User talk:Jh12

Archives

Archive 1: September 2006—October 2008

Let's put the Monroe page on the same page that Tehachapi High School is on, High Schools in Kern County, California and speedy delete the continuation high school pages. I know of 3 other continuation high schools in Kern County, but that's not enough, but I've reworded some stuff on Monroe that states it's an alternative high school, so that it will work on the high school page. When you click on where it says high school for Monroe, it will take you to the [[continuation high school page, but that will look better to have Monroe on the high school page.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider withdrawing/speedy-closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 13#Category:Continuation High schools and secondary schools as moot as a result of JoeCool's recent actions. Except for minor discussion over whether the one remaining category should be "in California" or "in the United States" there's nothing left to discuss. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put it up for CFD partly to develop that consensus, because even though I think it would be fine to have a category, I'm not sure what it should be called. A major problem with the article continuation high school is that it doesn't even explain that these schools are located in California, or even the United States. As it stands, I think the articles need to be migrated to "Category:Continuation high schools in California", and the old category deleted because "high school" is not a proper noun. --Jh12 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar and for all your hard work on United States at the 2008 Summer Paralympics. I'm going to be very busy for the next two weeks, but I'll support the GA nomination as much as I can. Happy editing, — jwillbur 22:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jh12, You gave such a thorough and complete review (the best kind!) of Brunswick (Brittonkill) Central School District before and I was hoping you might do another one since the article has been expanded greatly. I'd very much appreciate your thoughts! ~ Wadester16 (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; it may take me some time to fully re-evaluate. I'll try to make some tweaks first. --Jh12 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate it - take your time. On a side note, where did you find that reference for the opening of the elementary school? The Record is the best source for (very) local news where I'm from, but its archives are not digitized online. How did you find that? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Record reference from an online newspaper archive (it may have been LexisNexis), but I can't remember. One of the advantages of practically living at a health science center is that the institution subscribes to almost every online archive. When it comes to schools, LexisNexis is my favorite, although some schools are even covered in journals found through JSTOR. Combined with Google News and Book searches, a lot of information (often worthless) can be found. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I just wanted to point out that most of the information in the History section comes from a few documents I was able to find at the town historical society. This shouldn't count as original research; I didn't compile the info, I just photocopied the original documents that a previous town historian compiled (along with images). Hopefully you agree. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review - thorough and critical. I very much appreciate it and will work on your suggestions. Thanks for the refs too - they fit perfectly. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? None of those statements are libelous, as the are not defamatory, and they are very obviously parody. In addition, a number of the entries added by myself and my fellow LUHS alumni were, in fact, not false in any manner, notably the entries on Mike Vaugh, Peter Kunstek, and Frank Keeler.

Furthermore, the entries that had been put up were just part of an ongoing project being undertaken by myself and a group of fellow alumni, in an effort to make something that students of LUHS could actually be proud of, instead of the gross mismanagement carried out by administrators, lackluster courses, horrifically sports-centric budgeting, the police liaison officer being arrested for child pornography, the mounting racial tensions, etc. etc.

Have replied at user's talk page. --Jh12 (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For locating a hard-to-find picture for a good article that had none. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for adding the picture to The Royal National College for the Blind page. It definitely helps to enhance the article. Paul Largo (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great work on Royal National College for the Blind! --Jh12 (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added a bit to the lede of this piece. And I've been trying to add another graduate. Already added Richard Morris Hunt, architect. I'm trying to add his brother Leavitt Hunt (who is listed on the same page of the Jenks' BLS book). I put in the citation from googlebooks, but can't figure out how to make it appear right. I left some messages on the talk page of Pgb688 , but he seems to be away. (He had earlier added Richard Morris Hunt.) If you wouldn't mind giving Leavitt Hunt an assist, that would be great. (Incidentally, if it makes it any easier, both Leavitt Hunt and Richard Morris Hunt are both listed on the same page of the Jenks book; and so the Jenks book could be substituted as a reference for both.) Many thanks!MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a shot. --Jh12 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It worked. Many thanks, and enjoy your holidays.MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for leaving your comments at the portal peer review, much appreciated. Do you think I should go ahead and nom it at featured portal candidates as I don't think it can be that far of featured status. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's ready for a featured nomination. --Jh12 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - I promoted Portal:Schools to WP:FPORT - but please do not do any of the update steps that I skipped over which used to be done manually. See above subsection regarding Wikipedia_talk:Featured_portal_candidates#Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates.2FArchival_instructions - I removed a bunch of steps that will (hopefully) be done in the future by a bot. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now  Done. See this. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It passed!! Thanks!!! --Jh12 (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it was sitting there for over four months with three supports at closure and no objections, I don't think it was a hard close decision. :) Nice work. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a quick note to say thanks for the barnstar. Paul Largo (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping with the North Sea GA review. We should have no image copyright problems, there are even credits given to the image author when requested. The references are all correct and formatted. I don't know why Pilcha is not getting a preview of the pages, as they all come up on my computer. He wants attention to detail so the wording of the long forties which used to be that the long forties used to say a nautical chart showed many forties, but the only available citation says that the average is 40 notations, and that they measured...33, 34, 35 etc. So the text was changed to pay attention to detail. I have had other GA reviews, and have learned a lot from Pilcha, but it feels more like a FA review. If you can give any advice at all it would be appreciated. SriMesh | talk 01:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is precision, e.g. figuring out if every sentence is referenced exactly as written. For example under Geography, it says "For the most part, the sea lies on the European continental shelf. The only exception is the Norwegian trench, which reaches from the Stad peninsula in Sogn og Fjordane to the Oslofjord." I think the Barale reference at [1] better supports this, rather than the Hardisty reference at [2]. Then there's all the little things, like making sure all references have the publisher, use the same date format, etc. I think you may want to recruit editors and assign them specific sections to go through with a fine tooth comb. The more eyes checking the article refs, the better off we should be. I'm afraid the reason it feels like an FA review is really because of the size and because it wasn't written with the refs to begin with. It has, however, come a long way from where it was before --Jh12 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• About the ref details, for a spell, the user Rosiestep went through and standardised old and new refs, as that is what they like to do. I tried to keep up with the same process after that. I also changed the way I looked at the refs, as per the final note on the GA review. Thank you for everything.SriMesh | talk 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about the North Sea article. I will move on somewhere else for a bit. I was just adding and tweaking references so that the content is verifiable, and I was ready for a break. Good luck with the economy section. It is pretty goodly referenced right now. I shortened it due to a lack of citations, so ir it can be re-lengthened with citations it would be awesome. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 17:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I think I finished re-opening references of the North Sea article, and matching details of prose to the corresponding citation, thus providing verifiability for the GA. Your idea of dividing into sections to check was a good idea as well. I changed text so that it matched the facts proved in the citation this time, and had to delete some of the text, if I couldn't find a citation from last time, or this time. I let Pilcha know that I went through again. I am not sure where you are at in your endeavours. I sure hope it works out better this time. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mahalia Jackson Theater of the Performing Arts, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did a fantastic job with WP:WikiProject Schools and I was hoping you could give me a few pointers. I've started WP:WikiProject Capital District and want to know how to incorporate the table that lists all articles based on class and importance. In addition, would you mind taking a look at the code for Template:WPCapitalDistrict to make sure it will do what it's supposed to? It's basically a rip off of Template:Hudson Valley but I'm unsure if there's any advanced code that I may have missed or misunderstood. Keep in mind that the WikiProject is currently a work-in-progress and content will continue to be added as I have time. Thanks so very much in advance! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize because an upcoming exam will prevent me from doing more, but I can recommend some things. First, carefully follow Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Using_the_bot. It has all of the instructions needed for "Setting up for the bot." You'll have to create the categories Category:WikiProject Capital District, Category:Capital District articles by quality, Category:Capital District articles by importance, and all of the subcategories (e.g. Category:Stub-Class Capital District articles, Category:Start-Class Capital District articles, Category:High-importance Capital District articles, etc.). For your project banner, I actually now recommend using Template:WPBannerMeta; it should make setting the banner up easier. Template:WikiProject Utah is an example of a project that uses the meta template. If the banner and categories are all set up as described at the Using the bot page (most category problems happen because of spelling errors or the lack of a hyphen), the bot should automatically run through talk pages with the banner on them and create three links under Category:Capital District articles by quality like at Category:Utah articles by quality. One of those links will be Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Utah articles by quality statistics, the nice table that can be transcluded to any page or template. Sometimes it takes awhile for the bot to run. You can manually force a run at http://wp1en.kiwix.org/cgi-bin/wp/wp10/run_wp10.html, although I've never tried it for a new project. Good luck, --Jh12 (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are always more than helpful. Thanks for the assistance. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worked perfectly! Using the WPBannerMeta was much easier than the way I was doing the project template earlier. Can't thank you enough! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not perfectly. I ran into a minor snag that I hope you could review and comment on? See the thread located here. You seem to be the expert, so hopefully you can point out the error; I'm sure it's staring me right in the face. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the barnstar! It seems to be ok now. Looks like it was any combination of Category:Unassessed Capital District articles and Category:WikiProject Capital District articles not being added to Category:WikiProject Capital District. There's bound to be a few hiccups at first, so let me know if there's any other problems. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me help in getting this new WikiProject up, running, and at the level of quality and professionalism as many other WikiProjects (even though it's my first!) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take another look at this portal and reassess? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the essential featured portal requirements have been met so I added my support. --Jh12 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to take a look at it although it will take me a few days. Thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to handle User:BettyStokes She continues to try to write the article about Trunnell Elementary School in the category name space. I just reverted her edits at Category:WikiProject Schools and left a note on her user page. I hope I was not too "biting", but I just do not know how to get the point across. For someone who claims to have been the school principal, she has absolutely no understanding how to work with Wikipedia and apparently simply ignored your previous post on her talk page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she is a new user, she may not know the terminology of what category name space is. Try doing a move or redirect to a proper name, and let her know where her content is at the new URL. Kind Regards ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriMesh (talk • contribs) 02:48, February 4, 2009

There are several problems related to the previous reply (noting that, yes she is a new user that apparently knows nothing about Wikipedia)

• The content does not meet minimum notability standards.
• Move is not possible as the Category page is a valid category page to which Betty simply inserted her "new" article, which by the way she had also inserted on two other category pages under a different user name.
• We could create a new article page using cut and paste, but at the same time would need to add a speedy delete tag, doing both just does not make a whole lot of sense.

Thus the problem of what to do. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend copying the work (whatever isn't copyrighted) to BettyStokes's userspace (e.g. User:BettyStokes/Draft) and informing the user of what's going on. While it's true that we don't want a lot of fluff or non-notable, permanent material in userspace, in this case I think we can live with it because the user intends to improve the article and someday it will hopefully be up to Wikipedia notability standards. The main problem is explaining WP:NOTE, WP:COPY, and other policies to User:BettyStokes. The intricacies of Wikipedia can be hard for a newcomer to understand, so it may take some patience. I'll help keep a look out of course. --Jh12 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SriMesh has gone ahead and created a new article at Trunnell Elementary School. I fully understand how difficult understanding "the intricacies of Wikipedia can be for a newcomer" as I still struggle with it at times myself. I find it difficult to help when the other user does not respond. Thanks for all the work you continue to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Just thought I would post an update here as well. Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I have mixed feelings about creating the article, but oh well; at least it has a dedicated editor. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell there, seeing as how I made a comment, thought I should follow through. I created the article, and wrote the library for further citations. It may or may not survive. I know around my neck of the woods not too many elementary schools are notable, but I know a lot of elementary schools in England are...so we'll see. I cannot find too much more online from way up here... If the library contacts me I will post their letter on the school talk page. If the article does get tagged for AFD, then it could for sure go to Betty's sandbox pages. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 18:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jh -- once a upon a time you researched old episode titles of Adventures in Good Music via an Internet Archive thingie. I was wondering if you could do the same magic with Exploring Music. I'm trying to vamp up the latter article, and could use a list of various weekly themes. (I tried unsuccessfully to do so once with whateverthatis, but I must/may have been doing something wrong. If you have time, thanks in advance! (I guess you can reply on my Talk page or here, either one.) Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It all kinda depends on snooping around and figuring out where the page was or better yet, finding the website's own archive. In this case, the website has archives at http://www.exploringmusic.org/oldplaylists.htm and http://www.exploringmusic.org/playlists.htm. I don't know if that's what you were looking for. The Internet Archive website has an archive of a few of the base homepages for http://www.exploringmusic.org at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.exploringmusic.org, but it seems pretty incomplete. I don't know if I mentioned it before, but if you ever see a webpage you want to personally archive and preserve, you can use http://www.webcitation.org/; it's tedious to archive pages manually, but it can be better than leaving things to chance like the Internet Archive. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that Playlist archive was probably the best idea that works -- I don't know why I didn't think of that. It only gives the silly first part of the theme's full title, but it's better than nothing. Yeah, I had gotten the same result as you using the WayBack Internet Archive, and even though it looks like it has a couple year's worth, it doesn't -- it's mainly just the same date's page repeated over and over. Something's broken about that. Anyway, thanks again for all your help!! Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		I saw some of your great reviewing at portals up for peer review and featured portal candidacy including Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Classical music/archive1. Thanks for helping out in these areas! Cirt (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Finger Lakes. I believe I have addressed the points you raised. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) has already done a bit of work on the captions of the portal since then, and he stated his comments were addressed by his own work on it. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note of thanks for fixing my bad edit in United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for helping to improve the article. --Jh12 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! A WikiProject Worcestershire has now been created to better manage all articles that relate in any way to the county even if they overlap with other categories or projects. Please visit the project pages and if you see listed any articles you have written or contributed to, or if you would like to see more active development of them, don't hesitate to join the project.

I like your wayof assessing school articles. Some fall within the scope of our UK region project. Maybe someone with a knowledge of schools could help improve them. --Kudpung (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question on notablity which you may be able to answer: If a school is clearly not notable, as for example in the case in some unheard of, insignificant village school, to have its own article, how do the members or managers or projects and categories justify insisting on creating articles or stubs about every single establishment that falls within their category or twithin the project's jurisdiction?--Kudpung (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schools are an area of significant debate. Perennial attempts to develop a policy on the matter have failed (see Wikipedia:Schools). What I can say based on prior experience at articles for deletion is that typically, a primary school that does not or cannot demonstrate WP:NOTE is merged/redirected to an appropriate locality. Secondary schools are typically kept because enough secondary sources can be found to justify creation. In my opinion, the creation of large numbers of clearly non-notable schools/stubs cannot be justified per WP:NOTE and if a user or project is doing so, they need to be informed that such articles would be unlikely to survive an WP:AFD and are more likely to wind up as a redirect. To avoid any problems, it is in their best interest to ensure the school can establish notability before the article is even created. --Jh12 (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took notice of some of your articles, namely your "United States at the XXXX Summer Paralympics" articles. I see you've been putting the titles in bold in the first sentence, which does not conform to the style guideline for descriptive titles at WP:MOSBOLD. Could you help me in changing this? Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 17:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but that's the style Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics has been using on all of its by nation articles for both Olympics and Paralympics. Please inquire at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics if you'd like them changed project-wide. Thanks a bunch, --Jh12 (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me that direction, I'll make an inquiry there. In the meantime, I'll revert the couple edits I made so that they conform until the issue is settled. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 17:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I already made the revert :) Anyway, I have to agree that it would probably be better to conform to WP:MOSBOLD; I just can't make such a big change project-wide by myself. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I've been away for a while, and that was a great birthday present to come back to! (It's my birthday today.) Thanks also for being a voice of kindness and helpfulness on Wikipedia. Lately I've been thinking of creating a WikiProject on Classical Music Radio -- because I've been so involved in articles on that subject, and because classical music radio is so important and I want to help keep it alive and healthy and growing. (Did you know that in Canada, 80% of classical music radio programming was discontinued in 2007/2008? Now they have the Saturday opera and that's about it.) But I've never created a WikiProject and it seems overwhelming. Plus I don't like responsibility, even though I like to initiate things and set standards. LOL Anyway thanks again, and aloha! -- Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome about the barnstar and I hope you had a great birthday! That's no good about Canadian radio. I can't imagine not having classical music to listen to and help me get through the day. I also love the idea of a WikiProject on Classical Music Radio. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and the other music-related WikiProjects will be good starting places to see if there's interest. If you do wind up making the jump, I have experience setting up the talk page banner/categories/assessment/template side of projects so I'll help with that. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't initially understand you because you appealed to a category as your reasoning for making the color change. Now that I understand what you mean, I've reverted to your last version; thanks for the clarification. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say that I've had to mark three of your uploads as copyvios; images such as File:Fort Jesup Reconstructed Officer's Quarters.jpg are not works of the federal government. While they're available from a federal government website, they're created by non-governmental individuals; you can see a further explanation of this here. Please tell me if you have evidence that one or more of the photographers really were federal employees; if copyright isn't a concern, I'll be the first to support their use. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images tagged for deletion are File:Fort de la Boulaye NHL.jpg, File:Fort Jesup Reconstructed Officer's Quarters.jpg, and File:Edward Douglass White House NHL.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking the problem images. Yeah, it looks like you're right. I find it most disappointing that photos submitted to the National Park Service, filed with the landmark documents, and posted on the Focus website etc. are not actually released into the public domain, but that looks to be the case. I reviewed the three images in question, and I can't determine with absolute certainty that they were produced by the National Park Service or a federal employee under a free license. It isn't clearly labeled who Michael Becker worked for in [3] and the other two were taken by the American Association for State and Local History and the Louisiana Tourist Commission. Arrgh... looks like I improperly made assumptions about the NPS images; I support the speedy deletion of the images in question. Thanks for the lookout. Now I half-wonder if there's any chance I could get the Louisiana Tourist Office to release images under a free license... never had any luck with permission releases unless I was dealing with an individual --Jh12 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your comment in this WP:FPOC discussion. Thank you very much for doing that draft! Perhaps you would have another look, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Biological warfare? Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paralympics task force: Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics. Please feel free to edit and or join. Bib (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Welham Girls' School logo.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you are listed as a Wikipedian in Louisiana. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Louisiana State University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you live near Baton Rouge and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from the area who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. That answers my question.John Paul Parks (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jakarta International School logo.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the message Stefan2. I can confirm the image in question should be deleted at the earliest convenience as the school in question has changed its logo. I will not be removing the deletion template. Jh12 (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2015 (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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal. Even a medical student like you can make a submission.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 05:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article United States at the 1964 Summer Paralympics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Information already exists at the 1964 Summer Paralympics article.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jh12! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]