Since Guam is not legally part of the US, it seemed wrong to me that USA should be in the location, though it is an unincorporated territory of the US. However, this is not the same as describing it as "insular area of the United States" - that couuld equally apply to Long Island!! Please edit as you see fit, but I would suggest something that stresses that Guam is administered by, but not part of, the USA; or simply leave it as I did which leaves readers the option of linking through to Guam and finding out for themselves. Of course, when Guam becomes the 51st state....... Emeraude (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read Insular area more carefully. You're right that technically Long Island would not be included, though I suspect that most readers, like myself, would not be aware of this legal definition and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. However, the article makes it clear that such areas are NOT part of the United States, which was my original editing point. I'm British. An analogy that British readers would appreciate is with Gibraltar or maybe Jersey. Neither is part of the United Kingdom, but the British Civil Aviation Authority would have responsibility for investigating aircraft accidents there. The citizens of both are not, technically, citizens of the UK though they have British passports. It would clearly be wrong to describe a school in Gibraltar as Somesuch School, Gibraltar, UK. To quote from Insular area, "they are legally distinct from the United States and their inhabitants are not United States citizens or nationals". Emeraude (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Yes you are quite right. I've been speed-reading with a lack of accuracy!!! However, the point remains that Guam is not part of the USA.Emeraude (talk)
Speedy deletion of "Kuo Yao-chi"
A page you created, Kuo Yao-chi, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Garrett Evans, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Garrett Evans is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article, or no articles at all.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Garrett Evans, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It's just that an improper license = the image can go at any time."
"Can" or "may" is different than "should;" what license should I have used? Can I access the picture to fix it? That's what I mean by AGF - I can't do those things now because you've blocked those actions. I do not question your knowledge of policy.
"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong."
So inquire - did I hear this somewhere? Can I source it? Is is damaging? The answers are no, I read it repeatably; yes, but not with a hyperlink; and not SLIGHTLY.
Deleting the alum list was especially problematic, as that information is easily verified.
Your action is within policy, but left me less willing to contribute. You are free to not care about that; but sometimes acting within policy bounds can still go against the greater interest.
Hello, I'm just to ask of the correct format would be English (Kanji, Pronounciation of Kanji), since it would make more sense as flipping the Kanji around is not much use. I will not be able to reply for the day so please post the reply on my discussion.DragonZero (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, we are currently conducting a merge discussion (here) about trimming down and merging the List of minor One Piece characters into the main character list. According to the page history you were involved with the article early-on and I thought you should know about the discussion so you can weigh in on the discussion. Thanks! --Kraftlos (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emory University edit
Look, the USPS and the actual city boundaries differ. The university has a "Atlanta, Georgia" address, but it is outside of the Atlanta City Limits.
WhisperToMe (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but you should avoid using vague terms in the infobox such as "near". Some one who is just skimming ther article can interpreter that as 5 minutes to 2 hours outside of Atlanta. This is very common for universities to be on the outside boarder of a city, so in the infobox just uses the postal address and and then clarify it's location in the article. Bvjrm (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A contributor has suggested that diplomatic missions in Taipei belonging to sending states that do not recognise the Republic of China should not be listed with a flag of the Republic of China, should be referred to as "Taiwan" and should contain a caveat specifying sending state does not recognise the Republic of China. While he has made this change to Diplomatic missions of Ireland, it would be appropriate that whatever decision to made to this article also is made in all the other DMBC articles (both the receiving and sending articles).
I am against removing Taiwan's flag to the exclusion of others.
I am against including caveats about the status of diplomatic relations, as this is not central to articles about diplomatic missions
I am against a change to the self-identification principle, in which receiving states are listed according to their own name. I however acknowledge there is inconsistency in the application of this rule and would reconsider my position if there is strong support to apply the logical alternative (receiving states are named according to how sending states know them). This decision however is fiddlier and would put us in direct conflict with Taiwanese (and Macedonians) who would have other agendas.
In short it is not worth the extra work, and I am not certain that this new contributor is prepared for all the extra work (and edit wars) his change entails. Please provide your views in Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland
This relates to the comment you made at Talk:Air New Zealand destinations, so the matter should probably be discussed there, but my basic feeling is that the subsidiaries of Air NZ are not independent enough that they can be treated separately from mainline Air New Zealand. I briefly tried to make a map which indicated the particular subsidiary being used, but gave up - many routes use multiple subsidiaries depending simply on which aircraft type Air NZ felt like using for a given flight. -- Vardion (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Google image shows a picture. [1] It looks like a Central American church is using it. A map shows the location on a triangle corner (Hoover, Alvarado, and Alvarado Terr.) [2]. See also [3]. When I get a chance, I will take a current photo. Ucla90024 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may interest you to know that I have a disagreement on your addition to Borough Park concerning the Public Library. I have posted a comment on the talk page, and welcome your input. Be advised that the article as written has a concise, clear focus on both history and current neighborhood features (cultural/political dynamics). Referenced as it may be, the Internet-based information recently provided is clouting the article and detracting some meaning.
Tee Yungstah is notable. He auditioned on Freestyle Friday, he did a Freestyle Battle in front of a well known pastors church and he has battles on YouTube and MySpace, why delete it yo, that's not fair. - Pekin Republican 2:39 PM Monday 11-17-2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave you sources. If you can google it and if you can see it on the internet then those are sources, not anything that's made up. - 2:42 PM, Mon 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs)
You know, not all rappers are on CNN to NBC and on Books, this website can make Tee Yungstah be on the news, the radio, the television if people just read this yo, so keep it on. - 3:26 PM Monday November 17th 2008 Pekin Republican —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then promoting other people or other rappers such as Jin and Immortal Technique doesn't make any sense if you getting on another subject about promotion. - Pekin R. Wed 11/19/08 3:31 A.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 08:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Map_of_Georgia_highlighting_ATLMetroArea.PNG listed for deletion
I do have notability, it's just rare for you to see it for yourself. Acting like dudes make up lies and rumors up on this website. Yall need to stop that. Wed, November 19th, 2008 3:17 P.M. Pekin R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody is proposing removing the Irish government office in Taiwan in Diplomatic missions of Ireland, as Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Current practice is that we include such missions, as they effectively perform the same roles as genuine diplomatic missions but are deliberately given unofficial nomenclature for political purposes.
Could you please either:
Support this proposal, and in all relevant articles help remove all Taiwanese offices in countries that do not recognise the Republic of China, and remove all foreign offices in Taiwan that do not recognise the Republic of China, or
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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Fatal!ty(T☠LK)10:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As reviewing administrator, I regret that the above speedy nomination notification had ever been placed -- it was among a large group nominated for deletion contrary to policy by a user who has now been blocked for doing so, by consensus of several administrators at WP:AN/I. Neighborhoods are of course not always notable, but there seems to be quite sufficient information that this one is notable. Deletion has been prevented, and please feel free to remove the notice. DGG (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it was among a large group nominated for deletion contrary to policy by a user who has now been blocked for doing so, by consensus of several administrators at WP:AN/I. Deletion has been prevented, and please feel free to remove the notice. DGG (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Palisades residents?
Just wondering why the list of notable residents was deleted from Pacific Palisades, CA? I've been keeping a very close eye on the list, and being a former resident, I can usually tell who belongs and who doesn't. Quite a few of the residents on the list can be verified as having lived there. To show each one with references would be unwieldy.
Please consider restoring the list. Please rest assured the list is vetted and checked by yours truly for accuracy.
Re: your message on my talk page - Fair enough. I'll start collecting references and restoring bit by bit. Only thing I'm afraid of is the reference list will eventually be longer than the article 8^)
Apparently someone else restored the list. Let's keep it restored - it's much easier to add references than to do the whole list from scratch again. I've added refs to the first three and will continue to do so as I have time. Thanks! Manway (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added several refs this morning. Please do not delete now - I spent a lot of time on this and will continue to do so in the future as I have time. Manway (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, you commented as follows:
Hi! You said: "revert to version with list - it being unreferenced is not a valid reason for removal)" Please consider WP:BLP - The policy says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." In general it is a bad idea to have unsourced information related to living people - of course some people on the list are dead, but even so it is often better to start over from scratch and source it back up. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For ease of reference I repeat here my response: I am aware of and agree with the WP policy that you cite, but your interpretation of it appears to be mistaken. The key word here is "contentious". In this case, for a list of people who have supposedly lived in this particular location in California, I think it extremely unlikely that any living person is going to be genuinely upset should there be a mistaken claim that they once lived there. This material is not "contentious". Of course, it would be better if even fairly trivial information about living people was properly sourced. So, rather than remove it wholesale, try to find a valid reason for removing individual names. Alternatively, why not contribute constructively and try sourcing things yourself. Edwardx (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Family Airlines
I have gone back and looked up the OTRS ticket, which is 2008012810021346. While you or I (or any other reasonable person) might well conclude that this is only one company, the individual concerned states categorically that it is not. The sources are few and far between and not really enough to support n article where there is dispute; the company has never traded and seems unlikely to do so in the near future. The individual being named also raises WP:BLP concerns. Overall I do not think we should take sides. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comair
Hello
You was edited [5] Comair. You changed [[Erlanger (Kentucky)|Erlanger]] to [[Boone County (Kentucky)|Boone County]] and add source. BUT in source there is information that they site is Erlanger. So i don`t know: you have right or source :>.
"an official page"; but that means one. Yes, if their only official page is Myspace or whatever, then that's their one; but only one. That's what I meant; sorry if I was unclear. --Orange Mike | Talk19:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just another segregated fortress development for the rich. I don't see why it needs its own article. I'm sorry if I seemed accusatory, but the bit about school zones came across as tacitly advertising "your children will not be exposed to any vile working-class brats, and certainly won't have to go to the same shabby schools as their social inferiors." (Yes, I'm sensitive to these issues, as a father of a kid in the inner city.) Why shouldn't this go into Geographic areas of Houston? --Orange Mike | Talk20:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think that a "community" of 62 houses is notable enough for its own article. The myriad articles on Houston neighborhoods really startle me; I'm more used to the precedent we've set in Milwaukee, where there is a single Neighborhoods of Milwaukee article, and only the separate municipalities and a very few historically unique areas get articles. I have withdrawn the speedy, and hope we can continue to work together peacably. --Orange Mike | Talk20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Make Pacific Palisades a good article?
I'm in. In fact, let's see if we can get it to Featured. That would be a nice perk of this work.
Hey WhisperToMe, great job on the article and finding the .gif of the 500 Riel coin. I saw your edits and then was scratching my head thinking about how to find a reference for the fact that a currency is no longer in use. It's a tough one. Then I checked the source of the image you added to the article - now I understand. The damn National Bank of Cambodia website says the coins are still in circulation! I'll be stuffed. I first came here as a visitor in 1996 and then I've lived here continuously for close to ten years. But, I've NEVER ever seen a coin being used (sold as souvenirs, yes). Chatting with my family, I discover that the coins were introduced in the mid 90's but were neither popular nor trusted, many people refused to believe they were genuine currency. So, they fell into disuse very quickly. So now what should we do? Original research anyone? Cheers, Paxse (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an account on the Japanese Wikipedia?
I found an account on the Japanese Wikipedia called "Whisper to Me" and was wondering if it was you. If it is you, you should add "日本語を解りません" on the page, it means "Nihongo o Wakarimasen" (I don't know Japanese). わwaらraうuSmile!00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is promotion since you think adding Tee Yungstah's page is promotion. Jin and Immortal Technique are known now because of this website so if they can have their info on here, so can Tee Yungstah. And what's with the reliable source thing. Isn't he on the internet enough for his info to be on this website? Stop hating and give this guy a chance, he's worked to hard in Freestyle Battling. Pekin R. 11/29/08 5:06 A.M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekin Republican (talk • contribs) 10:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A potent of things to come, shopping mall-wise. Chick-Fil-A opened
its first mall store at GREENBRIAR in the early 1970s.
Photo from Malls of America Blogspot "
Everyone of the people on that list are McCallum High School alumni. It's not a joke. I can cite the 1994 yearbook as one source if you need it. Not sure why you think it defames them to have them listed as alumni of the high school they attended. Thanks. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for your help. I'll work on finding the source for Geoff Ketchum. He's a radio show host and author on high school and college football. I went to high school with him. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(moved here)I think in that scenario the no smoking sign was used in a similar manner to the biohazard sign was used in the Aerolineas Argentinas poisoning article. I'll think of a better representative picture. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts in improving Guam-related articles, but I just want to bring you some awareness of the island's realities.
Guam is a small, but yet "metropolitan" island isolated from the outside. There are better street signs for small streets than major roads, because everyone knows where things are. (Or for new residents, it doesn't take long to learn.) Addresses are a secondary means of locating things. Landmarks are primary. USPS won't deliver to a lot of places without street signs, and the villages don't put up street signs because the lack of deliveries.
I don't see why the exact addresses (however meaningless they are) of post offices need to be mentioned, as they will definitely be judged as non-encyclopedic for mainland cities. Guam has 3 off-base post offices where the majority population have their PO boxes. (The other CPUs carry boxes, plus shops that run PMBs.) Unless you rent boxes, the whole island is delivered from GMF and picks up packages from GMF in Barrigada--naturally because it is THE post office and that in turn is because it's next to the airport. That's why Barrigada's PO is worth mentioning but not the other ones.
Each Guam village used to have its own ZIP code--that's when the USPS was dreaming of eventually delivering the whole island. Then in 2001, they consolidated all street deliveries to just 4 ZIP codes. That was the beginning of a mess made by Statesiders on Guam's "city" names. The USPS website listing is unreliable. The Inarajan PO is in Inarajan, not Santa Rita (and those two villages are far away). The Mangilao address (Rosario St) you added is labeled as the Merizo office (that's the southern tip of Guam). The Rosario office's phone number is the same as GMF's. I lived there for years and never heard of such a PO. And given that they do operate the University of Guam CPU, I don't see why they have another office, and beside that, if they opened a new one, I sure would've heard about it on the news. (I do news roundup for a monthly magazine on Guam, and despite my 3+ years absence, I monitor local news closely.) Take a look at this and you'll see why I said "dubious" about the supposed "Mangilao" office. I can't find Rosario street on the map I have. It may well be in Merizo, as I remember there is an office but it's not on the list.
Being a small, isolated place, you either know where things are or you don't need to know. There are no visitors from 60 miles away or 600 miles away, only 6000 miles away. Street maps are available in local phone books, but not published online (well, maybe Census). The facts that Latte Heights is closer to Dededo and Tiyan being a shortcut are common local knowledge. It's like State A borders State B. (You may want to check out Wikimapia to see where Latte Heights is.) Furthermore, a lot of things happened before the internet, and you won't find it documented on the internet. (I searched for any record of Costco, which everyone who lived there [and I who lived after it closed] knows operated at the same place as PriceSmart, but found only old links of "countries" Costco operated in, which included Guam.)
What I am encouraging you is to exercise a different mentality for societies like Guam. You don't know what you don't know, and therefore you can't demand sources for everything. That Latte Heights is closer to Dededo is something you'll see on a map if you know where Latte Heights, Mangilao and Dededo are. It is just like an article which has a listing of one point's distance to various points, you can only demand verifiability, not source.
What commercial districts there are in Barrigada are verifiable--once you're there. There are no POV issues to require "sources" to support it. What I'm trying to say is, if everything must be directly supported by sources, much of the contents about small societies will be wiped out. And having everything unsourced wiped out will be like Barrigada mentioning that PriceSmart was there but not where the commercial districts are. And if improvement is not possible, it leads to WP:IAR.
Hey, Mr. Sock
Hi, I write about Houston. I just added something about PSA 1771. Then I looked up the history and see you did so, too. Are you my sock since it is nearly impossible that you would edit such an obscure article as me? Just kidding. Chergles (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC) I was once wrongly banned as a sock but that was more than a year ago, approaching two. Now I think that's funny though at the time I was livid. Chergles (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
edited to whispering per your name: WhisperToMe Chergles (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not sure what you wanting this change to say, but it doesn't read correctly to me: "Columbine High School massacre occurred on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in the Columbine census-designated place in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado, United States near Denver and Littleton." Rather than revert it, I thought I'd bring it to your attention so it could be fixed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's redundant to start. When you look at Columbine, Colorado, it says explicitly at the beginning that it is a census designated place. Adding the explicit "census-designated place" makes the wording more awkward. As an aside, I've never understood the need for the "unincorporated" part of the opening, since most counties in the United States are unincorporated by definition. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An incorporated area, by definition, is a city or town with its own charter and governmental organization. A county is an area of regional government, which isn't incorporated, although there are very few counties that don't have some local area of incorporation. In Indiana, the only incorporated area which happens to encompass an entire county is Indianapolis, which happened to annex all of the outlying portions of Marion County into the incorporated city. I live in a village that has a mailing address of a nearby city, but it's an unincorporated town. My understanding of Baltimore County and Arlington County is like Indianapolis, but outside of extensive urban areas, there are few areas that have incorporated counties. Columbine would be a unincorporated CDP within Jefferson County, CO. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, it just seems awkward to me. I'd be more inclined to say "Blah Industries, near Bigtown, Michigan, in Central County." To me, it says the same thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Champion Forest
Well, I've taken a look at the article, and I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. I can only assume a peer review by someone who lives near? I could possibly take a photo of something in the area, Ravenaux or an entrance sign perhaps. Other than that, I'm not quite sure what I can offer. The information presented seems accurate and well-referenced, but the article is missing much of the history of the area and the genesis of the neighborhood, which even I'm not sure how to find. -MBK00401:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I'm not sure if Studio City ever split from North Hollywood (if so, that explains things) or if they were always separate., both are located in City of Los Angeles. These communities are loosely defined, if at all. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've reviewed the article Bacliff, Texas for its nomination for Good Article status. I have some concerns about referencing along with other issues, so I am placing the article on hold for seven days. My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review or individual issues I have raised, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. When you have addressed the issues I have mentioned, I will be happy to reevaluate the nomination. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I get around to it, I shall take a photo of the new station. It replaces the emergency receiving hospital where Bobby Kennedy was taken to when he was shot at the Ambassador Hotel. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate titles, and columns in Lists of articles
I noticed that you are a contributor in the "List of Famicom games", and I'd like to invite you to contribute to the Talk:List of Nintendo 64 games#Removal of Alternate Titles and Number of Players where we are discussing the use of keeping alternate titles in the "List of...games" some have suggested that they take up too much space and that other columns could seem to be "useful only to fans", and other things that have been mentioned that, and other 'List of' talk pages. I know you might be watching the page and seen how I mention this on the Famicom list page, but I hope you'll come and give you opinion, and hopefully keep these type of concerns from arising again and again at each "List of" pages. (Floppydog66 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
AfD nomination of Continental Airlines Flight 1404
Hi there- I saw that you added a new section, "Accidents and incidents", to the Denver International Airport article, but this incident has already been documented under the "History" section. Would you kindly revise your edit to add your additional information and sources to that section instead of creating a new one? I noticed that many other accidents had been noted in that section, so it's probably more appropriate than creating a new section. Feel free to discuss on the article's talk page or on mine. Thanks! Mononomic (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sir, my friend was blocked on wikipedia for a reason that him and his dad have the nearly the same user names (Markdandrea and Mdandrea). They were editing a webpage together and before they knew it they were in an editting war and his dad was blocked for 2 months and he was blocked forever. Believe me they are two different people, not the same, could you please unblock them both?
Thanks,
Joker412 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Rio Rico, Texas
There's a name change/move discussion going on at Rio Rico, Texas about whether or not a history article about the former Texas town of Rio Rico should be renamed. Since you edit a lot of Texas-city based articles, I thought I would make you aware of the discussion. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs a lot of work. The article should be moved to its name, which is Camino Nuevo Charter Academy. It has: One Early Childhood Education Center opened in 2004, Two K-8 campuses opened in 2000 and 2001, and One College Preparatory High School campus opened in 2004. Will post a picture of one of the K-8 campuses. Ucla90024 (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply NPOV that "Taiwan" is the common name for the present-day Republic of China. (You won't dare write anything else in the address field if you're going to mail something really important--even to Matsu or Kinmen.) Describing the ROC authorities as "Taiwanese government" is also in common/general use--you'll even see many government websites adding "(Taiwan)" to the official name--even after KMT regained control of the executive side in 2008. In the accident flight article, MoS would dictate that ROC be first introduced as an abbreviation, but that would be excessive. One mention of "Republic of China" in the lead sentence is more than enough for an article in this context (not very political!) HkCaGu (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, but the next word is "authorities" which is very unofficial and unspecific as to which departments or company management they were. "ROC" sounds too unofficial and looks like a mismatch with the next word. It's not that I can't stand the term "ROC authorities", but "Republic of China (ROC)" in the lead would be excessive, and "Republic of China authorities" would be even more excessive and simply sounds weird! After all, the "Taiwanese authorities" are most likely located outside the Province of Taiwan (being in Taipei City) and I simply don't see any controversy with the term. HkCaGu (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Taipei" would always be POV unless it's Olympic/sports related--as in "the government is in Taipei but isn't the legitimate government in Taiwan". "Taiwan" is not necessarily POV, and I think it is not in that sentence, and I don't think "Taiwanese authorities" could be construed as provincial authorities since provinces don't govern aviation. HkCaGu (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Taipei" is POV because the ROC is nominally "Taiwan" but cannot join international organizations under that name because of implication that it's a country. On the other side, however, "Taipei government" is ambiguous because it doesn't specify whether it's the city or the county or the nation. The main point of that line of text is that China Airlines was ordered to do something. The word "Taiwanese" is there to disambiguate from the Japanese authorities. In Mainland China, they purposefully call the "Republic of China government" the "Taiwanese authority(ies)"--I don't see why we should stand on the other extreme and convert all mentions of "Taiwanese authorities" to "Republic of China government". If you must add the department's name, describing it as "Taiwan's" is most appropriate. HkCaGu (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that "authorities" is not about names of official state organs. The MoS says use common name, which is Taiwan. The USA article is "United States", not "United States of America". You can't just go add "of America" everywhere in Wikipedia. The MoS/Chinese is there to tell you when not to use the common name, and I don't think it applies to the original prose in the China Airlines accident flight article in that section. When the ROC aviation department calls Boeing or NTSB, they'll self-identify as Taiwan's Department of XXX. They may use the full ROC name (maybe +"(Taiwan)") on paper and official stuff, but without the need for official-ness, it's still "Taiwan", as that one line in the "Aftermath" section should be. HkCaGu (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know why the report says it that way? You know why they can't name the department? Because if they do, they'll have to say "Republic of China" too and that of course is not allowed due to international and diplomatic protocol. Therefore, grammatically it's either "ROC's Department of XXX" or "Taiwanese (generic word) authorities", and I think the latter choice is more appropriate in terms of context. BTW, in your recent edit, you still hadn't introduce the abbreviation "ROC". (And the introduction was what I feel would be excessive.) HkCaGu (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas Eve vandalism of The Kinkaid School page
File source problem with File:Map of Texas highlighting DFWMetroplex.png
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Map of Texas highlighting DFWMetroplex.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
File source problem with File:Map of Texas highlighting HoustonMetroArea.PNG
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:Map of Texas highlighting HoustonMetroArea.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
I was wondering why you deleted some of the notable current and former residents of Forest Hills? Is there a commonly used definition of "notable" that applies here? Just curious.Rosattin (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. A few questions. If the Wikipedia article on the person in the list mentions that they lived in FH, does that list entry still have to be footnoted? Does each person in the list have to have a Wikipedia page? Is that what makes them "notable"?
What do you like, a photo of building with a demonstration in front or without? Have the one with demo now. Otherwise will have to take one when people are not there. Also can you look into 2009 Cal Poly Universities Rose Float and Cal Poly Universities Rose Float. Seems silly to have both articles. 2009 float can be a sub-heading in the Cal Poly float article. Then they can add years when there are information, like "Float Notes". Ucla90024 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've uploaded File:RyukyuAirCommuterLogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.
Hi there... i think we should move "Education in Taiwan" to "Education in the ROC", since we deal with an official organization, I also believe wiki policies on naming conventions support such a change... ur POV? Gumuhua (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Gator-aud.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Gator-aud.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Galveston County maps
Hey, I was finally able to complete your requested maps for the locations in Galveston County, Texas. If you find any more, just let me know. 25or6to4 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indonesian consulate in Klagenfurt
Is that building still used as an honorary consulate? Is it a man's house? Is it a business space? I can't find anything related to an honorary consulate of Indonesia in Klagenfurt... WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm afraid that I'm not staying at home at the present moment, otherwise I'd be happy to oblige. The edition I use is the large two-volume one, rather than the huge 20 vols. If I find myself back there in the next few days, I'll certainly scan and post. Sorry can't be of more immediate help. Regards, DionysosProteus (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thai photo
No problem I will have the photo by this weekend. Although I might add that Chicago has been having terrible weather (-2 degrees F with a wind chill of -20 degrees) and a lot of snow. I will see how the photo will come out. No problem at all. Greetings, Vseferović (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my misunderstanding of your edits[7][8] before checking its source. The official name in Korean has only added one syllable, 가천의과대 to 가천의과학대, so I did not notice the change until today. I hope you understand my mistake. Best regards.--Caspian blue15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medicine itself is part of science, so the changed title sounds a bit awkward, but the former name 가천의과대학교, literally means "Gacheon Medical University". 가천의과학대학교 is translated into as the current name or "Gacheon Medical and Science University". UnlikeNorth America and UK's, students of South Korea's medical schools learn medicine from their junior year. --Caspian blue15:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, WTM. There wasn't anything in it beyond "so-and-so is a college in Japan" along with a picture and a couple of external links. Feel free to undelete it if you think it'll be expanded upon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, we are currently conducting a merge discussion (here) about trimming down and merging the List of minor One Piece characters into the main character list. According to the page history you were involved with the article early-on and I thought you should know about the discussion so you can weigh in on the discussion. Thanks! --Kraftlos (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/images/jtr8/images/04c-stacy-latemple2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/JonestownReport/Volume8/stacy.htm&usg=__03ChdzPc3PUvLZFBozbWWV56t64=&h=450&w=299&sz=41&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=9lcZw6oSoLLkNM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpeoples%2Btemple%2Blos%2Bangeles%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Gator-aud.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}