused upon a very complex government, but the principle is evident.

I repeat this entry by another editor, who was asked to comment on my assertion of the inaccuracy of the title of the article during the heated debate in 2006.

The point that the name of the government is not the name of the town is well made. In fact, I believe we confuse city governments with cities in Wikipedia, and, actually, all kinds of governments with places. As to how to find out the real name of the town, it's common usage. Normally, they are the same as "official usage", so it's not much of a practical problem. --Serge 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My motivation is to make WP the best it can be. My primary objective is correcting one article. Secondarily, I would like to corrections to all three articles. Perhaps, we can thrash this out enough to reach a use that does not make WP seem stupid and peculiar. At the moment, Chatham, New Jersey is a borough. Its government form has changed several times without the place name changing in common use. It might be time, however, for WP to wake up to its shortsightedness on this and begin to make inroads in its established standard format that is confused and incorrect—and most misleading for its readers. I would be willing to assist. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Map identifying ChathamTownship and Chatham 83d40m.png. 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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I recommend deletion - I have replaced the image with links to the source. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a reference for sunset policy you added with this edit?

As long as you have reliable sources, relevant information can of course be added. Manxruler (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]