User talk:BillC/Archive2

Venus[edit]

Hi, Thanks for pointing that out. I've added a reference that should cover what I've added. Suradasa 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:103 qvgd millions.jpg)[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:103 qvgd millions.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Milijonas.jpg)[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Milijonas.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 19:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not in any Wikipedia articles because you removed them from there. However, feel free to delete the files. BillC 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss municipalities[edit]

{{Navigation bar Bellinzona district}} looks good in general but I would suggest a few things. One, add a link to the de template (within <noinclude> tags), which sort of doubles as an indication of the source (you could add other interwiki if they exist, but I think it's really only important to have one). Add them to Category:Swiss district templates (with piping, preferably, unlike the ones there) in <noinclude>, and into Category:Municipalities of the canton of XXXX in <includeonly>. The latter are named Category:Municipalities of XXXX for some cantons (you can see which at Category:Municipalities of Switzerland), but those can be changed by hand or (probably better) the other templates can be changed to make them all consistent. Finally, the Municipalities of Ticino at the bottom of the box should be Municipalities of the canton of Ticino, which seems to exist (at least as a redirect) for several random cantons I checked. The only other issue is dealing with disambiguated names, such as Gudo TI. It's funny, none of the four municipalities with the canton abbreviation have articles for the other places on the corresponding de disambiguation page...but maybe they will someday. There seems to be no consistency for naming these here (i.e. XXX, Switzerland, XXX, Ticino, XXX TI all seem about equally common). I think the simplest and certainly (for now) adequate solution is to ignore them for now, or use the format you prefer (I don't have any preference), and they can be changed by hand later if someone feels strongly about it. Rigadoun 16:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment on User talk:Docu. -- User:Docu

Hi BillC, I just wanted to point out that there is a small problem on Template:Municipalities of the district of Morges, which you converted to a dynamic navbox: most of the wikilinks have one too many "]". This is easy enough to correct (and I have just done it), but since you seem to have converted quite a few of these templates, you may want to check if it is a unique occurence or if it happened elsewhere. Cheers, Schutz 06:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I went back through the list and was unable to find another other than Morges. There are only two more to convert, once I have standardised on the format and name for the existing template set, I will begin work on importing the results of the Perl script and creating the missing navigational boxes. I think I will place further text on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swiss municipalities. BillC 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the templates are nice and I see you started adding the municipalities. I am in the process of adding info to the ones that popped up on the Missing encyclopedia articles pages I monitor, and will continue to do so. I also created Category:Swiss canton templates for the next administrative unit up; lots of work remains to be done there but there's few enough it's probably easier to do it by hand. The language bots will pick up the links soon enough, I think, so I wouldn't worry about it. I'm watching the project page now, so we can communicate there. Rigadoun 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the specific feedback. I'll respond to you on the same page when I get the chance to go over it! Dreadlocke 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your feedback, I made some changes to the draft and I responded to your other feedback too. Let me know what you think. Dreadlocke 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote the ND draft to address the points you and Rohirok brought up. I identified the specific changes on the feedback page. Let me know if the changes address your concerns. Thanks! Dreadlocke 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you have any further feedback. I hope I addressed your concerns. I made an honest effort to do so. Dreadlocke 02:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magically shifting suitability[edit]

Please explain to me how WP:RS means that the title of an article page changes the suitability of a source, and why that makes any sense at all.

What this says if that I make a tangential page, say Josephson-CSICOP controversy, I can use the data from Josephson's page, because the article title specifically refers to it, thereby a primary source is OK. But if I do the sensible thing and merge such a page into e.g. CSCICOP, then I can't use the data from Josephson's page, because the title no longer relates to Josephson. That's just silly. I don't buy it. I disagree that "topic" in WP:RS equates to "title". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was only asking for your rationale behind your interpretation, and proposing an IMHO rational counterargument to consider. I'm not keeping an eagle eye on when people post comments to the page, because it's too much to deal with on a daily basis. So if I take too long to ask you for more info on your opinion, I apologize, but that's all I was doing. The problem as I see it is that the policy simply does not provide clarity on this issue, and the result is a cavalcade of interpretations. IMO, when all else fails, figure out which makes the most Wikian sense. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cornea image[edit]

Hi there, yes, the image is of my eye which was keratoconic, and still is but much better than before.

German towns[edit]

Great job copying over all of those German-language places. We need more of those on Wikipedia. Too bad there isn't a bot that could do the work. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I wish *I* understood how to write bots, too. :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss town naming[edit]

What do think of this summary? It could avoid us a template like de:Vorlage:Begriffsklärung Schweizer Kanton. -- User:Docu

A reply is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swiss municipalities#Article titles. BillC 17:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Missing Articles List (fr)[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr#Complete Update if you haven't yet. Thanks, Ardric47 19:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns[edit]

You are welcome, but please don't take this "distinction" too close to heart—it's nothing official, just vaguely defined common sense. The only reason why I even bothered to correct this was for consistency sakes (to match the terminology patterns with those of other cities/towns). Incidentally, if you are interested in what this issue is about, you can read a great deal about it here. Cheers!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Val de Ruz[edit]

Hi I have started the Val-de-Ruz article for you. It needs a great deal of expansion as it is above the municipalities that you have translated!! keep up the good work.James Janderson 15:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes thats why I said it needs a great deal of work as I know nothing about it and was judging from german wikipedia. I knew I could trust you to write a good un'. Good luck editing Swiss!! 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job on swiss. great! James Janderson 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --BillC 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss location articles, and stub-tagging[edit]

I notice you've started a large number of Switzerland-geo-stubs, which currently I'm stub-sorting. Do you an estimate of how many such articles there are to create? Ideally, if you know that on a per-canton basis, even better. So far I've created stub types for the seven largest cantons (see here), but if these keep growing, the remaining cantons, and perhaps even several districts may be necessary. Alai 20:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was by no means urgent. (In fact, the less and less often the database dumps occur, the less urgent it becomes...) That's not a horrifying number by any means, though it's probably worth creating stub templates ("upmerged" to feed back into the main Swiss category if there's not yet 60 of each) for each canton, so if you can give me some advanced warning of when the next "batch" is due, that would save some re-sorting effort (which admittedly is fairly minimal, given that they were easy to do by 'bot). On the names: I just followed the existing permanent category names, which are at Category:Aargau and Category:Canton of Berne, I assume using the "Canton of" only where it's necessary to disambiguate from the municipality of the same name. If there's any question of whether those are the appropriate names, it would be better to make any necessary changes to those first, via CFR, as it's much easier to fix the stub category names, since those are populated from the template, obviously. Alai 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five more canton stub types proposed here. Similar issues arise about the category names, if you'd like to comment on that. Alai 00:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer images secondary voltage[edit]

In your transformer diagrams, you show an arrow for the voltages. If the tip of the arrow is interpreted as positive voltage, though, the secondary arrow is upside down. I don't know if that is how the arrow is supposed to be interpreted, but that is what people are doing. I updated one of the images with + and − signs, and I am going to update the rest... Are there any others? — Omegatron 03:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary voltage wrong direction (fixed)
Secondary voltage wrong direction
Secondary voltage wrong direction
Secondary current wrong direction (fixed)
Secondary voltage and current both wrong direction (fixed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PowerStation3.svg[edit]

Really should upload this one to commons, as it should be useful to other projects.... - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venera images[edit]

was late at night and i misread the copyright date. mh, well, nevertheless, is still think we could use the images, since they were published by the soviet government back then, and should thereby be under public domain. --BlueMars 16:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill. I am happy to have my reprojections of the Venera images on Wikipedia (although BlueMars should have asked permission first). I do object to the images being labeled as "public domain", which they are not. I retain copyright privilages on them. There is a discussion of the process used to create them here: http://donpmitchell.blogspot.com/

I am a little concerned that Wikipedia plays fast and loose with copyright, which could be a controversy someday. Soviet and Russian images cannot just be labled as "public domain", especially when they date from after 1973.

In addition, images from NASA's websites cannot always be assumed "public domain". As NASA points out, they do not always own the copyright on those images. That is true of many spacecraft photos on NSSDC. For example, the color picture of the Venera-13 lander on Wikipedia was taken by Sky & Telescope. The photo of the Venera-9 lander was scanned from a book by Grinspoon and Marov, etc. DonPMitchell 12:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise is requested[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ophthalmology has just been started. -AED 23:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Boundary changes in the district of Blenio[edit]

I've answered in my talk page, with two interesting links, to keep the discussion in one single page. But if you prefer the wikipedia default reply behaviour, I can also reply in this page. Cate 08:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crop Circles[edit]

The reference to England and Scotland may have been considered "vandalism" but the reference to HAARP was not, neither was the speculation that the larger circles are made in stages by UFO's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.106.230 (talk • contribs)

Fleurier[edit]

To be honest, I only mentioned it because it is what everyone there says and seems to think! Were it incorrect I am pretty sure someone would have pointed it out by now. However, I could be wrong, and cannot find any references for this with Google! -Wser 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review[edit]

I'll see what i can do. Or anyone else Simply south 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix bad indexing in your templates[edit]

Could you please go fix all the bad indexing sort keys you added to the templates in Category:Swiss district templates? You need to strip all those diacritics you threw in there, so that they alphabetize properly. Gene Nygaard 13:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip[edit]

Thanks for pointing me to the district templates for Graubünden. Can you tell me why they have chosen to use Grisons, rather than Graubünden, even though that is not the local name? Ksnow 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

I really think it should be changed to Graubünden, both in the templates on on the list of municipalities. I can do the latter, if you like. Ksnow 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

I have done the List of municipalities of Switzerland. You talked about lists in the plural. Are there others? I see you have never been to Switzerland. After all your work, you'll have to go! Ksnow 11:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

OK, I found another one. I have edited the List of cities in Switzerland. Ksnow 11:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

I think you should wait. I'm not sure that Graubuenden is the correct name for Grisons. I'm still checking the official site of the cantons to find some more informations. The swiss official sites use Grisons. Cate 13:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVP[edit]

Thanks for the "Failure To Replicate" paper. It may take a while for me to wade through. Can you summarize for me its significance? Does it refute MacRae? Thanks - LuckyLouie 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engadin[edit]

It looks like the template for the district of Engadin needs some work. It still says "villages", instead of "municipalities", and the links to Maloja (which is a district) and Champfer (which has no entry) are broken. Can you fix this?

Ksnow 12:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

Removing POV word[edit]

Thanks for your note BillC ! I see what you mean, and depending on the use and source for the word, I can agree with you. However, scathing does have a slightly broader meaning, that includes “to do harm to”, which I would take as a value judgment and therefore POV. This is especially the case when there is no mention of the “scathing” rebuttal by Schwartz to Hyman’s “scathing” response - much less with that particular word - so it became even more of a POV issue by giving a slightly undue weight to one view, and lacking a certain fairness of tone by not being consistently fair. And repeating "scathing" or similiar words for each side didn't seem to make sense either..so that’s why I struck it.

One thing's for sure, they definitely scathed each other's work...but that's just my personal little pov... ;)

By the way, I’ve used your article on Venus as an example to other editors on how to structure a Wikipedia article – it’s just a wonderful piece of work! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X ray eyes[edit]

To my knowledge, she complained after New York and London, but before Tokyo. This was why she insisted that all of the Tokyo volunteers bring medical certificates with them.

perfectblue 14:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article not found[edit]

Greeetings:

I have been going through the Coat of Arms cat at [1]

There appear to be no regional articles for some of these COA (perhaps Kries shuld be some appropriate English word?)

Some articles for municipalities are mising (I will add here when more are found)

Best wishes, Leonard G. 17:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crop circles[edit]

Thanks for reverting that and explaining it. That's just exactly one of the things I've been trying to communicate on the talk page. The sentence acts as if it means "all", but that isn't accurate. I've made another change, so that it can be clarified. I propose one of the following:

Although many crop circles have been of human origin, paranormal explanations have also been proposed to explain their appearance. These include their having been produced by UFOs or freak wind patterns. However, such explanations may violate Occam's Razor.

I want to keep the scientific perspective, while avoiding weasels, jibes, and pseudoscience (such as the implicit claim of negative proof).Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plato[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction

discussion

Please, have a look on "Plato".

Martin Segers (Belgium)

Tsi43318 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. What has Plato got to do with Faraday's law of induction? I see the edits you have made on Talk:Plato, but I'm afraid I don't understand those either, or why you have placed there a link to the planet article Neptune. — BillC^talk 20:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Please, how to make a drawing?

Thank you.

Martin Segers (Belgium)

Tsi43318 10:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try a drawing package such as Inkscape, which can be downloaded from the internet for free. But bear in mind that text is usually the best way to explain things in an encyclopaedia, not unannotated diagrams. — BillC^talk 20:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin action LC[edit]

Thanks for the advisory. Now I can get rid of that darned gearbox! --Wtshymanski 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now even ideal transformers have flux. I'm feeling quite giddy - the article has been troubling me for most of the last year. --Wtshymanski 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Campania[edit]

Hi Bill - great to hear from you. Feel free to edit as feel best. I put the article together while tracing down my great uncle, who served on the Campania in the RNAS. If you have further information /corrections please go ahead, I'm not expert, I drew together the sources from various internet sites. Would love to read the Admiralty report sometime! --mgaved 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

John Edward[edit]

Hi Bill,

I just thought I'd let you know that we're wrapping up discussion on the lead of John Edward. We seem to have found a wording that most people are okay with, and I'd like to invite you to chime in on the new wording here. – Lantoka (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Royal Oak[edit]

No problem at all - it was an excellent article as it was, and I could find few places to pick holes. Good job on the research especially - any more FA's planned? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome; that's what the project is here for, after all! :-) Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoskepticism[edit]

Hi Bill,

Categories were explained to me thus, when I was thinking just the way you are. I accepted the explanation, and I do feel that this is a legetimate category, which will help people to understand the issues. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I agree with you on this one. It seems like a pointed reaction to the renaming of the category Psychics to Purported psychics as well as the inclusion of the Pseudoscience category on paranormal articles. Might as well name it Category:Anyone Who Calls This Pseudoscience Is Wrong! --Minderbinder 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I just now noticed the categories- I never paid them attention before. I got to thinking that this is one we need, especially considering some of the things I've seen on here. Pseudoskepticism is a real reaction that people can have. It isn't any more derogatory than pseudoscience.

Bill, would you give me a link to your deletion request? I don't know where to find it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The category isn't saying it has or hasn't. It is just saying it might be related in some way. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Coalition[edit]

I completely forgot about this. I'm actually willing to withdraw that article entirely from the running and save it for 2009. Just go ahead and get rid of it. Thanks for reminding me.UberCryxic 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill and Cryxic, thank you very much! Bill, thank you also for your very kind and encouraging words about the Knights Templar article, they really made my day! If I can ever return the favor, please let me know. :) --El on ka 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Send money :-) — BillC^talk 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Will you take that in platinum kronars? ;) --El on ka 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrons[edit]

Having checked the warfare section for our Featured Articles I have determined that you have succsessfully promoted the 1st Royal Navy ship to FA status. For that, I herby award you the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ta muchly! :-) — BillC^talk 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD on Category:Pseudoskepticism[edit]

Hi, you closed this discussion recently as 'no consensus'. While a 13:5 majority is not unanimity, it would seem a reasonably clear consensus to me, particularly in light of the fact that there appears to have been a level of canvassing for the discussion: [2], [3], [4], [5]. You are of course free to close discussions as you see fit. However, as I implied when I raised this CFD, and in particular as stated by one commenter, the category was "antagonistic" and "subjective". Since the discussion was closed, it has been as I feared it would be: the category's promoters have been applying it to articles on subjects they do not like: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, or Debunker, with edit summaries such as "they are sometimes accused of this". To those that care about the subject matter, the category is being viewed as an insult, and edit wars have begun, with several reversions already. I am afraid I think this was predictable. Perhaps you can give some insight into why you closed as 'no consensus', and any advice as to deal with this situation before it escalates. Regards, — BillC^talk 16:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your concerns. There have been similar situation at WP:UCFD, where Wikipedians were apparently adding Category:Fascist Wikipedians to the userpages of those they disagreed with. At the time, I felt (as you seem to), that deletion would be the better course (better lack of information than misinformation), but consensus determined that repeated vandalism is not a reason to delete. And I suppose that makes sense somewhat, otherwise articles like Darth Vader would have to be deleted due to constant vandalism.

That aside, while I may count votes at first, out of curiosity, I tend to determine consensus by the text of the discussion, not how many people typed Delete. I felt in this case that there was no consensus in the discussion. One of the benefits of a "No consensus" result is that nothing precludes an immediate renomination. It's considered nice if you link to the previous discussion, however. And a benefit of "starting over" is that you can hopefully clarify the nomination.

Please also note that I said more in the closing comments than "No consensus". I noted the category's depopulation, and offered a suggestion to whomever recreates, or for that matter repopulates.

As for how to deal with issues of subjective category inclusion, simply suggest that the discussion be moved to a relevant talk page. Consensus can be determined through other means than just deleting the category. Have a discussion about the category and what would be appropriate inclusion, and what would not be appropriate inclusion. Then write a clear category introduction based on the resultant consensus. (You may even wish to be bold and write an introduction now, as a starting point.) And note that repeatedly on WP:CFD it's been determined that category inclusion by accusation is frowned upon. We don't categorise by opinion, but by verifiable reference. (Imagine the George W. Bush accusatory categories - such as war criminal - that have been on CfD, and I think you may understand : )

I hope I answered all your questions/concerns. If you feel you would like to discuss this further, please feel free : ) - Your talk page is now on my watch list : ) jc37 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I agree, the category has become depopulated – at present there are only three articles within it. However, I feel we are likely to be only at the start of things, and a new round of additions and squabbling will soon break out. One of the promoters of the category said that he could obtain reliable sources for individuals having been accused of pseudoskepticism. I dare say. I, equally, can obtain good sources where prominent psychic claimants have been called cold readers; I however think it would be a bad idea to create category:Cold reading and add the likes of John Edward, James Van Praagh, Doris Stokes to it: all hell would break loose. I acknowledge that you say "category inclusion by accusation is frowned upon", and fully agree that is ideally how it should be, but I'm afraid I don't feel much comfort from this, anticipating that it is likely to be ignored.

I think we shall have to see where this goes, but I will say I read the result of the CfD somewhat dispiritedly. Best regards, — BillC^talk 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AIV report[edit]

I've gone ahead and removed the IP you listed on AIV because it appears to have stopped spamming. If it comes back, especially with that modus operandi, go ahead and list again, as that kind of spamming is indeed more than usually disruptive. Heimstern Läufer 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:A-Void.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:A-Void.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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 fair use images 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. ↔NMajdan•talk 16:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. — BillC^talk 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On April 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cho Man-sik, 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation bar[edit]

Hi Bill. I have "borrowed" your navigation bar....;-) Great idea! I have also answered your comment about the crop circle article. -- Fyslee/talk 07:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on cabal page[edit]

On this note you added, I first read the "Please." as sarcastic. I realize now it's not, but you might consider changing it to "Please!". --Otheus 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dwsing[edit]

<sarcasm>This is going to be fun!!</sarcasm>: [6] *Note: It's just a sandbox*--Otheus 05:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 1 and April Fools' Day[edit]

Just so you know, I removed the merge notices from April 1 and April Fools' Day, as per WP:SNOW. I don't know what User:98E was thinking, but I'm sure he meant it in good faith. --Razor ICE 12:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I am sure he did, too. — BillC^talk 16:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]