User:John Fader has made no edits since May 20, 2005 and may be unlikely to respond to any messages left here.

Old versions archived at:

• User talk:John Fader/archive1

He's been permanently blocked. RickK 23:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you the only admin who actually does anything about vandalism? I see lots of people on WP:RFA saying they will, but not one heck of a lot of action thereafter. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed one of his bits of vandalism and traced him back to the source. If this happens again, you can always report it on WP:AN/I. RickK 05:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry did not mean to offend you before. Karatekid7 00:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does REX feel he can yell 'vandalism" when faced with an edit which he doesn't happen personally to agree with, but has been made with good intent and a large amount of justification? This seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of cooperation and respect for others' views which Wikipedia expects. See England 25/3/05 --Aroberts 14:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

REX, I've reminded Aroberts of the 3RR, and you might like to be careful there yourself. It's a somewhat untested issue whether an edit that's at variance with clear consensus (as Aroberts' edits appear to be) constitutes "simple vandalism". If Aroberts restores the edit again, I'd hope you'd leave reverting to someone else, just to be safe. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 15:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi John, thank you for your advice. I was aware of the 3RR, but it is nice to know that I am being supported. REX 20:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert of vandalism on my Talk page. Guettarda 18:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, John, how does tabbing work? Or, how do I make it work? Another question: I'm really stymied with Firefox's Bookmarks. I have to scan through a long list of bookmarks to find the ones I want, instead of just using my most frequently-visited one. I have a lot of favorites.  ;) You can reply on my email address, giantsrick13@yahoo.com, if you want to reply. Thanks. RickK 09:52, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea. But with the servers being so slow at the moment, I prefer to wait a bit longer. I'll do it tomorrow. Besides it gives others the time to weigh in. Be patient a little bit more :) - Mgm|^(talk) 21:48, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, there's no hurry at all. Making a nontrivial structural change when one can't properly check (or trust) what links here would be madness. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That was quick! I figured that if it was a blank redirect it was "fair game". Never heard of Speyside in Scotland until now. I have no problem with moving the page, but I would think a disambiguation page would be more appropriate, rather than a straight redirect (it would make rather strange reading to place the text For the town in Tobago see: Speyside, Trinidad and Tobago on a page called Strathspey, Scotland, not so? Anyway, I'll move the page. Guettarda 23:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, the Scottish article should really be Speyside,as that's the name by which it's most commonly known (I'm not proposing to change that, however, as I guess it has the name it does for symmetry with other Scottish regional articles). Speyside (heck, who calls it Strathspey) is one of the major regions for production of scotch whisky (and they get called "speysides" or "speyside malts" (can't say I care for the stuff). Anyway, I guess a disambig seems like a fair solution. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the articles that linked to Speyside as I fixed the redirects. I wouldn't have a problem with the Scottish town having first dibs on the name, I was just going by the fact that it was a redirect. I also wondered why it wasn't at Strathspey (rather than Strathspey, Scotland) - never heard of the dance either. Anyway, I did that. Now I have to find out what a "speyside malt" tastes like (getting good Scotch in the middle of Oklahoma is likely to be a challenge). Guettarda 23:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strathspey isn't a town, it's a moderate (for the UK) sized valley; "strath" is Scots Gaelic for "valley of". I'd forgotten about the dance. A speyside malt tastes like a fairly conventional quality whisky. If you want something more unusual, try a Laphroaig (from Islay) which tastes eerily like smoke and mouthwash (expensive mouthwash). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted your edit; see Talk:Bay rum. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 13:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Ideally it would have a better stub category, but I don't think there's a "personal care" or "toiletries" stub ;) -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 13:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Porcellian Club has been attacked again. I suspect it is by a Harvard IP. The article was deleted twice by a Harvard IP on hierarchypedia. Don't seem to be able to roll the article back here. --Hierarchypedia 17:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can use Wikipedia:Wikifun/Round 7 which has the correct links. I'm trying to sort it out. Grue 14:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Well, the main page seems to work too, at least if you purge the cache for it. Also, when you answer a question, provide wikilinks to articles that helped you to find the answers. So far both of your answers are incorrect, but you may try again. Grue 14:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yah, have glanced over Wikibooksness on your advice. So the best method is to pour info in Wikibooks and then skim for 'Pedia? Okay. You're right - the best thing about Wiki is you can inform now, organise later. I've left a note at the 'book site; right now I have work to do (waah). Your offer of help is gratefully heard, understood, and acknowledged.

That's my suggestion, but just my opinion. Wikibooks is a bit easier as there's less of a strict house editorial style, so you can braindump there more easily. I've seen too many contributors get disheartened when they braindump on the encyclopedia and find their contribution gets nominated for deletion because it doesn't match the style and content expected of an encyclopedia article. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 13:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly safe to say that "Princess Victoria, Queen of Prussia" refers to Princess Victoria, Princess Royal, as there was no other Princess Victoria who became Queen of Prussia. The Saxe-Coburg and Gotha case is a little more complicated; however, Alfred did die in 1900, and was the first Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to be born into the British Royal Family—so it would be he whom Edward VII commemorated. -- Emsworth 23:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have & I will. We'll get the vandal. Rlquall 11:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hi

I agree that 'vanity' is used very peculiarly (and sometimes hurtfully) on Wikipedia. I've tried to think of a snappy alternative, but have so far failed. Your idea would involve judging whether or not we have genuine vanity, Wikipedia-vanity, or new-user mistake, and that's often not easy. The wording of the template isn't actually that bad:

Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article [[{{{1}}}]] may not be well-known enough to merit articles of their own. The Wikipedia community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. By starting an account or logging in, each user is entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects.

it's just the template's name (and the way articles are referred to in discussions, especially VfDs) that's the problem. My apologies to Renato if I caused him offence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I dunno how I did that .... Weird ... Anyway, I have restored the missing item. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Happy editing. -- PFHLai 22:05, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses to my questions at the Help Desk. Most helpful, especially because you've given me additional confidence to just try stuff out; if it doesn't work "correctly" I can always revert myself with a big "whoops" in the edit summary. I'm not ususally such a stickler for procedure; must've had too much coffee that day or something. . . . Soundguy99 15:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I raised the bug on that html zero thing http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1966. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 14:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a duplicate of Bugzilla:1938. Alphax ^τεχ 09:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have just been given the second photo in a week with embedded photographer's credits in the bottom right corner. In the first case it was initials; in this case it's a name. Do you know the policy on this? I thought I'd read about it somewhere in wikipedia but I can't find it now and no one answered in the village pump help desk. Kind of need to know what to say to the two folks who emailed me them when I requested a photo for an article. — Emerman 22:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy (but there are sooo maaany policies). There are some images that do (see Manzanar for examples) and no-one seems to have complained about. People need to understand that the GFDL allows anyone to remove said initials (etc.), but doing so would seem (to me) to be an utterly shitty thing to do. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found in the Wikipedia:Image use policy area a numbered list that included:

- Edit the images to show just the relevant subject.

- If you create an image that contains text, please upload also a version without any text. It will help Wikipedias in other languages use them (translate them).

- Don't put photo credits in articles or on the images themselves; put them on the description page.

And I wrote a message on the talk page, which has a whole section on this. But I don't think they are thinking about people who didn't create the image themselves and get it from someone else, a professional. Thanks for your comments. I've already seen someone's photo I had gotten GNU licensing for placed on a site without a photo credit from here and i had them take it down; i see now why people like to embed their initials or photo credit at bottom right. I am not sure what to do. Thanks, Emerman 03:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phil, did you intend for the images in Stirling to stack horizontally? Putting images adjacent to one another in the wikitext has them stack vertically for the monobook skin, but makes them stack horizontally in classic and cologne blue. The only skin-neutral way I've found of making images stack nicely is to use a table - see Casa Batlló for a fairly minimal example. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 15:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I most certainly did not—thwacks own head crossly—sorry about that. There was a nasty gap in the text and I wanted that to close up. Do you think a gallery would be better, given that the locational image is occupying pride of place? --Phil | Talk 15:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

No, gallery is (currently) a bit of a botchup. You're stuck with 4 columns and small thumbnails. I think mediawiki 1.5 will have a more flexible gallery system. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 16:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried autofellatio? I hear it makes you less of a fucking asshole. Go suck yourself. --SPUI (talk) 10:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 10:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was necessary. But I have changed now; I will now defend RickK to the death. First goal: vandalise pages so he can get a kick out of reverting. It'll be fun! --SPUI (talk) 10:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it won't. You clearly care about wikipedia, otherwise you wouldn't be so het up, and wouldn't have spent so much effort on it to begin with. Take a week off and see how you feel then. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 10:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Best edit summary ever. Gamaliel 20:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what a stub is. Wikipedia:Find or fix a stub explains, saying "A stub is a very short article, generally of one paragraph or less". So it's not appropriate to add the us politicans stub to all those US president articles, none of which are one paragraph or less. Can I ask you to revert yourself on all those articles. Thanks. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right I didn't really know what a stub was for but after reading up on them I do now. I was going to revert all the President's pages as you requested but noticed someone else already did. My apologies--AI 01:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry, it's a darn complicated encyclopedia. What you really want in such circumstances is a category (you'll see the markup for that at the bottom of most mature pages). Categories establish relationships between like articles. Stubs, on the other hand, contain special markup which calls for people to come and enhance an article. While stubs weren't appropriate in this case, they're invaluble in general cases where a small article needs people to improve on it. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 09:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It didn't work. You need to put |thumb|.

No, it did what I intended. The previous editor removed the caption altogether, on the (not unreasonable) grounds that a picture of a Nintendo DS with a caption that read "Nintendo DS" was kinda redundant. I can't argue with that. But doing this means the image has no ALT text in the html that mediawiki emits. This means that if you view the page with a text only browser, or with one of the many kinds of browsers that people with various imparements (particularly visual problems) use, you wouldn't know what the image was of. Sometimes such people can see a bit, but mostly run in text-only mode. When they find an image they like, they open it (often is SUPER MEGA EXTRA ZOOM MODE) and pore over it. But most web pages are full of little images that are there just to make them look nice (little rounded corner graphics or fillers and stuff like that) so it's a pain for such people when a useful image doesn't have an ALT tag - they can't know if it's valuable, or just another filler. So, the markup I added to the Nintendo DS page adds an ALT tag, but doesn't display the rather redundant caption. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant having the thumbnail frame back round it with the text.

• Thorpe • 21:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My estimate is that a 25-bit block on 213.18.248.16/25 amounts to blocking 128 possibly IP numbers. Rovoam is apparently using a pool of approximately that size. One of us has got his sums wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry Tony. I misunderstood bits to mean "included in the blocked area" rather than "excluded from the blocked area". Sure, 128 IPs is a perfectly reasonable block. I really don't understand why this guy isn't permanently banned. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip... --BD ^thimk 10:13, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and reverting the vandalism on my user page before I did. :) --Golbez 20:13, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - you've beaten me three times this evening reverting vandalism on the main page. I wrote it - so thanks - I'm going to bed now, not a lot can happen in the last two hours - can it? Thanks Giano | talk 21:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would have made sense for me to check the history page after the edit. Sometimes, I don't think very far ahead. C'est la vie. Heh-heh. TomLillis | talk

Just because it was five minutes this time doesn't mean unsubtle vandalism can't still lie undiscovered for ages. A while ago I fixed something just as silly that was well over a year old (just not in such a well-travelled article). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch on Yip harburg. I should have looked more closely at the article. Yours, Meelar (talk) 16:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd come after me =) Thanks for directing this newbie on proper procedures.

I think the picture and caption are fabulous for the explanation of keydrive internals. Much of the content itself is a little too model and manufacturer specific to keydrives in general. All manufacturers certainly use a clock, but not all use the SKC Shin Chang Electronics 12.000 MHz crystal oscillator. The general information has been reapplied within the article body.

Perhaps an additional section citing the specific model of keydrive might be appropriate as a demonstration of keydrive internals?

The picture itself is fabulous, but it is not part of a template. As the information contained within the template is specific to a certain article and not reused within other articles, should it not be a part of the article rather than as a reusable template?

Kail Ceannai 04:48, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

As the text is now in the image caption, and given your rather more abstract text in the (much improved keydrive article), I'm happy. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 11:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could be a new game on Wikipedia - "generate a conspiracy theory linking these articles"? Alphax ^τεχ 09:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago I attended an introduction to criminology lecture (at which I was just about the only non cop-wannabe). The professor showed a basket of goods bought at a hardward store. He set an exercise for the class: figure out what the suspect who had bought this stuff was going to do with it. There was a small knife, some duct-tape, some weedkiller, some chain, some wood and nails. Answers produced by the class were generally elaborate tales of kidnap, extortion, and murder. The professor then revealed that this had been his shopping basket: that the chain was for a child's swing, the duct-tape to fix a duct, the weedkiller to kill some weeds, etc. There wasn't a relationship between them, and no criminal intent. His point was that you can always spin a story that connects unrelated facts, and the more unrelated they are the more entertaining the story will be. So I'm not sure it would be much of a wikigame - it's too easy. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 10:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, there's a certain ironic appropriateness to someone vandalising the "Vandalism in Progress" page; VIP is, after all, the topic of the page. :) Tverbeek 13:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's proof that vandals are stupid. If they made subtle changes to out-of-the-way articles, it would take ages to notice. VIP must be the dumbest page of all to vandalise, and yet it's one of wikipedia's most vandalized pages. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 13:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not proof that vandals are stupid. Many of them are in fact very clever. But anyway, vandalsim has many purposes. Sometimes yes, it's to see how long an amusing edit will last before it's reverted, in which case there would be no point editing a highly watched page. However, I can get a lot of amusment out of reading the history logs for some articles, so in a way, vandalism is permanent. Also, and this is what I believe to be the real motive behind vandalism, if a user has to revert an edit, it annoys them. Vandals want to annoy people, in which case it makes little difference how quickly a reversion is made, it only matters that it is. This is especially the case with Benedict XVI. The persistent Emperor Palpatine pictures was not original, it was persistent. However, in this case, annoyance was not the only reason, as the resemblance of Ian McDiarmid in full makeup as Palpatine to Benedict XVI is uncanny. Anyway, the point is you are the stupid one, who appears to be persistenly missing the point about vandalism.--131.111.8.98 00:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That vandal was here yesterday.... the problem is that the IP that was used yesterday turned out to be used by Cambridge University. If this continues, I think a long-term alert would be in order. I'm thinking of calling this vandal the "Remis vandal." That's IF he continues. Now remis IS an actual term... but it's not the one that this guy is using. Look it up yourself... of course, the vandal could have changed it AGAIN. --Chanting Fox 17:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfortunate side effect of the end of the Cold War. Formerly Cambridge students spent their spare time studying for the KGM entrance exams. These days they have nothing better to do that jump of bridges and vandalise wikipedia. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I haven't actually vandalised using remis for a while now. Considering that I've caused chaos using it, I may as well explain the joke: Remis is the predicted text on a mobile phone, (well on mine anyway) for penis. Please think twice before considering vandals as stupid, especially those at Cambridge University.--131.111.8.102 21:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please explain this whole 'jumping off bridges' thing. Thankyou--131.111.8.98 00:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey John, noticed your revert to human physical appearance. Not sure of the best way to deal with deletions for no good reason. Mebbe you could give me feedback on how I handled it? Still green here. Checked out your user page because of it. Couldn't agree more with most of your stuff on there. Keep fighting the good fight. Cheers. SeanMack 14:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally of the opinion that people are entitled to change stuff, but that (particularly when making changes that are likely to be controvertial) it's only reasonable to leave an explanation. The user who removed the picture didn't leave an edit summary (which really is misleading) and I think should have left a note on the talk page explaining why they found the picture to be unsuitable. If the user in question had left such an explanation at the time, I wouldn't have reverted them; don't have strong feelings either way about the picture, and would be happy for those who are active on the page to thrash things out in whatever way they feel appropriate. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 15:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Wellington City Night.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

It's a little disappointing that you choose to characterise my disagreement with you as my being ill-informed. Perhaps you'd care to start again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I know little about the specific claim that Pauline Calf is a good example of the type; I let that by as a matter of trust.
2. The dumb blonde article itself points out that modern uses are often intended (at least partly) to subvert the stereotype. I don't in fact agree with all the examples, but that's another matter.
3. But look, if you think that my edits reveal misunderstanding of the concept, why not state what they are instead of asking questions? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel, I did explain on your talk page. I explained why I think the two aren't the same, and why they shoudn't be lumped together. I've asked you to explain why you think they're sufficiently similar to merit being in the same article. I'm keen to hear your opinion; please tell me that it is, so that we might discuss. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a typical example, a character from Coronation Street (as reasonably described by Manchester Online. She's not blonde, and she's not dumb. But she does meet many of the other essex girl criterial (loud mouth, fatally overdressed). Essex girl and dumb blonde have an intersection, but one is not a subset of the other. The same is true for essex girl and chavette. Similar, but not the same. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I must say that, having looked at what you wrote on my Talk, page, I can't pin down anything definite concernign what you think the difference is — only that there are cultural aspects that need to be taken into account.
2. To place "Essex girl" in the Dumb blonde article would only be a problem if the differences in detail weren't explained — but they are. Whenever one article is merged with another in this way, one could of course complain that the two aren't identical; if they were, though, they wouldn't need merging... one would just be deleted in favour of the other.
   Possibly the "Dumb blonde" artcle could be renamed in order to make it more inclusive.
3. To complain that I didn't have the courtesy to discuss my actions is to ignore the facts of the situation, though. The "Essex girl" article was created by an anon, and not touched by any other editor until I made it a redirect; with whom did you want me to discuss it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Given that I've cited essex girls who are neither dumb nor blonde, that's more than a cultural aspect. Essex girls, as the article says, have a distinct fashion sense, taste in cars and in men. Their stereotypical drunkenness isn't something they share with dumb blondes in particular.
2. Essex girls have no more in common with dumb blonde jokes than they do with polack jokes or yo momma jokes or irishman jokes.
3. It wasn't created by an anon (although I don't see why talking with an anon wouldn't be good). It was created by user:Neilm.

I really don't mean to attack you, but I fear you've taken this personally anyway. I doubt I can persuade you, so I'm going to stop trying. You win. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you related to the Faders in Queens, New York? Andre (talk) 21:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - Would you mind if I use this quote of yours in this discussion, possibly unattributed? Please reply here (I'm asking while not logged in to have the linkage somewhat obscured if the answer is yes). Thanks.

Nevermind, I used a different quote.

I thought you might like to know that since one of you images was one of the most popular WP:FPC nominations this year, I've entered it into the Wikimania Media Competition -- Solipsist 20:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed on the page for Burton on the Wolds (where I used to live) you have added a link to mapping services for the village based on some sort of grid reference. I've followed the link but can't work out how you did it & I'd like to add it to Chew Stoke & Chew Valley Lake (where I now live) - can you advise on how to do it?

Also will this automatically get incorporated if/when Wikipaedia adopts this service? --Rodw

Hi John,

Just to let you know that your photo Image:Usbkey internals.jpg is due to make an appearance as Pic of the Day on the 31st July. You can check and correct the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 31, 2005. As this will be on the weekend, it is likely that it will also appear on the Main Page. -- Solipsist 21:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I added a comment to this talk page. I belive in "T2" that they are talking about the state hospital at Atascadero, California. Schmiteye 05:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jfader barca pavillion.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -SCEhardT 00:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your comment for clarification on the Permaculture article-discussion page, re: Findhorn (village versus Foundation/intentional-community).

I'm non-ideologically interested in Permaculture, since I live on a modern homestead in western Canada. I have friends who are deeply involved in Permaculture design and living it out — on well-integrated, designed homesteads. But I'm also somewhat interested in the Findhorn Community.

I was in the UK, mostly Scotland, for about three weeks... returned home about five weeks ago. I stayed in Findhorn village for three days, going over to the Foundation/Community during the day. I was able to do a self-tour, see a lot, meet a few people, talk at some length with people involved in forest restoration (based in the Community, working about 90-minutes away).

Actually, I'd like to find someone else interested in the Community, who has some familiarity with it and not just with the books about it. I'd like to discuss it a bit. (I've tried contacting people within the Community, but it seems unlikely to find a 'pen-friend' there until winter settles in.)

So, I just thought I'd try leaving a message for you. Have you spent time there? Are you in Scotland, John?

Hoping for your reply... Joel Russ 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gmail compose spellcheck.png. 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 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Gmail threaded.png. 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 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for creating the wonderful featured image that is Image:Usbkey internals.jpg, but as you probably know, the featured pictures are put under constant scrutiny (this time started by me, sorry!), and your image looks likely to be delisted, as standards continue to evolve and improve. Is there any way you could retake the pictures? With greater resolution, with a more recent model and perhaps against a flat-colour background? It would be a terrible loss for such an informative image, but we must take into account other issues. Any addition you can put forth into the discussion would be very helpful, thanks :) Jack · talk · 04:18, Saturday, 10 February 2007

Thanks for uploading Image:Jfader greasemonkey bookburro.png. 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) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Channel4 red triangle.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) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John I work for an educational publisher, we are imminently publishing a schoolbook for pupils studying Information Communication Technology (ICT). The author spotted your 'Surface-mount technology' photograph and would like us to reproduce it in the book, unfortunately this is a very last minute request as the book is due to publish next month. Would it be possible for you to contact me about this? Many thanks Rebecca Rebeccatee1 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To help you ..... and many others who could not believe he survived ...... and died of old age.--Lone plunger (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jfader_greasemonkey_bookburro.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? OsamaK 12:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Jarhed and I am an amateur rock climber and mountaineer. I recently reviewed some of the articles on these subjects, and I believe that they could use the attention of interested editors such as yourself. I have proposed a new project on these topics and I am interested in your opinion. You can find the proposal here: Mountaineering and Climbing Project Proposal. Thank you for your time, and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John. Thanks for your photo contributions to Wikipedia. The photo formerly known as "File:Jfader barca pavillion.jpg" has been renamed due to a spelling error (of 'pavilion') to "File:German Pavilion-aka Barcelona Pavilion.jpg". The only remaining pages that link to the old name are User:John_Fader and User_talk:John_Fader. If you'd be so kind as to update those two pages to use the new filename, then the old filename may be deleted. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response the a "user is inactive" tag, I have made the change requested above myself. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Portmanteaux has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One review is not really sufficient to establish notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Otago harbour landsat.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smt closeup info text has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Ethestics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Ethestics until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]