User talk:Lou Sander/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lou Sander. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.227.155 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know you, and I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe this message got misdirected somehow. If not, I'm open to discussion of whatever it is that's bothering you. Lou Sander (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lou, I've noticed your interest in this article and it has been a point of contention in the past. Please indicate, on the appropriate section of the article's Talk page, whether you support or oppose the edits made by User:Shibumi2 on the evening of January 6. More voices speaking directly to the question of consensus would be more productive. Thank you. 68.31.165.119 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Feel free to leave me a barnstar if you feel I'm worthy of one. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheShadowComic01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't reviewing all of the talk comments, just the most recent ones. You'll note that I've also reverted similarly stupid comments from the "other side." E.g. I would be fine with removing all soapbox comments that no one has replied to. That's the evil I am trying to prevent: I hope to cut off trolling before it's effective. Cool Hand Luke 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:IrvinCaterpillarPin.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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 non-free media 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. Rettetast (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is to note your comments on the Free Republic article are treading very close to, if not completely over the line of permissible behavior regarding Wikipedia's policies on No Personal Attacks and Civility Look, do I feel that Eschoir has a conflict of interest? I do. I have said so numerous times. But your comments cross the line. Please do not repeat them, or your account could be blocked for a period of time. SirFozzie (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to discourage you, but you will get nowhere with them, trust me, I've tried. It just goes round and round, with both sides putting out their highly detailed and completely opposite versions. And if you find my link to be unrelated, it is not at all, this is the same thing, with new editors (and Eschoir, who was there then too). If you do get through there, you have my utmost respect. Prodego ^talk 03:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping they just don't see how confusing their work is. I'm not going to waste a lot of time feeding them, though. Thanks for the warning. Lou Sander (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:CruiseBook1959.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: your comment here.

You're right: it is annoying for a lot of people. But unfortunately it's necessary in order to shield Wikipedia from copyright lawsuits that have the potential to shut down the site. I wish there was some easy way to communicate this at the mass level, so that users could direct their ire at the right target instead of Wikipedia, but there isn't. :( -- Hux (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Its standard practice not to qualify external links, it's an efficient way to help prevent link spam. much larger is a qualification so I romoved it. perhaps my choice of words for the edit summary wasnt the best, but still. Anyways hope that explains it Regards Acer (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See here Number 20. The user who added that link (Cryptographic hash) had been going around adding a bunch of llinks to CZ with flowery language Acer (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:NCShipbuildingCo.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:BJU-2.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First off I apologize for again leaving notices that you don't wish to receive on your talk page after you politely asked me not to do so. Please understand that I am technically required to notify the uploader of the problem when I mark the image, and while your notice to me may absolve me of that responsibility, other may not know of our arrangement. Further, a script I use automatically notifies the uploader when I mark an image. More importantly, I have taken actions to request/require that all bots and scripts be capable of honoring opt out requests (such as yours) where you may elect to not receive such messages at your own desire. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Expand Template:Bots to allow opt out of other notices and Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Clarify sourcing requirements and User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js#Suggestion: Incorporate scipting user message .22notice opt out.22 capability. Secondly, you can read a response to the other complaints that I have received (and you echoed) on my talk page (it's rather long to copy over here) at User talk:MECU#Image:NHYOKOAIR.jpg. Thank you for your understanding. MECU≈talk 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to confront MECU about his recent flagging of large amounts of government photos, and photos in general. I see it as a serious problem because it doesn't help wikipedia, and in fact it's hurting it. Look at the destruction of the page Operation Rolling Thunder, from what I can see, several of the government images were removed. Now, I'm not a fan of picture books, but in an age where its nearly impossible to peak anyone's interest in anything educational, visual stimulation is vital to hold their attention. Anyways, I'm going ahead and confronting him on this, as you have, and will try to involve others. Your welcome to visit his talk page too add to this. Jimmyjones22 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance, could you take a look at this image you uploaded and see if you can work out which template belongs on it? It looks like it may be the work of the US Military, but I wasn't able to find the photo offhand on the site you gave as the source, so I wasn't sure. Thanks! Shell ^babelfish 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone deleted your article from the DYK suggestions page. I definitely think the article should be featured, we just need to come up with a nice, non-controversial and interesting hook for it.

I suggest "...that at the height of its popularity, New York's Easter Parade drews crowds of over a million people?"

All I need is an inline cite for that fact, so if you could add one, I will promote it, assuming you are happy with the above hook. Please try to reply quickly as I would like to add this one to the next available update. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the inline cite. Maybe the article is too seasonal to be featured in any way now, though. It was a hard article to write, since the sources are long and intricate, and since the story of the Easter parade is just part of the story of Easter's growing from a solemn, hardly-celebrated holiday to a hugely celebrated religious and commercial event. Every sentence could probably have an online cite, with most of them from the two primary sources. It's a pretty interesting story, IMHO, but a long one. Lou Sander (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite, but now that you mention it, you may have a point. I'll ask Royalbroil if it's possible to hold this over to next year when we could run it at a more topical time. If not, I'll run it now. It's a very well written and interesting article and deserves to be featured IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On 22 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Easter Parade, 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.

Cheers, Bobet 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The best place to look for historical pictures, generally, is at the Library of Congress image archive, which has tons and tons of pre-1923 pictures and a fair number of pictures from later eras whose photographers have donated the images to the public domain. You are in luck as far as images go--there are about 15 Easter parade pics, some very good. You can just do a search on "Easter parade" and see the images that are clickable with blue borders after you press preview images. (The non-blue border ones are non-free.) My favorites are http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.09062 , http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.09064 , http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ggbain.00297 , http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c31230 , and http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.01550 . If you need help uploading let me know. Mangostar (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy there, I'm one of the idiots who bothers people about images! :) Just be sure to mark the source clearly (the template {{LOC-image}} is good--look at the template page to see how it's used) as well as the copyright status (here, either {{PD-Bain}} or {{PD-USGov-FSA}}). Stuff from the LOC is easy to verify as free, so there shouldn't be any problems. Mangostar (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to make a formal requested move, or discuss this further on the article talk page. There was a talk page consensus in 2006 at Talk:Chairman to move the article to Chair (official). This stood for roughly 21 year. Another user moved the article to a title that makes no sense Chairman (official) (it makes no sense because there is no need to disambiguation chairman per wikipedia guidelines on disambiguation). His move, while mentioned on a talk page, did not have support from other editors, but instead only had a "silent" consensus. Reading the Chicago Manual of Style recently, along with my concern about an out of process move and the improper disambiguation, I returned the article to it's previous home of 1 years. If this move of mine will generate more talk page discussion, great. I understand completely that consensus from 1 years ago can be changed, and I respect that. Hopefully my actions will bring about a more throughout, clear cut consensus reached through amicable discussion. Make sense?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does make sense. From what I can see, the common and historical title of the office is Chairman. The relatively recent concerns about gender neutrality have brought Chair and Chairwoman into use. There was recently a LOT of extremely confused copy about all this in the article. I tried to clean it up, and I think I did so. But if the article is to be "Chair," the whole discussion of different forms of the word needs to be redone. As it stands now, it isn't very clear (since it is based on differences from "Chairman," not from "Chair.") Since I recently clarified it, I'm not excited about doing it again, especially since I come down in favor of "Chairman" as the best title for the article.

I don't think there are a lot of people looking at the discussion page of the article. If it's worth hammering out the Chair/Chairman controversy, it probably should be done wherever those discussions are held. (I don't know where that is.) More important than the name of the article is that it should discuss all the different forms of the word. Lou Sander (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Inline simply means that you use the <ref></ref> tags in the text and then use the {{reflist}} tag in your references. It's just a neat and clear way of referencing articles.

Your two references are good, but I think that you still need more to increase the notability of the subject. I would suggest searching for news stories from reliable sources or other publications. If Peter N. Kirsanow is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Toytown Mafia (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:HallicraftersS38C.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Hallicrafters S-38C.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Hallicrafters S-38C.png]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

read this page: Wikipedia:Moving_images_to_the_Commons. if it doesn't answer all your questions, drop a note on my talk page and I'll walk you through it. --Ludwigs2 02:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day Lou. I dont have any specialist knowledge of Oro Bay, however I am a keen World War II historian for New Guniea and South West Pacific Area. Both my grandfathers were involved in WW2 in New Guniea, Bougainville and Hong Kong. I find lots of information using Pacific Wrecks website amongst others. If you require any information please let me know I can will see whether I can assist. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that Oro Bay is to the north of Dyke Ackland Bay, or a bay within the larger Dyke Ackland Bay as shown in the map Oro Bay Province Map. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know that Dyke Ackland Bay was named by Capt. John Moresby of the Royal Navy while serving as part of Australia Station sailing HMS Basilisk after Sir Thomas Dyke Acland. The bay was known as Dyke Acland Bay but has obviously over time been mispelt and stuck. About to upload Porlock Bay, Papua New Guinea page to Wiki. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Noticed that you corrected the deadlinks on the Sun Shipbuilding Co.. Good. Do me a favor and read MY REMARKS HERE and see if I am completely offbase. Thanks. Hag2 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Lou, I appreciate your comment on the PROMIS talk page. Hag2 (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism by 193.170.142.60 on Talk:Princeton University Press. There were additional earlier unwarranted changes by the same editor, so I have reverted those as well. I just wanted to let you know, since this involved reverting (and then repeating) your change.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love the excuse to use this section title on another user's talk page. Btw, I don't agree that it is. Stub templates really do look terrible directly below the rest of the article; I insert extra lines into stubs like this all the time for better layout. Everyme 11:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you mean by "don't agree that it is." Don't agree that it's a stub, or something else??? Lou Sander (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree that it's a pissant little thing to add that extra line. Agree with your edit. :) Everyme 12:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks. Lou Sander (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The measure given: 1025 kg/m³ (10.25 lb/ga, 8.55 lb/US gallon), pretty clearly refers to both imperial gallons and US gallons. If there is any doubt about it perhaps meaning one of the other esoteric gallons, such as corn gallons, a quick inspection of the gallons page will reveal that an imperial gallon is defined as the volume of 10lbs of water.

The person who "corrected" the original figures made no reference at all to the fact that they were using units of US gallons. A "gallon" without any other adjective, anywhere in the world except the USA, is an imperial gallon. Of course if you'd all do the sensible thing and go metric, we wouldn't have these issues! 8-) Graham User talk:202.63.58.240 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

Give me a break. "ga" does not in any way "clearly" refer to imperial gallons. The article is very confusing about units. It needs to be fixed. If you mean imperial gallons, please say so. I know nothing about them or their conversion to other units. Neither do I understand why anyone would use them in this article. I don't have a huge problem if they do, but the "ga" link points out how they are in limited use in a few places. He who puts them in there needs to do so clearly. Lou Sander (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(I replied on my talk page about Chair)

A good history book about griddle cakes? That is a good question to which I don't know the answer. I shall have a look in my local library (not in Scotland sadly) for ideas.

Have you tried Google Books?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked a LOT of places. The trouble is that scones and bannock are not widely known here in the U.S. There are many recipes, but very little additional information. The best I've found is a sentence or two about origins, etc. I'm thinking that cookbooks and food encyclopedias in the UK would have more information about these Scottish/British items. I don't expect extremely thorough coverage, but I'm hoping for better than I've found over here. Lou Sander (talk) 10:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the piece about drop scones and girdle cakes in the Pancakes article is a bit garbled (there is a paragraph about the Scotch and Irish, then another about the UK, that seems to repeat the first.)

Don't get your hopes up re history in British cookbooks.

Delia Smith's Complete Cookery Course has only 2 sentences:

"The modern scone seems to have involved from something similar to the girdle cake... : it was only when raising agents were introduced to flour that scones began to be oven-baked and well-risen as we know them today" (BBC Books, revised 1992 edition, page 561)

(I assume girdle is a synonym of griddle). From what I can see from an online edition, Mrs Beeton doesn't mention the things at all.

I did find a four sentence history. I am not sure of its reliability, but at least its from a reputable publisher, and is better than what we have in Scone (bread) so far: "scone" An A-Z of Food and Drink. Ed. John Ayto. Oxford university Press, 2002. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Municipal Library Service. 26 October 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t134.e1121>

I also found a little history of Devonshire chudleighs and Cornish splits, in the archives of the Plymouth Western Morning News. Apparently another type of bread.

Meanwhile, if you are interested in Scottish history, you may enjoy this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4144587.ece (Stone of Destiny a 'fake to dupe invading English') Nothing to do with baking.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I looked at Britannica. It doesn't touch on the first mention by Gavin Douglas in his translation of The Aenid. The 1911 edition says scone bread is Scottish, but the current edition says England and Wales! Sourcing from other encyclopedias is fraught with trouble!

I liked your addition of the etymology of chairman to Chair (official).

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Many references talk about "girdle" being the Scots pronunciation of "griddle." I have no knowledge of it myself, but it's in many long quotes, so I don't doubt it's true.
2. Interesting about the "raising agents." I've worked on the Baking powder article, and this claim rings very true. Apparently baking powder was a very big deal when it was developed. It was a simple substitute for yeast, and made it a lot easier to bake simple items.
3. Could you copy the text in the Oxford History stuff and send it in an email? We in the U.S. don't have access to the Oxford History database.
4. I'm going to propose that the "Chair" article be renamed as "Chairman." It used to have that name, but somebody changed it to "Chair," probably because chairman sounded sexist. The new material might put that to rest. If it were Chairman, there wouldn't be the confusion about places to sit. Plus, I think the vast majority of the links to the article are because somebody is chairman of something.

Lou Sander (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would remind you that the phrase "Highlands and Islands" traditionally refers to the mainland Highlands, plus the Hebrides, i.e. the recently Gaelic cultural area. The Hebrides are "Highland", but the Northern Isles are not. They don't have a Gaelic heritage.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lou, there's a thread at User talk:Secret/Attract More Editors#Grey Power where your views would be much appreciated, whether you want to chuck a bucket of coldwater over us the idea or otherwise. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lou Sander. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.