User talk:Thisisbossi/Archive 2006

← Archive 2005 | Archive 2006 | Archive 2007 →

St. Engracia in the Princeton Art Museum

Hello Thisisbossi, In the Dutch Language Wikipedia is an article about St. Encratia, aka St. Engracia. I know there's a splendid painting in the Princeton University Art Museum of Saint Engracia in a vivid red dress and a big golden nail in her forehead. I would greatly appreciate a picture of this painting on Commons with a GNU license (due to a strict copy right policy on the Dutch language Wikipedia). Any help possible on this? I like to hear from you! The quickest way to contact me is my Dutch talkpage.
I posted this question before in the Village Pump but I was kindly directed to Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service where I found your name. I've seen the picture in 2003 but had no camera on me then and no opportunity to return to the museum. They told me you're allowed to take pictures but you're not allowed to use flashlight. It would be great if you could oblige me by taking that picture! --Haarajot 20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (CET) actually

Unfortunately, I am very rarely in the Princeton area. During my visits to New Jersey, I tend to be situated more within the southern portion -- particularly along the coastline. Good luck with your search! (note: this will also be posted to your Talk page) --Thisisbossi 23:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response (partially in Dutch on my Talk page!). I'll try to find another photographer. If I'll (ever) succeed I'll let you know. --Haarajot 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I can manage to pull off a little bit of Dutch once in awhile :P --Thisisbossi 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I noticed your comment on my talk page about not blanking. I only blank the page because it gets long and unreadable. I notice that other users archive their pages but I have been unable to find out how to do this. If possible do you think you could explain how to archive my talk page properly. Thanks. Mobile 01 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! I have posted information to your talk page. Should you need any additional help, feel free to post here and I will be glad to assist. --Thisisbossi 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I have restored all the history and then using your suggestions created a series of separate talks. I think en:User talk:Mobile 01 looks much tidier now and easier for people to follow the different threads. Let me know if what I did is correct. Thanks for your assistance. Mobile 01 05:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! --Thisisbossi 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bi-County Transitway

The use of the word like 'seems weak' is very UNencyclopedic, in my opinion. Other than that, I agree with your removal of the {fact} tag. Cornell Rockey 13:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction - added un infront of encyclopedic. My bad. Cornell Rockey 14:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That phrasing was just a remnant which I preserved from the text that had been there previously. I concur with your opinion and have modified the article accordingly, hopefully for the better. Thanks! --Thisisbossi 17:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting Brighton High School (Utah) - I couldn't figure out where the last edit with the fixed template was. Sorry if I made a bigger mess of things. Hersfold ^(talk|work) 03:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's alright -- templates confuse quite often, too! --Thisisbossi 03:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation and the warm welcome to Wikipedia. I have been contributing and editing anomously for a while and figured it was time to take the plunge. I am guessing I will have more credibility that way. I will let you know if I have any questions. Lasersnake 17:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Accokeek CFI

Regarding the Accokeek CFI: Not biased, a factual user review of the current conditions at the intersection. Rant, well edit don't erase. The before and after study, the intersection is better than before the CFI was installed but it would be far better still if traditional flyover ramps were used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.250.171.177 (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC) (talk ;; contrib)

Thank you for your response. My primary reason for removing the edit by 132.250.22.4 (talk ;; contrib) was because it was posted in a highly unencyclopedic format. Some of the points raised, however, are indeed issues that must be addressed during the design of a Continuous flow intersection, and therefore I have added some mention of the concerns within the article.

It should be noted that the CFI in Accokeek, as one of the pilot test cases for such a configuration in America, was very thoroughly thought out through planning and design. Safety has improved dramatically over previous conditions. Interchanges, too, come with their risks, particularly in the turning radii associated with the divergence of a higher-speed roadway (i.e. MD 210) as well as the weaving conflicts between the ramps. With regards to the turning radii: off-road crashes are extremely frequent when a motorist attempts to take the offramp too quickly. In cases where another ramp is beyond a cloverleaf, there can be a potential for head-on and angled collisions with other vehicles. Weaving sections inherently introduce rear-end and side-swipe crashes.

Bear in mind that flyover ramps are extremely expensive for already cash-strapped agencies to construct and maintain. An interchange was indeed studied but was not found to be warranted for the junction of MD 210 and MD 228. By fitting a solution more appropriate for the conditions, the cost savings can allow for funds to be used elsewhere in the County and State on projects that carry just as much importance to those locals and commuters as the intersection of MD 210 and MD 228 does to Accokeek residents and MD 210 commuters.

While government agencies strive to provide the best solutions for everyone, the fact is that resources do not permit for such. Therefore, agencies attempt to strike a balance in how resources are spent. The additional delay for vehicles on northbound MD 210 or along MD 228 is offset by the delay saved by improvements made elsewhere. A full interchange would require other projects to be put on hold, and surely those residents and commuters would not be particularly pleased!

I hope this information has been helpful. Should you continue to have any questions, comments, or concerns, you are welcome to post them here and I will respond to them as soon as I can. --Thisisbossi 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info. However, it appears that the Accokeek CFI is a hybrid CFI in that it is a three way intersection not a four way intersection as per the CFI description. The wiki statement that "All traffic flow is controlled by traffic semaphores as at a regular intersection." is not true in this instance, my "rant" contains the info regarding which flows of traffic are controlled by signals. This leaves us with some traffic flowing at zero mph. and some flowing at highway speeds. Speed differential kills.

The statement that you added "Additionally, as the offset left-turn traffic reenters the main traffic stream, motorists sometimes cite discomfort due to the need to accelerate from a stop condition up to the mainline speed." appears to only apply to the Accokeek CFI. The four way CFI diagram that appears in the wiki with all traffic flow controlled by semaphores appears to have all traffic flowing at consistant speeds, and appears to be much safer than in Accokeek. I would still like to see another bad instance of an intersection with the merge from zero from the left scenario.

Also a traffic study of all of the Rte. 210 intersections North of Rte. 228 to Rte. 495 the capital Beltway has been completed. Almost all of the intersections within the study area are slated to have stoplights removed, traditional ramps installed and roadways elevated. The Rte. 210 Rte. 228 intersection has the highest crossflow of any of theese intersections. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.250.22.4 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC) (talk ;; contrib)

Ahh, living and working around Accokeek has made me a tad biased. You are correct, my edit was specific to the Accokeek CFI -- I have modified the edit accordingly to state just that. Just let me know if there is still any confusion. Also, you are correct in that the MD 210 corridor study was recently completed, but the timeframe for completion of the interchange projects is still in the very long-term -- thus the reason that the 210/228 junction was treated in advance through the application of the CFI. --Thisisbossi 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

HELP: Sockpuppetry & use of CheckUser

{helpme} I have strong reason to believe that multiple accounts are being used by a single user purely for vandalism, but due to the plethora of accounts I am unable to track down the first; and CheckUser's instructions are horrendous. Can anyone assist with checking the following handles?

• Marvin the paranoid android (Talk ; contrib)
• War nights (Talk ; contrib)
• Britt21 (Talk ; contrib)
• Tderoma (Talk ; contrib)
• Evanjames2121 (Talk ; contrib)
• Dmdst21 (Talk ; contrib)
• 70.23.224.120 (Talk ; contrib)
• 65.169.206.232 (Talk ; contrib)
• 69.243.83.246 (Talk ; contrib)
• ...and possibly more.

If you look at the contributions for each handle, you should quickly understand my suspicions: similar replacements with the same copied text. --Thisisbossi 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser should only really be requested as a last resort, and I don't think it is necessary in this case - since it is simple vandalism. So, you could just list these users at WP:AIV (the place where admins block vandals), but don't worry about it, I'll take a look at the accounts you have listed.--Commander Keane 05:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Thisisbossi 21:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Question re: Wikimaps

Thisisbossy, I have a question to ask. I am trying to learn how to make wikimaps and can't seem to find any instructions. Is there a help page or some other tutorial section that can teach me how to do it? Thanks Lasersnake 17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a fine question, and one that I am without an answer for. You may wish to peruse the article on Wikimaps at Meta-Wiki and its associated discussion page; or alternatively, you could try the {{helpme}} tag and hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject will be able to assist you. Good luck! --Thisisbossi 22:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 Competition

Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006 Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February. Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | Nederlands | português | svenska | 中文（简体） | 中文（繁體） | +/−

The arrangements for the Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As a past contributor to Featured Pictures, we invite you to participate in the competition (but please wait until tomorrow to vote). --MichaelMaggs 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --Thisisbossi 23:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet?

Actually no, I am not a sockpuppet. I want to be an administrator and a bot. Invader Soap 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) _{NOTE: the preceding comment was actually posted by Invader Poonchy (talk, contrib)}

Thank you for responding through the use of a sockpuppet! :P --Thisisbossi 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on User:Invader Soap.

You might want to join in on this discussion about the user Invader Soap. --TexasAndroid 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. [1] Thanks for the heads up! --Thisisbossi 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Lombard wikipedia

Hello, welcome to Lombard wikipedia! See you soon,[ --Clamengh 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)] --->lmo:user:Clamengh

Thanks! I have accounts with other Wikipedias more so that I can more easily communicate with editors of articles which have an equivalent but undeveloped article in English. Seeing as I know pretty much nothing about the Lombard language, I do not expect to be a frequent contributer :P --Thisisbossi 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

St. Joseph High School (Istanbul)

I recently created St. Joseph High School (Istanbul) and noticed that you have contributed to its equivalent article on the Turkish Wikipedia. Should you have the time, I would greatly appreciate it if you might be able to translate some (or all, if you feel so inclined!) of the Turkish article over to the English Wikipedia. Thank you very much for any assistance you might be able to provide! --Thisisbossi 05:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

hi,i had contributed only some marking templates and category for that article. but ofcourse i translate it all to english wikipedia for your demand. It may take a little time.i inform u when i finished. take care --Delamorena 07:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent -- thank you very much! --Thisisbossi 13:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but my translation skills aren't all that well. -- Cat ^Chi? 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That is OK. Sagolun, anyway! :) --Thisisbossi 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

CERT

I noticed that you made some edit on the CERT page and just wondering if you were aware that some of the CERT programs are setup as 501's independent of the towns thus wikipedian's might want to leave some flexability in naming and discriptions of local groups.

Considering our the Citizen Corps Council which is in the Nation's Capital was just told that we are facing a cap of 30 percent of purchases of equipment and with future overall funding going to zero. There will be non profit citizen run organizations popping up here and else where as the top down budget centric juristiction hoping to maintain a fleeting control of dollars find no dollars.

What is left is that CERT will go back to what it was before 911. By the Citizen for the Citizens. Which is the point of CERT. Right? PS How is your CERT team set up locally? --NelsonJacobsen--

I could not quite understand much of the above, but to answer your last question: CERTs in my area are organised locally, but are connected through a county-wide Council of CERTs, which is overseen by the County's Office of Emergency Management (OEM). One of the counties in which I have joined CERT is among the best organised in the nation, but the other two are quite lacking. Those two lack any valuable leadership to organise, train, and direct CERT; and that leadership is lacking both on the local and county levels. I believe funding is primarily provided through the applicable county's OEM, whom I believe in turn receives contributions from the Department of Homeland Security. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I would be fine with either name and do not really have an opinion on the discussion. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings and WP:FF

Hi. I'm sorry if I seemed somewhat snappy in my response. The Final Fantasy WikiProject was united over the spoiler debates last year, and it's something its members feel rather passionate about. The debate has been reopened numerous times in the past, and it's lead to a lot of wasted time and stress as it constantly repeated. Certain WikiProjects have specific views about spoiler warnings, and people saw it best to let it stay that way and continue improving the project. That is why I was extremely alarmed by the reopening of the wound today, per se, since it's a horse that's been beaten dead. — Deckiller 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That's alright, I'm always one for fanning the flames of whatever seizes my interest. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on essay Deny Recognition

Wandering through Recent Changes I came across your warnings at en:User talk:Liapor. No doubt up to no good, and I even wonder about that picture at Black tongue. But I wonder also about your ennumerating each of the offences. At one point I bumped into Wikipedia:Deny recognition, and have taken from that that I shouldn't call out each of the bad edits. Usually I warn on only the first I find, clean up all the bad edits I can find, and then only add warnings after I know they have read the latest and still gone ahead with more. (I keep browser tabs open with the latest 10 or so warned, so I can refresh on their contributions list). Anyway, I'd love to hear your views on that essay. Shenme 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on that essay! You are correct: I am a fan of providing a warning for each vandal edit (provided such is feasible). I am also a fan of posting their IP info on their userpages (for IP vandals), and so far it seems to have been effective; though that could always be mere fortunate coincidence. I have posted to the discussion for WP:DENY, but I do not plan on keeping it in my watchlist; so feel free to post here on my talk page should you have any additional questions, comments, or concerns. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 03:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Centralia pic gallery location

I thought the pictures I took were relevant directly to the section "Centralia today". Can you tell me why you think they belong at the bottom of the page? Mredden 02:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they are relevant to its current situation, but image galleries are typically located at the bottom of a page, primarily for aesthetic reasons. It tends to provide too significant of a break if it is located within the middle of an article. To support the "Centralia today" section, it is typically recommended that individual images be used to complement the text rather than a gallery. If you feel that one of your photos is better-suited to this than a current image, feel free to be bold and replace it; though you may wish to discuss on the Talk page as to what improvements a new image may serve over the old one. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 03:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Six of the Best

Hi,

I'm new to editing at Wiki and would like to know why you removed some of my additions to this page? I did not offer my personal opinion (I wasn't at the show) just added some additional information (many citations) and the 'fan's eye view' was just put there to give a sense of the occassion and the status this show holds to Genesis fans.

Kind regards, Andrew —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adw uk (talk • contribs) 11:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Ahh, I did not realise you were new to Wikipedia. In that case, let me first welcome you aboard and apologise if my edits seemed harsh in anyway -- that can unfortunately be a common occurrence on Wikipedia; but just keep in mind that reverts happen to the best of us. The portion of information I had removed was unreferenced, rife with weasel words, and outright unencyclopedic. I understand your intent with providing an observer's viewpoint of the concert, but Wikipedia attempts to stick to the facts and tries not to align with any point-of-view or opinions. If there was information within that text that you felt was particularly valuable, feel free to add segments back in, but try to keep it in a more neutral tone and be sure to provide a reference.

As you had provided an observer's viewpoint but state that you were not the observer yourself, I am left to assume that this information came from some source, somewhere; and rarely do editors add any emotional language (i.e. emphasising "the" or the quote at the end), therefore it may appear that this information was directly copied from somewhere. Be sure that any information you provide is not copied directly from any copyrighted source, but rather paraphrased in your own words.

I hope that helps -- feel free to respond on my talk page should you have any further questions. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 11:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Theory of Electronic Conspiracy

Thanks very much for traslating the article. --El filóloco - Talk to me (in Spanish, please) 18:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

De nada :) --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 19:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Estimado amigo: A las pocas horas de que yo incluyera tu artículo traducido, ha sido propuesto para su borrado (por un usuario español o hispano) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theory_of_Electronic_Conspiracy. Muchas gracias por todo. El filóloco - Talk to me (in Spanish, please) 11:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

- My apologies, but I just translate. I actually agree that this article needs significant improvement, as there are numerous issues with the theory's logic. Verifiable online links (in English) are highly recommended, as it can be difficult for users to acquire referenced books. Good luck! :)

- Los cientos, pero yo traduzco solamente. Convengo que este artículo necesita mejora significativa, pues hay desafíos con la lógica de la teoría. Fuentes del Internet (Enlaces externos cuáles son verificabilidad; en inglés) se recomiendan altamente, pues puede ser difícil que los usuarios adquieran los libros referidos. ¡Buena suerte! :)

--Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tepper School of Business

Thanks for the rating, its good to get a second set of eyes on this thing. You had rated it as B-Class, and I was hoping to get to GA class. Any advice you could give me on making the move would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. PadreNuestro 03:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I see you have already requested a Peer Review. After that review has ended and applicable comments have been addressed, I recommend that you nominate this for Good Article status. The users whom review those nominations would be able to offer far better recommendations than I. Good luck! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 03:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing that image. --evrik ^(talk) 17:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! ...Though I'm not entirely sure of which image you are referring to :P --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 05:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Phosphoros, Phosphorus, "Lucifer", (H)eosphoros and Eosphorus

Re your revert at 15.52 15 April 07 of my edit: I can assure you that the Greek Phos-phoros means light bearer. Phos-phorus is just a latinized form of Phosphoros. Latin "Lucifer" (constructed from Latin lucis + ferre) also means light bearer. Greek (H)eos-phoros means dawn bearer. Eos-phorus is a latinized form of (H)eosphoros. Have a look at Hesperus page for more information. Also there are plenty of other pages about the subject on Wiki and from Google, etc. So I look forward to your speedy restoration of my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.66.158 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

I am not saying you are right or wrong, but note that the burden of proof is upon the editor to provide said evidence -- not for me to go out and look for it myself. Besides, this should be discussed on the applicable talk page; not on my userpage. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about using your user page. I realise now that the Lucifer page was simply saying that Jerome decided to use Lucifer in the Vulgate to translate Heosphoros in LXX Isaiah. He could have used Eosphorus, the latinized term. Re the "Origins in Isaiah" and "Other instances of the Morning Star in the New Testament" sections: Both wrongly refer to a "Greek" Heosphorus instead of the correct Heosphoros (some prefer to use the spelling Eosphoros as in the "Roman Poetic Appellation" section of the page). Wiki Hesperus page (also via Heosphorus or Eosphorus redirect) gives info on the topic of the terminology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.122.54.41 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Disinflation ≠ Deflation

• Deflation: ${\frac {\Delta P}{\Delta t}}<0$
• Disinflation: ${\frac {\Delta (\Delta P/\Delta t)}{\Delta t}}<0$

I removed the merge tags. —SlamDiego 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

10-4 --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My Supposed bad edit to Jefferson memorial

Hi ThisisBossi

You wrote on my talkPage

-- Thank you for experimenting with the page Jefferson Memorial on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

While this is true that after my edit "Thomas Ball" was written, I'd like to make you aware that this has been written by a user 150.104.37.54. In fact this user has made two consecutive bad edits, sadly I missed the point at this time and only reverted the second one, thus given the impression that I may have made a non sense edit. See comparison original version versus his first edit [2], original version versus his second edit [3] and my Revert to his first version [4].

I will try to be more carefull next time, however please consider taking a closer look next time before warning me. Also you should have seen my past in editing this document [5]. Dockurt2k 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies -- I was trying to rush through reviewal of my watchlist and misunderstood the edits that had taken place. You are correct: you were making an honest effort to repair the article from a vandal whom had snuck in an additional disruptive edits. Feel free to disregard and/or remove the above warning. Thank you for your correction and assistance! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you -- for taking time to answer on my talk page. I didn't want people to think I am having fun doing funny edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dockurt2k (talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Sports teams in PA

Howdy: I noticed that an editor removed the Hershey Bears from articles such as York, Pennsylvania and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I actually agree with the edits, though it took me a moment to understand the editor's edit summary. The Hershey Bears, while surely having many fans in both York and Lancaster cities and counties, it is indeed the case that the team is not even located within either county. I believe that the city's article should remain specifically about the city so-as to avoid a slippery slope of other "general area" sort of information. Thoughts? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 04:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes,

what about teams like the Redskins who play in Maryland or Red Bull New York who play are building a stadium on the other side of Newark, NJ? These teams don't play in their actual market, but cater to it nonetheless.

JaMikePA 04:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are good examples, except each of those examples has the location of their intended representation within their name: Washington Redskins and Red Bull New York. The Hershey Bears are distinctly "Hershey". --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 11:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Gates Music

Sorry, the Globally Popular sentence for the Australian band the Gates - was part of a template that I copied from another artist... will be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exlibrisaustralia (talk • contribs) 06:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

10-4, but note that the article needs extensive work to convince others that it meets notability guidelines for bands. In its current state, it is very likely that the speedy deletion nomination may continue forward. There may be some assertion of notability with the awards, videos (assuming they're professionally done and have been publicly broadcast), and apparently pending discography; but the lack of sources limits the value of these items. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 06:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Traffic waves

Thanks for the information on how to alleviate traffic waves. 69.140.164.142 05:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 05:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments at the Village Pump

Hi, your comments at the Village pump Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive#Are_chess_moves_.22indiscriminate_information.22.3F were referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grünfeld 4.Bf4. As I believe the editor who remarked on them is misinterpreting the substance of the discussion there, I'd like you to clarify your position so that a fuller understanding can be reached. If the AFD closes before you get a chance to respond, feel free to comment on my talk page and on that of the user. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not know enough of the opening move to add any specific input other than that the article would benefit from some expansion on its history and utility, with perhaps mentions of its relationship with other types of openings (which may help determine whether it is a mere variation or a distinct opening move). --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not asking you to comment on this article, but merely to explain whether or not the representation made of the discussion is accurate. You need only clarify your position as already expressed if you so desire. FrozenPurpleCube 19:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: AIV report

Howdy. I noticed that you disregarded my post to the Administrator's Noticeboard regarding vandalism from the IP address 206.67.179.4. The alert was posted with this edit and removed with this edit with the edit summary indicating that no vandalism had occurred. I would appreciate elaboration on how this IP's edits do not constitute vandalism. Usually my alerts stick and are enforced -- I would prefer not to post warnings which are not enforceable or appropriate for the administrator's noticeboard. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the contrib history on the IP at the time, and I couldn't find any vandalistic edits, or I may have missed it. But I did see a self reverted test edit. --w^{L<speak·check>} 06:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of edits involving changes to established values: [6] [7]; tests/vandalism: [8] [9] [10] [11]; and self-rv's of questionable edits: (1a) (1b) (2a) (2b). Though, fortunately, it seems the user has left for the time being as the user has not made any recent edits. With regards to self-rv's, what is the admin ruling on those? What if the first edit is blatant vandalism and the second removes it -- the user may still get kicks out of cluttering the edit history; and as my little cousin has demonstrated firsthand: some people think it's clever to share their vandal links with friends to show they got away with it. If a user makes numerous vandal edits followed by self-rv's, is that enforcable; or would many admins consider enforcing it? I suppose the real question is: how much good faith is too much? Thanks for your input! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 08:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

AIV Report (#2)

No need to report vandals that have already stopped after the final warning. The one you just reported stopped at 1:20 when they received a final warning. Also, you don't need to fill up a vandal's talk page with warnings, like the 3 you left. ··coelacan 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I had missed that the previously-posted final warning had been posted in response to the last edit -- thanks for the heads up. However, I still prefer to enumerate warnings. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 01:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's probably best not to add more than one "final warning", because then if by chance they don't get blocked, they just get more bold. (Five final warnings and nothing happened! I can do whatever I want!) ··coelacan 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The same thought ran through my mind as I did that... I considered placing them as a series of third-level warnings and locating them above the final Mars warning, but decided against it for reasons that my brain has yet to entirely figure out. I completely agree with your reasoning, though: I often happen upon talk pages with dozens of final warnings within the same month -- often with some users cycling back to 1st or 2nd level warnings... but alas, that is a rant for an entirely different day. I still like my enumerating, but I'll try and make sure I don't overdo final warnings (as well as spot final warnings for edits occurring after the ones I have arrived for). Thanks again! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 02:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Shore Shark Attacks of 1916

Could you please tell me why you removed my 1916sharkattacks website from the page? I plan on it becoming the most comprehensive website covering the attacks. I am sorry if this comment is in the wrong place. I have no idea how to contact people using this. -James — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.83.119.251 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in attracting more knowledge to the subject, but Wikipedia has numerous policies in place to ensure that our information comes from verifiable sources. The website you refer to appears to be a personal website, which in itself is not necessarily bad: there are numerous personally-run websites which are indeed warehouses of useful information. However, this website is not particularly developed at the moment. When the website develops into a more comprehensive website, it may be worth reconsideration; but more likely the sources of information which you use for the website should be directly used as the references for Wikipedia. You may wish to review the following three policies, which help to define what is appropriate for external links, references, and what is typically considered to constitute spam: WP:EL, WP:ATT, WP:SPAM. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you should have any further questions. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 01:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I realize my site is not developed at all right now. I must admit I am not too good at creating websites. But most of the references I have for the site do not come from the internet but from many books I have read, emails with the authors of those books, movies I have seen, and some is my own research. Most of what is on the internet about the story, does not do it justice. This includes the wikipedia page that desperately needs to be elaborated on. Also take for example the weird New Jersey link: In the article many of the names are misspelled, Ages of the victims are wrong, the date of the matawan attack is incorrect, certain "facts" are incorrect and the article is very short. This might not be a big deal to most people, but to someone who is obsessed with this hystorical NJ event, it is troublesome. But thanks again for your detailed reply and explaination of the situation.-James

Americus Callahan

On 10 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Americus Callahan, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 18:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

National varieties of English proposal

Hello, we've spoken on the talk page for the spelling template proposal. I have made a proposal for changes to the varieties of English guideline here: en:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal for changes to the "National varieties of English" section. They are not big changes. Would you care to add your opinion? Joeldl 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to read through as soon as I return on Sunday. Thanks for the heads-up! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Winters

Hi, just in regards to my recent edit of Richard Winter's article, the reason i deleted the section i did was because it conflicts with the article on the Brécourt Manor Assault in regards to who was defending the position...i'm looking into which article is indeed correct but from what i've read so far it seems more likely that the Brécourt article is correct. There are numerous websites supporting both claims. Perhaps i shouldnt have deleted the sentence but rather re-worded it. If you can find evidence supporting the German 709th Static Infantry Division or 6th Fallschirmjäger Regiment and source it then feel free to change it again. sorry about the not signing posts, i do try to make a point of always doing it but it slips my mind occasionally. Trottsky 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC) oh, and thanks for the tips! I'll try and take it all on-board.Trottsky 15:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! If I happen upon any info, I'll be sure to pass it on. You may wish to post your findings on the associated Talk pages, as well. Try and remember edit summaries, too, so that we understand the motivation behind your edits :) Cheers! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! will do. Trottsky 14:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Vehicle tracking system

Hello this is David Isom. I added V-SOL as an example as of both of thoseexmaples quoted mean nothing to UK and and Europeans. V-SOL is a recognised brand in the UK with over 10 years of providing subscription services to Public and private sectors in the UK and Europe. As wikipedia is not just aimed at the US it is helpful for readers. I would therfore like to add V-SOL as a valid and menaingful example. We also provide services for charitable organiisations see our news articles for confirmation.

You raise an excellent point. I agree that the two businesses listed are focused toward North America, but on the other hand: I do not wish to start (or steepen) a slippery slope of business names and links by adding yet another. I have attempted to rephrase that particular paragraph to remove the names of specific businesses, which should hopefully eliminate the issue altogether. Thank you for explaining your concerns. If you would like to discuss the issue further, I have copied this discussion to the article's talk page. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits in Category Forms of English and its sub categories, e.g. English dialects

Reasons to the edits:

1. There are MANY pages linked under Forms of English and English dialects which can be grouped into sub categories(easier to read). Some pages cannot be grouped into subCATs kept in main CAT.

2. Important pages and pages difficult to decide to group in main CATs and subCATs kept its links in both main CAT and subCATs.

Here, P. Dutch Eng is an English dialect, it has links under the CAT American English, which is a already a subCAT of English dialects. Most readers know American English is a group of English dialects. Readers can see the link of the CAT English dialects when they click the link to the CAT America English. And the "Template:English dialects" in the page make it less need to have one more link to CAT English dialects in the bottom. So in similar other cases. It may not be good to have all dialects's links in the Cat "English dialects"(there would be too many) than group them into easy known subCATs. Anyway p[s make u r good edits.Apple0142E 11:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I get the gist of what you are attempting to say -- just make sure to try and include coherent edit summaries with your changes so that your edits are not misunderstood as vandalism. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Parkway categories

Please watch for duplicates when adding categories - for example, you added a second instance of Category:Canadian parkways to Ottawa River Parkway. Dl2000 18:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I knew I'd slip up at least once. I just finished adding the categories, anyway. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed Ottawa River Parkway and one or two others - you may want to check through your edits later. Dl2000 18:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, though I noticed you changed Baltimore-Washington Parkway out of the federal category. Might I ask as to your reasoning? This is maintained by the National Park Service. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Baltimore-Washington Parkway, the category was changed from Category:United States parkways to Category:American parkways because the category wordings were equivalent, and it was assumed there were duplicate categories to be consolidated. It wasn't clear from the category names that a distinction was intended for U.S. federal parkways. However, for the federal parkways, the category should be returned with naming such as Category:American federal parkways under Category:American parkways to make the federal/non-federal distinction clearer. Dl2000 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll see about renaming the federal category as Category:United States federal parkways. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I only have a few select parkways within my watchlist. Might you be able to check which articles you changed from the US Pkwy cat to Amer Pkwy cat? I've created the new federal category mentioned above. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the pages changed from US --> American worded cat, from the contributions list:

1. 12:51, 10 June 2007 Suitland Parkway (recat)
2. 12:51, 10 June 2007 Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway (recat)
3. 12:50, 10 June 2007 Pennyrile Parkway (rm dupli cat)
4. 12:50, 10 June 2007 Natchez Trace Parkway (recat)
5. 12:50, 10 June 2007 John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway (recat)
6. 12:49, 10 June 2007 George Washington Memorial Parkway (recat)
7. 12:49, 10 June 2007 Foothills Parkway (recat)
8. 12:49, 10 June 2007 Colonial Parkway (recat)
9. 12:48, 10 June 2007 Blue Ridge Parkway (recat)
10. 12:48, 10 June 2007 Baltimore-Washington Parkway (recat)

Dl2000 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect -- I think things are a bit cleared up now. Just let me know if you have any further suggestions! Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 19:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, looking good. However, for proper subcategorisation, you may want to move the Category:United States federal parkways from under Category:Parkways to under Category:American parkways (that is, change the cat on the Category:United States federal parkways page from Parkways to American parkways, similar to how Category:Parkways in New York City is done). I'll let you work on that. Dl2000 19:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hans Monderman

Hello Thisisbossi, See that you undid a revision I´ve made to the photo of H. Monderman. Why not getting in contact first? The picture now on the site (and uploaded by Eric Britton) is mine! I've contacted mr. Britton and we are solving this. I'll upload the right image with the copyrightholder named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niels Keissen (talk • contribs) 12:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not upload images with watermarks. That is why I am reverting your images to the article Hans Monderman. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Harrisburg state university

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Harrisburg state university, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Harrisburg state university is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Harrisburg state university, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at en:WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I didn't make the destination page, so my care for this warning is nil :) --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology

hey bossi, sorry for vandalism on your page. im still trying to figure this thing out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesepuffsaretasty (talk • contribs) 19:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth Image Permissions

Hi... I saw your SD tag on en:Image:GoogleEarth_Image.jpg. Have you seen Google's FAQ on permissions? Here's the link: http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=21422

There's certainly a problem with en:User:Paulkondratuklovesginger claiming to be the copyright holder, but since Google only requires attribution for non-commercial use, is the image really a copyvio on Wikipedia? I'll confess to total ignorance on the subject, but it looked to me from the FAQ that while the licensing tag will certainly have to be changed, the image may be usable with attribution. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, your link provides the answer quite clearly: it's OK to use online (in general); but the user fails in meeting Google's requirement by claiming the work as his own. Additionally, as Google prohibits commercial use of their imagery, they are not permissible for use within the Wikimedia Foundation. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi... thanks for answering. Is use on Wikipedia "commercial use"? --Rrburke^(talk) 03:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ye-up, check out this info for tips on what is and is not OK for uploading to the Wikimedia Foundation. FYI, if you would like to upload photos, it is generally preferred that you do so on Wikimedia Commons, which allows users on other Wikipedias (i.e. other languages, wiktionary, wikinews, etc.) to use your upload. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it now; thanks. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor reference choice

Only the ERIC cites are likely to have some degree of reliability. Cites to newspapers are generally poor, especially when they're not reporting original information. As for "Action Video" - enjoy it --Tedickey 12:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware -- I just grabbed the top results from Google and threw them in there, knowing someone else what come along to clean them up soon enough. Feel free to take out any redundant or less-appropriate references. Thanks! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Permission to use aerial image of City of London

Dear Bossi: I'd like to your image of the aerial view of City of London (with the "egg" building in the center) for my company AIG's employee publication, Contact, for one time use only in the December issue. The quarterly publication is mailed free to all employees and not commercially sold to outside entities.

What do I need to do to use the image -- in jpg format and in at least 300 dpi resolution? Do you send me the image separately? As you can see, I'm a new user and my questions are that of a novice, so pelase pardon my ignorance. My work # 212-770-3153. Thank you.

Regards, Stentorian 17:23, 17 September 2007
This comment posted by IP 167.230.38.115

Sounds good! There is no issue with using the image with a free publication so long as it is attributed: anything along the lines of "Image provided by Andrew Bossi" or something of that nature. To save the image, just follow this link, right-click on the image, and left-click on "Save Image". That is the best-quality aerial image I have available, so hopefully it fits your needs for the publication. If that's the wrong image, just locate the correct one and do the same thing -- all my images within my gallery generally have the same licenses, but you're welcome to contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns. Thanks for checking! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Another image question

Hi, Bossi. Thanks for answering my question about image-licensing. I have another one, if it's not too much of an imposition. It involves the use of this image in this article. It's a political campaign presskit photo sourced from here. It's copyrighted, and the fair-use rationale is {{Non-free promotional}}. However, I'm concerned that the fair-use rationale offered on the image page doesn't address this problem:

Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale should be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent.

I have tried to raise the issue with the editor who restored the image in this thread, but I have to confess to being way out of my depth on matters of image-licensing. Do you have advice about how to proceed?

A complicating factor is that the previous image used for the article, en:Image:John Tory Casual.jpg, has exactly the same problem. --Rrburke^(talk) 04:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You've honestly got me stumped on that one! The best I can say is to take the issue to the Village Pump, which usually gets good and speedy feedback. Good luck! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:

I see your double category and thought you mean the castle. I change without looking at the pics. Shit hapens. --Marku1988 07:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thank you for reverting that vandalism on my talk page [12]. I barely visit Wikimedia Commons, just noticed today what had happened, thank you anyway. --JLCA 09:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: The edit to the page on Centralia, PA

I noticed you said that an edit like that should have a source to back it up and I admit I was negligent to not include it. It was 2 AM and I was having trouble sleeping, so I forgot to include it. Added the link to the page with the update on that house's demolition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.221.141 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nooooo I was hoping it wasn't true! Thanks for the source, but I always liked that building... I must have seen it just days before it got torn down. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Link removal

Hello, Can you please explain why you undid my change to Vehicle Tracking page. Why information about two relevant companies is not spam, but information about third company is spam? The TrackYourTruck was on the market for 9 years, much longer than other companies mentioned. Regards— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.80.119.18 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

I self-reverted and took the article off my watchlist. I've gotten sick of trying to tend to it. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bitte

Would you please be as kind as to check these changes by an Italian.

My English is insufficiant to be certain whether "lent back" means what I intended to say, which is: that the statue was lent to a third party (i.e. Fiecht Abbey) by Tyrolean government, some 250 years after it was created for that special (Innsbruck) column. TX, WeHaWoe 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is what you want to say. (Ich glaube das ist was Sie sagen wollen.) Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:1664 - Salzburg - Festung Hohensalzburg - Maschinengewehr M42.JPG

Hi, I've delete the category "Festung Hohensalzburg" from the mentioned image. The gun is indeed in the fortress, but nobody expect photos of individual modern guns when looking for pictures of the fortress. Perhaps we can create a category "Museum in the Festung Hoshensalzburg" or "Rainermuseum in Hohensalzburg" and cat all these images with the new category. MatthiasKabel 15:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of doing that very same thing, but laziness got the best of me. I've broken up the category into exterior, interior, and within the latter: museum. Danke! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 18:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 1053 - Hallstätter See.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 1113 - Hallstatt.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 4284 - Thun - Stadtkirche, Obere Schleuse.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 4377 - Bern - Kindlifresserbrunnen am Kornhausplatz.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

NPOV regarding Tibet / China

Please review our policies relating to a neutral point of view. Do not remove Chinese categories on Tibetan media; rather, you are instead welcome to add Tibetan categories. This is not a place for pushing a political agenda: nearly anything relating to Tibet may also be said to relate to China, regardless of the politics of it all. Additionally, do not insult other users or deride their uploaded media. If you have problems with something, work it out rationally and diplomatically. Cheers. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's work it out diplomatically. Monks tortured, gassed. Nonviolent people. Propaganda spread, people killed. No excuse. If this all comes from one source, wouldn't you want to live free from harassment, torture, and oppression if you were harassed, tortured, and oppressed, your family murdered in cold blood, a spiritual leader forced to leave and flee from this harassment, in danger of being killed? The source of the Harrassment, torture, and oppression claims to own you. This machine has attacked and attempted to control people. Autonomous nodes + feelings, humanity, and sensitivity and intelligence like everyone else.

Then somebody, with good intentions (you) comes along and denies those people's natural birth right of autonomy, by putting their people in the category of the oppressors claiming to own them. That means you agree with the oppressors, that the Chiese government indeed own Tibet and Tibetans, which is not true. This is how I feel. --liberator

I am not stating my stance on the issue itself: rather, this is not the forum to discuss it. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

O yes, so you want to be gassed? (Not threatening you, I wouldn't do that anyway, I am just saying you surely have a point of view. I am saying idiocy is not how to edit. It is worse than praising the oppressor. Learn. Do you think torture is a silly online game, or something that people have to live their lives through. It is not a happy funtime game having to wake up and know there are people like I who have a lavish, luxurious, and priveliged life and see your family get tortured for speaking truth.) liberator

I have now registered as Liberator1. Liberator1 23:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bossy; Are you not responding? Frightened by truth? --liberator 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you here? Where? --Liberator 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have opinions: I side with the movement for freedom in Tibet. However, we maintain a neutral point of view here and this is therefore not the appropriate forum to get into political debates. I have nothing further to say on this subject other than to please review and abide by our policies. I've said what I need to say: now leave me alone. Cheers. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 4703 - Mürren-Gimmelwald - View from Niedenmatten.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 4729-4731 - Mürren - View from Niedenmatten.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Image:2007_04_25_-_WWB_39.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:2007_04_25_-_WWB_39.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this image, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Erik Baas 00:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)