User talk:Appraiser/Archive2

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thought you could use this for all your efforts -- I'm pretty new at this and I've edited behind or ahead of you a few times and you probably don't know it - but I'm learning a lot from you. :) Just wanted to say Hi!...and thanks!  :) Cricket02 22:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] I second that barnstar. Excellent summary of the Minnesota climate article. Much appreciated! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. I've added a few to the Project Minnesota group. Since you've done this a few times, can you take a look at these two articles and stick a rating on them? Armistice Day Blizzard & 1883 Rochester Tornado. Thanks! Gopher backer 05:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid a minor revert war, I sent an e-mail to [email protected] as listed on the campaign site, asking permission to use a photo. It might not be active anymore, but it's worth a try. Maybe they will offer something better than that snapshot someone posted. It's not bad as free photos go, but it's not exactly Senatorial. Wahkeenah 06:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying that if somebody on her site says "go ahead", they might be overstepping their authority? Wahkeenah 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind - but I just photoshopped your photograph of the image to make it more diagram like. I hope you don't mind. Regards, Megapixie 12:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If somebody had unlimited money, it would be interesting to try to "rebuild" the waterfall the way it looked when Father Hennepin first saw it. As if the settlers didn't screw up that waterfall enough as it was. :) Wahkeenah 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stone arch bridge to its original state? You mean put the stones back in the quarry? Wahkeenah 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a peep in the bottom right hand corner of the original image - you'll see a credit on the picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/f/f7/20061227123846%21Stanthonyrecession.jpg . In answer to the second part of the question. The most general case is that it's okay to photograph and post public domain images. This image is public domain because it is the work of the US Army (and thus public domain). This is a really complicated topic - if you have specific cases I can help - but otherwise it's best to read through the copyright policy pages. Megapixie 23:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just wrong. The work itself is definately copyright and should not be on the commons. It could be used as fairuse in the article. Gah. I'll try and get it scrubbed from the commons - or transwiki'd to here. It's the same principle as going into a Cinema with a video camera... Megapixie 00:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too keen on the death penalty, but I wonder what would have been the better way to deal with John Wayne Gacy? Wahkeenah 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The primary reason I generally oppose the death penalty is because it's applied "capriciously and abitrarily", as some have put it. I also don't agree with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" theory. It should be "beyond all doubt", which would probably reduce the number of executions, or maybe redistribute them. In some ways, it's like putting someone "out of their misery" (and ours). In the case of Gacy, there was absolutely no doubt, and people grew to hate him because of his ego and defiance. He abused the legal system to postpone his execution as long as possible, and that's why there was a small army of people cheering in Joliet that night. I contrast that with a guy like Dahmer, who was in some ways a sympathetic figure. In a moment of contrition rare for serial killers, he said at the sentencing that he wished he were dead. He was eventually murdered by an inmate, so in a way he got his wish. However, maybe lifetime incarceration with hard labor and/or little or no normal human contact, basically a living hell, is a better punishment in some sense. But is that really a punishment for a narcissist like the BTK guy? 'Tis a puzzlement. But one thing I am certain of: Our continual and relatively wide usage of the death penalty does nothing to enhance our nation's image around the world, and overall I think that's more important than whether we kill the Gacy's of the world or let them rot in prison. OK, end of lecture. :) Wahkeenah 22:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked someone once about this subject, and they said the burden of proof for the existence of God is on those who claim He (or She or It) exists. Atheists don't claim anything and don't have to prove anything. I think that defines it well. I used to be an atheist, but I gave it up. No holidays. (Insert rimshot here... and blame Henny Youngman for that one). Wahkeenah 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Your views on this matter are well-written, and get to the core of what the problem is with religion, that it's often an extension of earth-bound authority. God invented humans just to have beings to worship Him? Makes no sense. I like what Stephen Jay Gould once said: Man is the only animal that worries about the future, so he invented God (or gods) to take care of the future for him. Wahkeenah 22:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I should point out that only the picture that you mentioned had the inappropriate tag which I admit to not noticing but all of the other have proper fair use tags. I passed this article because I felt that it mostly meets the good article criteria. However you can have the final choice on what can be done to the article. A few possible suggestions would be to:

• Remove the picture from the article.
• Remove the article from the GA list.
• Send the article for a GA review
• Or Be bold and fix the problems yourself

Hope this helps you make a decision. Tarret 14:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not competely sure, but it must be. That's the only thing that particluar user has added to wikipedia. Gopher backer 01:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article I-94 Interchanges, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. -- • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notification. This is per Wikipedia: WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Exit list guide. It states in brief that exit list should go on articles sorted by state if the main article gets too large. In this particular case, I-94 did get too large. Thank you for your effort. -- • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appraiser, many thanks for your welcome to the Minnesota WikiProject. Do you think this news item about Keith Ellison looks all right? I am sort of new to Wikipedia. (P.S. Can you possibly reply here instead of on my talk page?) Best wishes. -Susanlesch 15:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, Although I don't know about the apostrophe. (Qur'an) Is it preferred? The news sources didn't use it. I've also seen news sources using Koran. (not my area of expertise) Appraiser 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for checking it over. I don't know either. It said Quran, and then I copied the apostrophe from the Wikipedia article, which might have some consensus. -Susanlesch 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of Broad Run High School's nomination to GA status. A number of contributors worked hard on the article and we're proud of the recognition. Also, thanks for your improvement suggestions and editing. We'll work on the commas now.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  : 08:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now owe you a double-dose of thanks: (1) I misunderstood your recommendation on image sizes and thought pixels should be specified; and (2) thank you for cluing me into the image tilt parameter!! —  Jim Dunning  talk  : 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete it, I took it of the Minnesota State fair page. Sorry for the trouble.

--Sabeen557 00:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to help out with that, however I've got a lot of stuff going on and may not have a lot of time to work on it. But next time I get a chance I'll get to it. --Smarterthanu91 • Talk 00:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 199.62.0.252 lifted or expired. Request handled by: -- Natalya 14:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Appraiser. I got your message. Yes, the highways and proposed rail lines could go elsewhere, for starters. I'd appreciate replies either here or on the Minneapolis talk page, and just wanted to thank you for the article about Theodore Wirth. Finding that made a long night worthwhile. -Susanlesch 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I enjoyed researching Wirth. I doubt if many people have read the article though. I'm glad you found it.--Appraiser 17:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You objected to the use of her picture provided by the United States Senate. I point out that it could not appear on her Senate website if she did not surrender the rights to the United States Federal Government. Therefor by transfer it becomes the property of the United States Government and as such fall under Title 17, Chapter 1, sub-section 105.--Wowaconia 19:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First the question is who owns the rights. By transferring these rights to the US Senate she has surrendered any claims in a civil court to fiscally profit from the work. It is solely a question of who is the copyright holder not one of who originally produced the work. If Melinda Gates takes a photo of Bill, she is the copyright holder, if she gives it to Microsoft and they use it she has transferred her rights to them and if Wikipedia used it even with Melinda's permission we would get sued by the Copyright holder Microsoft. If you look at the 9/11 page you will see the shot of a cab with a light pole ontop of it, if you click on the picture it will tell you this was taken by a Marine, but he even as he took the photo he was not the copyright holder as he was doing so in his official capacities, so the issue is not who originally took the photo but who currenly owns the rights.

• Second, this is not the same photo that was produced by Hennepin County as she was wearing red in that photo and it was taken in an indoor studio.

--Wowaconia 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 January, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of freshman class members of the 110th United States Congress, 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.

--Yomangani^talk 15:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for correcting that. I had not noticed the redirect. Smeelgova 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please revert you changes in articles linking to List of United States Representatives from Minnesota. This discussion is ongoing and there is certainly no consensus for it.—Markles 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your diligence has certainly earned you membership in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress. Join in! —Markles 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your request at Wikipedia:Requested moves regarding Hubert Humphrey, and I noticed you've been moving articles about congresspeople to titles in accordance with the Congressional directory. Can you point me to a discussion where it was decided to do this? I ask because it seems to me to be at variance with our policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things, which is our usual "rule of thumb" at WP:RM. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Appraiser, I suppose you asked me for an opinion due to my "redirect" vote on the List of United States Representatives from Minnesota AFD. While I do read a number of the US politics articles with interest I am not an active participant in the creation and editing of such articles and know pretty much zero about the standards the people who work with them strive for. At the time I voted on the AFD, I thought it was a very simple case of a duplicate article but after reviewing it I see that I probably missed some arguments opposing redirection which might have merit (I am really unsure about this so I've asked DRV to relist the article in question). I am sorry, but I don't really have any basis for voicing my opinions on the talkpage you linked to. Hope you will forgive me for that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appraiser, just a thank you! -Susanlesch 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice that very few pages link to Camp Coldwater---maybe you could help remedy that. Michael Hardy 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on one of the comments in the FA feedback I stared another paragraph about this topic in film on the talk page. Please improve this if you can, thanks! Gopher backer 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting lots of time into the ordinal congresses. I've lately been spending lots of time on them too. I'm running into some disagreements wih other contributers, however, and the process is more frustrating than what I've run across in other articles and other broad article areas. One of the issues is whether to use Template:USCongresses or Template:USCongressTerms at the bottom of each article. The latter is used in about 80 of 110. It looks nicer on my screen and provides more information. I wondered whether perhaps it looks bad on smaller screens, but User:Markles just said that some people prefer the other one, with no reasoning given. User:Markles has reverted my changes when trying to make these consistent, and I was wondering if you know of any reason to keep the inconsistancy. --Appraiser 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Its nice to know of another working on the ordinal congresses. They are quite a chore, but I think worth the effort. I much prefer the Template:USCongressTerms for the reasons you stated and would hope that template is used consistantly throughout the series. I would encourage you to be persistent. User:Markles often has good suggestions for improvements, and he and I had actually reached agreement some time ago on the use of Template:USCongressTerms and its design. However, I noticed he made some edits to it just the other day...so I'm not sure what gives. Let's continue to collaborate on this. stilltim 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm sorry, both of you. I'd forgotten where Stilltim & I had left it with these templates. I'm still not convinced that we should have two templates, but I can't really come up with a defense of one over the other. Therefore, I'll back down. The two of you have brought so much good work to WikiProject Congress! —Markles 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you uploaded this image with the tag that the copyright holder has released all rights to this image. I've changed this to fair use and added a replaceable fair use tag to the image because I doubt this claim. You will need to provide a link directly to a page on their website or email confirmation that indicates they have released all rights to their images and allow use anywhere, for any reason, and at any time, not just on Wikipedia. Now that he has been elected, it would be easier to just use an image from his Congressional website that wasn't used by his campaign that will likely be public domain. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Personality disorders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. NeantHumain 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please refrain from including personal information in articles that is not directly related to the subject's public life, and verifiable from sources in the public domain. See our policies on the biographies of living people for details. Thanks.--Doc^g 10:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assert to be User:Appraiser--Appraiser 02:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the IP address under which you voted (check the instructions) - Alvesgaspar 11:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assert to be the same person as User:74.38.90.174 --Appraiser 16:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Doug_jones.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to provide a better source for this image, i.e. a hyperlink. Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, the Commons is not an acceptable source. That uploader had to get it from somewhere, and I've marked that image as lacking source info as well. Could you provide the original source, i.e. a U.S. Gov website? Images from the Commons should not be uploaded here anyways since they can simply be linked to like any normal image. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted "in office" from "died in office" because it's redundant and/or unnecessary. If he wasn't in office when he died, then the list shouldn't bother mentioning that he died at all.—Markles 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I met Theodore Wirth's grandson, Theodore J. Wirth, today. Here's the story: My father had a box of Theodore Wirth's annual reports to the Minneapolis Park Board from many years ago. When my father worked for the park board one winter, they were clearing out an old storage space, and they wanted to get rid of the box of reports. He asked if he could keep them, and his supervisor said, "I don't care, as long as they're out of here by 4 PM." (My father tends to do this a lot -- he'll take stuff that other people want to get rid of -- but this was one of the things of real historic value.)

Anyway, my father saw an article in the paper a few years ago about a group called the Minneapolis Parks Legacy Society, who is dedicated to promoting the legacy of Theodore Wirth. He contacted the group and mentioned that he had these annual reports, and that he was willing to donate them to the group. They got in touch with my dad, and this afternoon, Joan Berthiaume and Theodore J. Wirth visited my father and picked up the reports. In exchange, they gave my father a reprinted edition of a book that Theodore Wirth wrote in 1944 about his experience with the Minneapolis parks system. It was a cool gift that they gave my dad, and I read through some parts of the book. It's pretty interesting and it sheds a lot of light on Wirth's career.

They mentioned that they're hoping to get the Theodore Wirth Home and Administration Building opened to the public as a museum. They're also the group that got his house on the National Register in 2002. I told them that I'm an editor on Wikipedia and that I've worked on articles about National Register properties in Minnesota. Joan mentioned that a Wikipedia editor had come to the Theodore Wirth house looking for some information. I don't know if it was you or not, but it sounds like they'd be interested in helping to document Theodore Wirth's accomplishments. The book they gave my father would certainly provide a lot of information toward that goal. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speculative date from the thermostat image that you added to the above article. There was no source given for the date. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was very careful in the wording of my photo caption to use the indefinite article a before "boundary" rather than the definite article the, since, as you noted, the river does not always serve as the boundary between the two cities. But I thought it was interesting enough to point out in the caption that it sometimes serves that purpose. I won't revert there because it's not worth getting into an edit war over, but please at least re-read my original caption, and note the indefinite article a and my intention: to demonstrate a purpose that the subject of the article performs, that it doesn't merely "run through" the cities; it also, arguably more interestingly, serves as a boundary between the two cities over a significant area. If you can come up with a way to re-word the caption to keep that intent, please do so. Moncrief 16:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an ISBN on Lost Bird of Wounded Knee, it is 0306808226. I will follow your advice on form. Thank you! --Bluejay Young 07:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 199.62.0.252 lifted or expired. Request handled by: – Luna Santin (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think too many people are going dispute Ramstad is a moderate Republican, I am more curious what makes that particular study so authoritative. Plus are we going to have every political group/cause/interest group that ranks members of congress as either being conservative or liberal pro or con to their agendas listed as well. I believe saying that he is a moderate Republican is fine. I doubt someone will come along and ask for source or citiation for that Smith03 02:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"restore citation justifying the word "moderte" - it indicates where the city is on the political spectrum) " Also your logic is a bit off in sense it show where the city is on the political scale as Ramstad is elected by the whole 3rd district not just Bloomington. Also a conservative Republican is going to vote him over a Democrat. A better indication would be to look at the state house and senate. As someone who lives in Bloomington I would say that Bloomington as a whole is pretty moderate the east tend to vote Dem and the west tends to vote GOP. We are pretty purple, but then you have to keep in mind there is a difference between social and economic conservatives/liberals. I would state the east side is probably more liberal on economic issues but more conservative on social issues. The West is probably more conservative on economic and maybe more split on social, but that is my assumptions based on people I know from around town.

Smith03 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of where {{USRepSuccessionBox}} links is not at all conclusive. There is not a consensus. Last I checked, there were 2 Support, 2 Oppose, and 1 Comment. Thus, I strongly think the template should link to the much more useful articles, "List of United States Representatives from Foo." As another active member of WikiProject Congress wrote, these articles are growing quickly and the other articles ("United States Congressional Delegations from Foo") were once very small too.—Markles 12:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Appraiser, you are the person who taught me to give images no pixel sizes, a lesson that made a big impression so I hesitate to suggest that Minneapolis might have two bona fide exceptions, cases for which MoS provides. The default makes the recycle image so powerful the message (four languages) is lost. A slightly smaller pixel size won't hurt the Target image and will give other companies more room. Readers can click the images if they wish to see more. The two are in close proximity. If you have time could you see what you think? Also, do you think that WikiProject Cities order of sections is working out? Thanks. -Susanlesch 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks good now. I changed the recycling picture the other day because the photo was overlapping text on one of my monitors. I think your addition of the "break" solved the problem. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities standard sections are a good idea I think. Do you take exception to any of the standard?--Appraiser 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, maybe left side pictures run a risk of overlap more often than right, I don't know. The Cities outline seems flexible enough to adapt (I added Arts and media, and Religion, charity and health and am thinking about a section for rankings in the press, not sure yet). -Susanlesch 20:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- I did a lot of congressional stuff back whenever that was. My memory is blank. It is possible it was a copyright violation. I don't who it was-but I was new to Wikipedia at the time. I just might of thought it was okay to share information from a government website. I went to that John Kline website and didn't recognize it. Sorry for the mistake if it was me. Rhelmerichs 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like wikisource has bios for former congress members and I know you are interested in this stuff. [1] - Ravedave 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wonder if you have a moment to give an opinion. Do you think Minneapolis ready for FAC? I so far don't know the answers to three questions: whether topics are missing, if POVs need balance because so many edits are mine, and if the TOC structure needs reordering and or second-level sections. Even though an editor bowed out I am optimistic and wonder if those questions can be presented along with the request for a FAC review. -Susanlesch 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let me know if I'm being too verbose with what I've done with History of Minneapolis, Minnesota so far? I'm starting to think I'm getting a little too verbose with it -- it's fairly long, and I've barely even gotten into 20th century history yet. I'm thinking I might have to scale back on the amount I write about each topic, or try to focus on fewer, more important topics. Let me know what you think about it so far. (I also asked Susanlesch about this.) Thanks. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks to a correction of yours in Charles M. Loring, I find that the source cited was probably in error. Based on very little information I am just barely starting to solve the mystery in a new article Northwestern Consolidated Milling Company. If you have time to peek, the DYK hook includes your term oligopoly which appears to be more correct than the U.S. Park Service school reading cited in Loring. (They might have misread the HAES record which says 3 companies held 97% of the Minneapolis flour market not the U.S. market, or 10-15% of the U.S. market--I am off in search of a source for the latter). Thank you again and corrections welcome. -Susanlesch 01:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe I do, I'll take a look when I have a minute. I don't remember if I resized it after I took it...anyway I'll let you know. RxS 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I do have larger examples of that photo. I actually have several I took that day. Would you like me to just replace the one that exists here? By the way, if you're looking for any other metro area photos (or better examples of what we already have) let me know and I can try and get take some over the next week or so. RxS 12:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No insult taken! I take a couple photo trips around the metro area during the summer and I was in the Walter/Guthrie area so I went up on the footbridge a took a quick snap...it's not the best for sure. Anyway, I'm itching to go out again when it's nice and sunny to take photos of some of your suggestions...hoping it's soon. Did you even get a better KSTP pic? I can do that as well. I should put a gallery together of the photos I've uploaded and are in use around Wikipedia...I forget sometimes how many there are and every once in a while I stumble upon one that I've forgotten about....RxS 17:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why you undid my edit to the Minnesota senate Election 2008. I they have said they are not running, y should we keep them. Politics rule

Hey thank you so much for adding a picture. I was having a hard time finding one. Also thanks for the other additions! 1013-christi 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<<unblock|my IP address was blocked just now "indefinitely". No reason was given. Possibly a co-worker at my IP address violated something? But as a registered user my user name should be used rather than an IP address, shouldn't it?>>

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.

   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.

   If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.

2. Try to edit the Sandbox.

   If you are able to edit the sandbox, you are not blocked from editing. Either the autoblock on your IP address has already expired, or you weren't blocked in the first place. Either way, you can resume editing.

3. If you are still blocked, follow the directions below:
   1. Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Unblock request" section.
   2. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page, and click save.

      If you cannot edit your own talk page, use the Unblock Ticket Request System to make your request.

--   Netsnipe  ►  02:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-- I came across your DYK nomination while checking "what links here". I have found a source more recent than the books I was using, and edited the article accordingly. I therefore took the liberty of editing your nom at well.

I'm not sure if this should be titled River Warren or Glacial River Warren. I've seen both and have no strong opinions. If you think we should shorten it let me now, as now would be the time.

Thanks. Kablammo 14:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now leaning toward River Warren and it seems to be used more. We'll wait to see if the DYN goes through (thanks!).

The year ranges originally used were adequately sourced, but it seems more recent research has narrowed them, hence the changes. Lake Agassiz uses a source which is not referenced and footnoted and it perhaps may rely on older research. We may want to open a discussion there. Kablammo 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 9 May, 2007, a fact from the article Glacial River Warren, which you recently nominated, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 00:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

in reference to your question about pictures of buffalo ridge... i didnt take any pictures but i have a friend who did take pictures and gave me permission to use them...how would i go about getting them okayed to put on my page? 1013-christi 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've seen them but I haven't had time to read them yet, I am Mr.Mom this week as my wife is out of town. I have been using this page: User:AlexNewArtBot/MinnesotaSearchResult to keep on top of MN articles. I think we need more people watching it, as I can't keep up. I have been quickly looking at them but had no time to strike through the ones I checked, and I haven't had time to AFD the ones that are junk.-Ravedave 19:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've taken a look at them too -- some more than others. I've been following the results of the 1013 class at the U of M, and I think they've done a good job on Bohemian Flats and Itasca State Park, among others. I'm not 100% impressed with Pillsbury "A" Mill; it's lacking some citations and some of the context. I actually haven't been doing a lot of heavy editing lately, since I've been working on another project, but I did manage to get to Camp Coldwater yesterday (on a day off) and I took some pictures. I'm going to see if I can expand that article some more. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the damage to my talk page, and watching the Minnesota article. It seems to be holding up very well so far. Kablammo 12:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appraiser wrote:

Did you get new information about Bemis? One source [2] says that the headquarters address is 222 S. Ninth St., Minneapolis, MN 55402. CNN calls it a Missouri Corporation. [3] Their website gives a Wisconsin address [4]. (The first link is the source cited in this article.)--Appraiser 13:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No the information isn't new. I remember removing Bemis from the Economy section of Minneapolis quite some time ago. Perhaps the problem is the Economy of Minnesota article source is old (April 2006). Here are Google first few hits for "Bemis moved Wisconsin": 1, 2, 3, 4. By the way, where is Ameriprise Financial in the list? -Susanlesch 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appraiser, thank you so much for the barnstar. Comes as a complete surprise after a busy week. Best wishes to you. -Susanlesch 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article River Warren Falls, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked in this edit summary, "Does it add any value?" I think it does -- it shows a couple remaining supports for the Minnesota Eastern trestle that are out of the angle of Image:Mill Ruins 009.JPG. In fact, the pictures I took that day have a real problem with blown-out highlights. I don't like the way that my current picture turned out -- the street lights are starting to vanish into the sky. So, if you have replacements for the picture(s) I took, or new pictures you want to add, go ahead and add them, and replace the one I took. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as adminship goes, I wouldn't stop working on Minnesota historical topics, or Minnesota-related articles in general, or NRHP articles in general. Those topics are too interesting to walk away from. I view adminship as an extra set of tools to help out with maintenance, not as a replacement for article editing. We wouldn't have articles if everyone worked only on administrative stuff. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Appraiser, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Pepsicup.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Appraiser/Images. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 18 May, 2007, a fact from the article Mills District, Minneapolis, which you recently nominated, 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.

--Carabinieri 14:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 21 May, 2007, a fact from the article Sauk Rapids Tornado of 1886, which you recently nominated, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 22 May, 2007, a fact from the article Gideon H. Pond House, which you recently nominated, 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.

--Smee 23:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cut back the Laura Osnes section in Culture of MN to one sentence? It's almost a 4th of the pop culture area :) -Ravedave 18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can probably get the ones around Loring Park, Basilica, Lowry Hill Bridge; the Lowry Tunnel also shouldn't be too difficult. I live downtown but work in Eden Prairie so I usually only have time for daylight photos on the weekend, alas I'll be out for two weeks. I'll add them to my list and if no one else gets them I'll do a run. --Bobak 16:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to say that I haven't forgotton about the pics we talked about a month or 2 ago...I'v ebeen so blasted busy though. I will get to them as soon as I can...maybe between Bobak and I some new photos will start flowing....RxS 22:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I added a few topic for discussion at Talk:Minnesota#Recent_changes_to_article. Can you weigh in with your thoughts? Thanks. Kablammo 18:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]