User talk:Dystopos/Archive 2

This is an archive of comments left during 2006. For the current discussion page, see User talk:Dystopos. For previously archived discussions, see User Talk:Dystopos/Archive 1 (2004-2005).

If you're planning to write an article about the Fundació Joan Miró please let me know; I think I can dig out a few photos of it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, me too, I didnt notice that when you removed it from the references section you put it in the external links section instead, i thought it was just missing, sorry for the confusion (on my part). Jdcooper 16:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my talk page, Scrux calling it's web page "facts" or "evidence" does not make the content evidence. Isn't Scrux compiling a summary of news coverage and press interviews? Joaquin Murietta 17:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster of the POV tag was the one who removed it; what elements of this article are currently keeping it from NPOV status? JDoorjam 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the merge template? --Dystopos 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. What makes you think I did? Michael Hardy 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting (animals) reflects that the term Hog-baiting is correct. Baiting has been occurring for hundreds of years, with the original and correct term for this article being "Hog-baiting". The recent popularity and repackaging of "Hog-Baiting" in Pop Culture with the more marketable term "Hog Dogging" being used, but it is neither the original nor correct terminology. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. SouthernComfort 13:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on going back through the creation logs. --God of War 03:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) moved from user page — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G's major work 'bot is about to move another ... er ... small hill. But a consensus is required on the naming scheme to be employed. Please review Category:Greek Area Codes, Category:United Kingdom area codes, and Category:North American area codes, and then contribute to the discussion at Talk:North American Numbering Plan#US-centric_area_code_page_titles. Uncle G 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i see you have been changing links from John Layfield to John Layfield (wrestler) to avoid a redirect but John Layfield (wrestler) is a redirect to John Layfield????? --- Paulley 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on the John Layfield talk page, I didn't find a lot of information on the theologian after a Google search, so had little reason to belive that he was more notable than the wrestler, who is undoubtedly a minor celebrity. Moving the article and changing all the redirects before even beginning to write the article that is to replace the original is a somewhat unusual modus operandi. In addition, moving a page with hundreds of linked articles should really be discussed first. McPhail 18:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopos, I read your comments on McPhail's and Paulley's pages, and I'd just like to point out that moving articles around, not only without any attempt at discussion, but without even clicking the "What Links Here" link is a pretty crappy thing to do. "Washing your hands" of it and leaving it to the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling to sort out is crappier still. The proper way to do this would be to try to reach consensus. Being bold is all well and good, but do at least TRY to remember this isn't your personal site. --HBK|Talk 02:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condescending comments on my talk page aside, the fact remains that you didn't seek consensus, you didn't take even the most basic steps in moving a well-developed article, and as a result, I'm having to pick through your contributions page and engage in the mindless tedium of cleaning up your mess instead of expanding on other articles and making Wikipedia a more complete information source. If you really feel that the page is more suited to a minor theologian than a minor celebrity, then you could have mentioned it on the Talk page instead of acting unilaterally and blindly. Next time, PLEASE seek consensus. --HBK|Talk 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great job here. -- JJay 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JJay. Out of curiosity, where did you get 1903 and trojans?

I knew you would ask me that. I checked some of the earlier edits and saw that the page had been blanked so I added the info back. Based on your work I now see that the info pertained to a different town. -- JJay 02:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now see you expanded the article as part of a discussion with Denni. He likes to take up endless bandwidth and server space complaining about the server space "wasted" by school stubs. I guess everyone needs a reason to live but it's best not wasting your time with those types. It's like talking to a wall. -- JJay 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. I went to high school there, and didn't know about the notable alumni. And you don't even live here! Pfalstad 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look whether the anon added any new data to the article. It seems to me that he took the history section into a notepad and dewikified it. The population section was deleted altogether. --Ghirla | talk 17:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment on Talk:Christopher Lee. Regards Arniep 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have permission to use a higher quality version of the Tulane Shield on Wikipedia. A fair use claim is made for using the logo in the Tulane University article and specific permission was sought and received for using it in the Userbox Template:User Tulane. Neither the doctrine of fair use, nor the specific permissions granted by the Office of University Communications allow a high-resolution version to be uploaded to Wikipedia. --Dystopos 20:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The {{badJPEG}} tag is not necessarily requesting a high-resolution version. It is requesting a version in a different format. At the same resolution, a PNG version of the Tulane logo will have a smaller file size than the JPEG version, and it will be free of any compression artifacts caused by the JPEG compression. For images such as logos, maps, graphs, line art, many diagrams, and so forth, the PNG format is better than the JPEG format, for several reasons. This is what the {{badJPEG}} tag is attempting to achieve, not the use of a higher-resolution image, per se. For this reason, I have replaced the {{badJPEG}} tag on the image description page. If you have further questions, please read Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload, or post a response on my talk page. —Bkell 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the fray ;-) David D. (Talk) 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Wikster72 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I live in Birmingham, Alabama. I intend to spend some time making the articles about Birmingham rich and useful. I will also contribute to other articles as I have the opportunity and resources."

What led you to edit the Horace Mann article? Without trying to sound like an asshole, I don't think your comments have been helpful at all. I'm sure, however, that if I tried to edit things I didn't know anything about on your high school's page I'd sound like an idiot too. But I'd ask that before you edit the page again you go ahead to the website: www.Horacemann.org, read up on HM on the internet, and read "Horace Mann, a History" before you edit again. This isn't meant to be personal, I'm going to be posting it to everyone else who has been making unhelpful contributions due to their lack of knowledge. I don't insist that everyone who edit be an alum, but I think it's fair to ask that those who edit for substance know something about what they are talking about.

Respectfully submitted, Barrington Carter

Might I advise you get some remedial education? Perhaps at DeVry Institute of Tech. And stay out of my business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatBarrington (talk • contribs)

I'm going to attack and criticize every piece of information you post and every comment you make if they are not correct. 21:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) GreatBarrington

• OK. --Dystopos 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to watch everyone so I only look at people who are prone to spreading false info around the WIkipedia. GreatBarrington 02:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)GreatBarrington[reply]

• Anything in particular catch your notice as being false? --Dystopos 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you arguing in favour of infoboxes (to ease editing, etc) over on, I think, the Horace Mann article. Do you know of any official WP policies in that vein? I'm having an argument with the owner of Template:BCInfobox—well, he seems to think he owns it—and I'm looking for ammo to quote the next time I (re-)convert it to a templated wikified infobox. /blahedo (t) 04:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article 16th Street Baptist Church and Wallace Rayfield, 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.

--Gurubrahma 06:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I combined two sections about the same topic without deleting or changing anything.--Patrick 17:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes. I apologize. Doing it in two separate edits had me confused. --Dystopos 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, guy. You directed your message to the wrong page (mine).Thanks.--Nicklew 05:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Stars Fell on Alabama, 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.

--Gurubrahma 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Bunker Hill Bunny from a Looney Tunes film to a Merrie Melodies film based on the entry for it at bcdb.com. Qutezuce 06:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look again, you will see that I did move the information (most of which was already on the List of ecovillages). I did not transfer the red links—the convention on the list is to use external links. I moved Christiania to the See also sectioin of the Intentional communities article as I think that it is more appropriate there. Also, I did not add the Yarrow Ecovillage to the list as it is still technically forming (though I understand they will be adding some houses in the very near future). Have I missed something? Sunray 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted further details in the Talk page on Celebration. I don't think it's at all material to Celebration: I've done a lot of new-home shopping in my life, and CC&Rs that regulate these effects are absolutely ubiquitous in both urban and suburban development since the 1970s: any subdivision with commonly owned areas, whether trails or golf courses, has a homeowners' association and CC&Rs. Also, every single townhouse and condominium development in America comes with a homeowners' association and CC&Rs, and that's a huge part of the market right there. (Attached housing is almost half of new home construction in America today, and over half in most large cities.)

Also, language like "must sign" is very inflammatory: it's not signed to separately, but it's presented as part of the title which is signed for at closing. Paytonc 01:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dystopos:

You have the honor of being the fifth person to respond to my survey!

Thank you for your participation. Your responses to the survey are much

appreciated!

The final essay should be posted on my user page no later than March 27. Stay

tuned!!!

Shuo Xiang 18:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you want to delete the Cinemann page? It certainly meets Wikipedia's stardards of notability, given that it is the only high school publication where reporters are invited to premiers and get to interview celebrities on a regular basis...--CherryPop 00:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)CherryPop[reply]

• But Horace Mann isn't a regular high school, and the Cinemann isn't a regular high school publication. When's the last time that Al Pacino granted your high school cinema review publication a personal interview? --CherryPop 18:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)CherryPop[reply]

Dear Dystopos:

And it's here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Announcing my CS 492 term-end paper: On Wikipedia — the Technology, the People, the Unfinished Work. File:Wikipedia.pdf

Thank you for all the kind help you have lent me during the paper-writing process!!!

Long live Wikipedia!!!

Shuo Xiang 22:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, a while ago you made an edit on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline. I am proposing a revision to the guideline and I'm soliciting your comments. You can find the link to my rewrite at Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms -- cmh 01:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Hazel Farris, 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.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on the Montgomery Academy article. I'm not sure what will happen now but I've asked some other editors to weigh in on the issue. The funny thing is that the reaction of this anonymous editor is almost cyclical, with her continually saying every reference I provide is biased or wrong but she can't provide a single reference because she "just knows it's true." As I've told her before, I love the school and that's why I wrote the article. That doesn't mean, though, that I will ignore the facts of history. Anyway, thanks again for the help.--Alabamaboy 21:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for saying your edits were POV. I was irritated by this whole mess and was wrong. If you want to change it back, please do.--Alabamaboy 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this whole affair is really souring me on Wikipedia. Before this, I always found dispute here could be settled, or consensus reached, by using citations. But how does one reach consensus when the other party refused to cite anything? I mean, if valid citations can be questioned, then perhaps people are right about Wikipedia not being worth anything as a research tool.--Alabamaboy 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for what you said. I believe deeply in Wikipedia and its mission but this discussion over the article really got to me. Your words helped me to remember the big picture around here. And, as you say, in the end the article is better than it was. In many ways, that's all that matters. Part of the problem is that I've tried to be a good editor at Wikipedia and it hurts when my actions are totally called into question like this. Still, I'll just suck it up and all and move on from here. Best, --Alabamaboy 22:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were near consensus on the article but in light of the anonymous editor's recent comments I don't think that will happen. I personally don't want to keep going round and round on this with her. Any suggestion on what should be done next?--Alabamaboy 02:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I interrupted a Wikibreak to deal with all of this so I think I'm going to resume the break within a day or two (although my Wikipedia addiction is hard to ignore :-). Thanks again for all your help. If I can ever be of assistance on anything, please let me know. Best, --Alabamaboy 02:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the changes you made to the article. However, I have real issues with how the history section seemed to skirt the whole desegregation issue without stating that that is why people think the school was founded. I have added back in a bit of info to this effect and if my additions are kept I will accept the compromise language. That said, I will fight like heck any attempt to remove the info I reinserted. I feel that I have many compromise after compromise with this anonymous editor without her giving anything in return, even one reference to back up her opinions. Instead she has attacked my motives and reasons for editing the article, questioned the validity of every reference provided (even from the school's current headmaster) and been very uncivil. As a result, I will not agree to the removal of the reinserted info. best, --Alabamaboy 13:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I do appreciate your work on the article. However, the section seemed vague on exactly why the school was founded and that's why I reinserted the info I did. Anyway, the article now looks fine and no longer has that Young reference the anonymous editor hated. I strongly feel that I have compromised on a ton of stuff to satisfy this anonymous editor but to not state a referenced fact from a reputable source is too much. Best,--Alabamaboy 13:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you don't support the info I reinserted?--Alabamaboy 13:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do check out the article when you get a chance. I strongly feel, though, that the one statement I added back in, which was compromise language first suggested by FrancisTyers, must be kept in. Otherwise I didn't change anything significant in your version. --Alabamaboy 15:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind--the current version has been agreed upon. Thanks for all your help. And I thought mediating the Ku Klux Klan article had been hard--this one takes the cake. Excellent work. --Alabamaboy 18:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I've written a comment on the article's discussion page. I think the policy has some flaws. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I may have mentioned before, I was really impressed with how well you acted and helped with the Montgomery Academy disagreements. What surprised me, though, is that you have so many edits and so much experience but aren't an admin. Are you interested in becoming one? If so, I would like to nominate you for an RfA. So, what do you think? Interested? If so, let me know and I'll begin putting together the RfA. If not, I totally understand. Best, --Alabamaboy 18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand. If you ever become interested, drop me an e-mail. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else using {{activepol}}! 68.39.174.238 08:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - recent UVA publications have (inexplicably) cited Downs as an alumna so I thought perhaps there was an error and wondered if the Samford University association was as a graduate student. I checked the University's alumni website - it too lists Downs as graduating in 2002 with a Bachelor of Arts. However, a quick Google search yields numerous references confirming that she received her bachelor's degree from Samford. I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalthea923 (talk • contribs)

A User Conduct RFC has been filed against User:Francespeabody. You have previously edited the draft RFC and therefore I assume you are interested in endorsing the RFC, making a statement on it, or otherwise following it with interest. --ElKevbo 04:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. --Ephilei 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working in that section in and making the relevant amendments. Hopefully the issue has calmed down somewhat!--Zleitzen 03:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started working only volume-by-volume to verify all the names included, which is why it has started with so few entries from such a narrow field. However, I am more than pleased with the set-up you have created, amd am honored that you took the time to do so. I have no doubt that it will probably serve as the structure of the list from here on. Badbilltucker 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. Several of your reservations mirror my own, particularly regarding the "Links" and "Homosexuality and Child Custody" sections. (In the latter case, I was originally toying with "Significant Rulings" instead, but this was really the only one I could find.) I'll see if I can toy with these things some more in the coming days, and maybe secure another good picture of the 2003 judicial building protests.... -- H·G (^words/_works) 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We would really appreciate it if you would comeback and bring some of your knowledge and incite to Birmingham sub-forum of UrbanPlanet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.127.165 (talk • contribs)

• Incite is a verb, and that's what I was unable to do there. I've still got the bookmark. You're aware of the Skyscaperpage.com forum, as well? --Dystopos 01:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tell everybody over there to come and post over at the Birmingham sub-forum sometimes. That board over here dead and need more posters before it gets closed again.

I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 22:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Hoover High School (Alabama) page. Looks much better now. Realkyhick 19:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out to me; I'll have to check it out. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo,

Not sure how to interpret your remarks, but think that further disussion on the schools page is an unnecessary distraction.

I see Wikipedia as Encyclopedia Brittanica⁺⁺, that is, the next step in the evolution of encyclopedias. I think an encyclopedia is a reference source, and I firmly support the idea of using the Internet to present a high-quality, free-of-charge encyclopedia to the public at large. In fact, it is for the people of the world, and as a (nascent) linguist I am thrilled about the development of wikis in languages such as Catalan etc.

The inclusionist idea that all schools should be in an encyclopedia is quite alien to me. It is not impossible that I may adopt it in the future, but it represents a paradigm shift that I am not ready to embrace. I guess my problem is this: I see no difference between a page on Foo Valley High and a vanity page about my dearly departed grandad. Both, in my view, are vanity pages. No one will look at the page except alumni of the school. No one will use it for research, for high school book reports, as media in a classroom presentation (except in that school, perhaps.. and that seems unlikely as well)... etc. I guess the point is simply this, sure we can put that info up. But I do not see the utility in doing so. If you wanna drop me a line and tell me the utility of it all, you can. But of course you don't have to; I realize I may have stepped on a sizable number of your toes.

I love education. But loving education and seeing the utility of H.S. pages on Wiki don't necessarily go together.

I'm not sure how much of the Jimmy Wales "Imagine a world" quote on http://wikimediafoundation.org/ is hyperbole. I'm not sure if it is a mission statement actually and actively embraced by... who? the board? .. I posted one quote about new rules for speedy deletions in the school talk threads.. and it seemed quite deltionist...

But anyhow... you and I may never see eye to eye. Or maybe someday we will. But I apologize if I have offended you, or even if the basic nature of my ideas offends you. Best regards --Ling.Nut 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will revisit them and consider them seriously in the coming weeks.

If you want some interesting high school history, go to my neck of the woods--Ling.Nut 03:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the only thing that bugs me about your recent resizing of the panorama is your statement that 800 pixels wide is "more or less standard" for a browser window. Where do you get this from? So far as I know, there are no standards. My "standard" is full-width on my 1152-pixel-wide display. I would hazard a guess that most folks there days are looking at 1024x768 displays, so their standard is potentially 1024 (minus, of course, the width of window elements). Not a big deal, but I think making assumptions about how the rest of the world views web pages is risky. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that I initially (initially? I haven't changed anything) implied "that behaving like moron was characteristic of those who insist on disambiguating the unambiguous" What words of mine implied that to you? --Serge 04:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: The part where you say "let's be morons instead and insist on disambiguated titles," implies that insisting on disambiguated titles is the way to be a moron. Right. Note that I was commenting on behavior and choices that hypothetical people make. I was not commenting on people, and certainly not on anyone in particular. Are you contending that commenting unfavorably on any particular type of behavior is "uncivil", because that implies something unfavorable about anyone who engages or has engaged in that behavior? Isn't that going too far? --Serge 15:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, no problem :) It might be worth putting a note on the talk page. -Ladybirdintheuk 06:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopos,

I have been a heavy-duty contributor to Wikipedia talk:Schools (some would say far too much.) I would be honored to hear the opinions, pro and con, whether we agree or not, of anyone who has participated in this discussion, about my Wikipedia:Editor review/Ling.Nut. In fact, con opinions are almost more welcome than pro (though pro certainly make me feel better), 'cause I am very interested in evolving in ways that will help Wikipedia.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I appreciate the importance of principles, and respect people who form and follow them! :Best regards,--Ling.Nut 18:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved to User_talk:Dystopos/FU_archive.

moved to User_talk:Dystopos/FU_archive.

A tag has been placed on Greg Green, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Chondrite 08:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article Greg Green for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Greg Green satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Green. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Greg Green during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. -- Chondrite 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail notability. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2 except for the following

• Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.3
• Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.4 (F0xfree 13:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for the article on Ron Casey, my father. Did you know him or his work? Also, thought I'd mention that I go to Tulane. Just thought that was an interesting coincidence when I looked at your user profile. --Annajeb 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Best of luck with your comments on the "cultural words" article about the simpsons - there are a couple of good editors working on the simpsons articles (Mortice for example) but they seem to be outnumbered by people who think every nano-second of every episode should be accounted for on wikipedia. Check out my recent slash and burn on quotes on simpsons episode pages - this for example has one of the shorter (!) list of quotes! (I haven't edited that one) There are almost 200 articles in a similar state!

--Charlesknight 17:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly Jimbo made a very interesting point about bioshere and it was discussed further on the admin page. --Charlesknight 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the Georgy Demidov article is case you want to have a look at it. Chris 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image you uploaded, Image:Huntingdon College emblem.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)