User talk:Staxringold/Archive1

American chopper

I just stumbled upon the articles whilst on New Page patrol. Thought the photos were great. Cnwb 00:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins

You're going well - it's tough the first time you get a real going-over on FAC, I had that with Caulfield Gramar too - but I wonder if you can improve the justification on Image:HopkinsMascotGoat1.gif. It's copyrighted, and your current rationale is a bit of a joke. Thanks. Harro5 03:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The main glaring hole in the article is the gap between 1660 and 1926 for the history. Surely somewhere you can find some info to fill these gaps. Also, I'd seriusly consider how valuable the list of clubs (which has fluctuated in size as useful groups have been added - I'm still watching this page) are to the article and look to delete it entirely. Harro5 22:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a thought. One of the problems coming out of the FAC was the issue of image copyrights. Seeing as you are a student at Hopkins, you could easily replace the Heath Commons plans with a picture of the actual building, thus bypassing any need to explain copyright. No offence, but a real pic is much more inviting than a drawing. If there are other spots on campus which are very picturesque (it's Connecticut, and it's fall, so there must be some good views) take some snaps and upload them. This gives readers a feel of the sort of school Hopkins really is. Harro5 00:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance you could write a short article, even just a few lines in a stub, on the school's founder Edward Hopkins? I see you tried to do so in the past, but know you now realise that copyrighted material isn't for Wikipedia. Have another go if you can. Thanks. Harro5 01:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the portal ever fails to update itself automatically, which happens all the time because its main page is drawing on text from other subpages, just press Purge the portal in the bottom right corner of the intro setion up the top. Have a test run if you like. Harro5 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UN Security Council

Hello, I notice that you have added this template to the pages for several countries. We don't actually use international organization templates on country pages anymore, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, and are slowly phasing them all out in favour of ones like {{UK ties2}}. - SimonP 04:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good looking template, and of course it can stay on the Security Council, and perhaps should also go on the main UN page. The main problem with these international ties templates was that if we allowed one, we ended up having to allow a dozen such templates per country, which was quite a mess. - SimonP 12:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could always make them. It is an annoying and time consuming process, but you have already demonstrated some ability in the creation of templates. - SimonP 19:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:WestWingTheory

Hi, I've been watching the discussion at U.S. presidential election, 2006 (fictional). I can't help but notice that User:WestWingTheory has only been a member of the Wikipedia since 15 October. I just want to remind you to not bite the newbies as you did here. New people at the Wikipedia may not know all the policy yet, so we have to help them out. Thanks! - Scm83x 23:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate, 1911-1913

Glad to help. tregoweth 16:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Television commercial

My revision removed a large amount of copy and paste text from another web site and a declaration of love. Please check the diffs to verify this. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second check, my bad. I think I've got it to a clean version now. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears

Thanks for fixing that one. I was not at all sure of whether the last edit was vandalism or not... Shows you how much I know about Britney Spears. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Exactly why did you revert my edits here [2]? The link was removed without an explanation by an anon user. Is that anon IP you? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is worthy of linking because it is an entire site based on the subject. And also such a link should not be removed without discussion. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tecumseh's curse

My edits on Tecumseh's curse weren't vandalism, and you shouldn't revert changes with "rvv" without even looking to see why a change was made. If you disagree, we can talk about how the article should change, but it wasn't vandalism. The article was filled with irrelevant info, opinion, and original research. —Cleared as filed. 22:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grapes for vandal-fighting

For reverting vandalism on Mahatma Gandhi [1] you get a bunch of grapes. Enjoy. :) Sam Vimes 09:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King of the Hill Episode Descriptions

Hi Staxringold,

The above VFD's closed as no consensus after counting the votes ( 4 delete, 1 merge, 5 redirect ).

In this case, be bold! and redirect the page to List of King of the Hill episodes yourself. VFD is mainly to determine whether the article should be deleted or otherwise. You don't need a VFD to actually redirect a page. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WW time skew

In regards to the West Wing skew AfD, I'm just wondering why you posted an AfD without commenting first on the page's talk page. I'm also wondering why you didn't suggest a merge using Template:merge, since that is what you're now suggesting on the AfD discussion. If you are satisfied with merging the content, you should have placed a merge tag instead. Please don't misdirect your feelings regarding the Firefly/Outlaw Star comparisons at other Wikipedians. Thank you.-Scm83x 00:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Adolf Hitler books

Thanks for adding it to the table and placing the table in the article. List of Adolf Hitler books WritersCramp 21:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of political leaders who held military rank

This article is part of an attempt to resolve the dispute at List of dictators and List of modern day dictators. I mean for it to list leaaders who, as noted in the intro, held normal military rank while in office. Gazpacho 10:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Each President of the United States is commander-in-chief of all US military forces while in office, but this is a civilian, not military, authority.

George Washington (General, promoted posthumously in 1976 to General of the Armies and permanently made the highest ranking American military officer¹)
Ulysses S. Grant (General, General-in-Chief, General of the Army)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (General of the Army, Supreme Commander Allied forces Europe)

Admin nomination

Hi James, I just voted on your nomination. Please fix your responses to the "questions for candidate". Keep up your good work and good luck on your college applications! --mdd4696 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I won't hold it against you :). --mdd4696 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Review Neutrality of POV: Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc.

Would you please assist me by reviewing the neutrality of an article I wrote about Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc.? If neutrality has been established, please remove the dispute tag. If not, please suggest specific ways to make it more neutral or simply make it neutral. I would truly appreciate that since I made revisions per requests and nothing has been done to remove that tag. --Suntzu1963 20:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Socks (cat), which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

PD stamps?

Hi, do you actually know if Image:Socks stamps.jpg is in the public domain? It's very unusual for modern postal admins to make their designs PD, and I've never heard that the Central African Republic has done it. Stan 05:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Everybody else does it" is not sufficient to establish PDness - as I'm sure you know, there are lots of copyright violations around the web, and even here. Since everything is copyrighted by default, you would have to have an actual document to prove PD status - in the case of US stamps before 1978, there is a law to cite, in the case of the Faroes we have an email from the postal authorities. Stan 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Hi! As bureaucrat, I have closed your RFA as it has clearly failed to garner the expected level of support to gain adminship. You may try running again after a few weeks. Treat this RFA as a learning experience. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cnwb's RfA

Stax,

Thanks so very much for supporting my Request for Admin. The final result was 38/0/0. I'm looking forward to spending my summer holidays shut away in a darkened room, drinking G&Ts and playing with my new tools ;-) Please accept this Tim Tam as a token of my gratitude. Cnwb 22:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for The West Wing (television)

I have put The West Wing article up as a candidate for featured article status. I appreciate your help in this article's peer review. Your input and support in the FAC located here would be appreciated! Thanks! -Scm83x 08:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stax! I appreciate your keeping the hordes at bay on this FAC so far ;-). My biggest two concerns are the length of the article and the spoilers. I want the article to carry minimal spoiler content so that it can appeal to anyone. I think a lot of good points have been raised on the FAC so far, and users will be able to see the changes that are being made in response to their suggestions and vote support becuase of it. I appreciate it, and I will let you know what you can do to help throughout the week. -Scm83x 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Very, very nice work! With regards to foreign response: it looks like the fact that its in the UK and Japan is all I know. IMDB.com also tells us that the show's been rated in Australia, Argentina, and Singapore, which doesn't mean much either. As a result, I think its fairly non-notable; after all, its about the US government; if Americans had made a show about the UK Parliament, that might have elicted a unique foreign response, but that's not the case. I don't have anything concrete or whatever to back up what I'm writing here, though, as its just my speculation and two cents, so I'll leave it at that. -Rebelguys2 22:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks. I'll keep it at the bottom of the page, for now. There's a few parts I'd really like to redo; there's five mistakes in there, and I got kind of tired in the middle and started slurring a couple of words together. It's a 30 minute article, and most of the recording is a first time through. When I get the new version uploaded, though, I'll move it to the top. -Rebelguys2 19:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:StargateTopics

Yeah...the other colors weren't bad on their own. At first my problem was just that the red was too dark behind the black text, but everything I tried to make a lighter red background just made the whole color scheme of the template clash rather harshly in my eyes, put together as they were... I didn't know whether or not to stick with the colorwheel/rainbow scheme that was there when I found it, or to try different hues of some specific color... I kind of compromised with myself, as you can see. :-) Tom e r ^talk 23:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um...wha? I didn't intentionally remove anything...I'll go see if I can figure out what you're referring to and undo it... brb... :-) Tom e r ^talk 23:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I dunno what happened...it's possible you added it while I was hashing out my color choices, and that, for whatever reason, the db didn't catch it (somehow?!) as an edit conflict. I put it back now. Thanks for the catch! Tom e r ^talk 00:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! Lemme know where to find it when you've got it done. :-) Tom e r ^talk 00:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Something bizarre is going on...please see Template talk:StargateTopics#Colors... Tom e r ^talk 00:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thnaks so much

Hi, as u probably noticed, yesterday, I added crazy long see also sections to all articles related to stargate. At this many readers became very upset, saying that I was messing up the articles. I quickly removed the damage. I didn't know how to make a template (otherwise I would have), but I see that you did. Thanks so much. One more thing, i'm just curious, your template corseponds exactly to my crazy see also's. Did you use my thing as an example, or was it just a covincedence? On that matter, did you even view the crazy see also's while they existed? If you did is that what u based your template on? I'm just curious about these things, not that they really matter. Just thanks again, for doing what I couldn't. Before this template was made it was so hard to navigate the stargate section. Tobyk777 04:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email.

Check your email, Stax. Thanks. -Scm83x 23:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for Cheers!

I'd love to help once the FAC for The West Wing is done. Goodness knows we need more quality featured articles! As of 3am Monday morning (CST), I'll make it a new priority. -Scm83x 23:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Socks cat 1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Socks cat 1.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --SCEhard T 05:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same deal for Image:Socks cat 2.JPG. Thanks! -SCEhard T 05:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion

Why not make the badge images smaller to make the article at least somewhat readable? We can also table the images with the text. Staxringold 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good suggestion, but you killed my mouse over descriptions when you did that--Please be more careful next time. I'll put the mouseovers back in. Rlevse 17:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now they look worse. Your first change was better, but not this one. When you wiped out the mouse over and caption, you left nothing saying what the MB was -- so the mouse over was not uneeded text. You also moved the F & G comparision into the wrong section. It is not a variation, but a change in Type and belongs where it was originally. Rlevse 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You really need copyright info on those merit badge images, whether you took them yourself or they are copyrighted property of the BSA. Staxringold 18:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did get permission to use the images. I took the photo myself and got permission to use them. It's the motif/design that they have the copyright on. A letter with permission is in the works. I wrote on the image tag exactly what BSA legal told me to.Rlevse 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your involvement in the Harry Potter Project?

Howdy, I was hoping you might have a look at User:Reagle/HPP_Questions -Reagle 16:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkins

The article is going along well, and I noticed on your RfA (wish I'd had a chance to give you a supporting vote - I always forget to check the listings there) that you mentioned beefing up the history section. Hopefully this goes well, because I'd love my Caulfield Grammar article to have a high school friend or two here! Anyway, I'm still watching the article, and am eager to see how that goes. And good luck getting into a good college. Down in Australia, it's basically wait for your marks and they come to you (with very high benchmarks though). Fingers crossed University of Melbourne! Harro5 03:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing is now FA

Thanks to your comments and constructive criticism, The West Wing has now reached featured article status. Thank you again so much for your input! -Scm83x 05:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language and article

We are reworking the MB article. But let me offer this in a constructive vein; you really open yourself up with the language and phrasing I've seen you use on talk pages. I saw one, the article name of which I don't recall, where you even used profanity. A more civil tongue would go a long way. Compare what you wrote on the FAC of this article to what Rebelguys2 wrote. The article is currently called Merit badge types (BSA), but we may change it again. Shall we call a 'truce' now and try to work together? Rlevse 13:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Cinema Collaboration!

Hey there! You have previously contributed to the Cinema Collaboration of the week. A new nominee is up, and if you could vote, then perhaps something would happen there! Wikipedia:Cinema_Collaboration_of_the_Week#Billy_Wilder NuclearFunk 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers PR comments

I just meant that you should decide what the format is and stick with it. I didn't really noticed if it was consistent. If you noticed, I was editing at 5AM, so maybe I missed the consistency ;-). NM that poin then! -Scm83x 18:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have your own POV

and that's fine, but don't you think readers should be able to make up their own minds instead of being spoon-fed a conclusion that a lot of people don't agree with?--Petral 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting in, but if I put a lighthouse in the lighthouse category I'm not preventing the reader from making up his/her own mind, I'm putting it in the correct category. This is the same type case. If its pseudoscience, it goes in the pseudoscience category. Its a definition thing, not a conclusion or POV thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TWW on the frint page

I didn't have a chance to look at the box you made, as I'm just running out now for the evening. However, I was thinking that, since this will probably be the last season for TWW, we should have the article be featured on the day that the last episode airs. What do you think? -Scm83x 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You made my day

At Talk:Tecumseh's_curse. The HE HAD A GRENADE THROWN AT HIM! killed me the first time I read it. XD XD XD Hbdragon88 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]