User talk:NearTheZoo

Welcome!

Hello, NearTheZoo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Whale!! NearTheZoo (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble with articles that are too essay like, but i think you are covering a lot of important points here. i will take a look at it again, in time. im not up to thoroughly reviewing it now, but thanks for the notice. I wonder if michael murphy's "golf in the kingdom" would fit here, as we have the section "visionary fiction". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you also had a question about removing comments. my understanding is that talk page content, unless absolutely unrelated to the article in question (and thus removed), can be edited by the ORIGINAL writer by using this is now removed from this comment but people can still read it. see, that allows changes in thought without the appearance of trying to delete ones "mistakes" and clean up ones image. since the history will show all changes anyway, this is more transparent. does that help?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

were you able to find this summary of the debate and the decision? here it is:

The result of the discussion was: delete.

Considering this discussion in light of the top-level guideline concerning categories and categorization, which contains guidance to avoid categories "based on incidental or subjective features", the arguments for deletion have a better grounding in codified consensus.

That there seems to be no objective definition, which can be applied consistently and systematically across different articles, for what constitutes "inspirational fiction" was noted/acknowledged on several occasions, both by those who support the category's deletion and those who oppose it. Although allowing editors to place articles about books into this category based on their personal opinions (i.e., based on whether they feel the work is inspirational or intended to be inspirational) is certainly a tolerant and conflict-free approach, it does conflict with one of Wikipedia's core principles—namely, that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" (at least not in content pages, such as articles and the categories in which they are placed) and decisions concerning content should reflect information available in published reliable sources.

On a personal note, I would like to suggest exploring the possibility of including the information in the article Inspirational fiction itself. If a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) identifies a particular book as an example of "inspirational fiction", then the fact of that evaluation could be noted in the article—though it should probably be presented as the opinion/evaluation of the source or its author, rather than as a simple fact (for details, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see this as a positive comment. any sourced material you or anyone can find about the way the world defines this subject can be added to the article on the subject. the decision this person made is their summary of the points raised in the debate, supplemented by their understanding of WP guidelines. i think they are correct: categories have to be extremely objective as well as NPOV, while articles can have lots of subjective material, as long as its sourced and is stated to be subjective. i know that objective fades into subjective, anything less concrete than mathematics has its debates. but this is it. thats the debate. no other business was conducted, say a conference of admins or something. its all here. i will check out the article periodically. i think any new book categories are going to be a huge uphill battle.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! For some reason, I couldn't find that summary. It makes sense, plus I see now that the final decision to delete does take into account all the comments in the discussion! I'm still learning. Many thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I just wanted to suggest that you write something — anything — on your user page, so your name will show up with a blue link. It gives you more credence in the eyes of other editors. All the best, Yoninah (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yoninah -- I'll do that right away! And, again, I appreciate your helping me! NearTheZoo (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're in Washington? Based on our similarly-timed give-and-take, I thought you might be here in Jerusalem, near the Biblical Zoo! :) If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask! All the best, Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Yoninah! (I just thanked you on the Omer page, too -- but it never hurts to give extra thanks!). I wish I were nearer the Jerusalem Zoo, which I happen to like a lot! Of course, when I tell people I'm in DC and I'm near the zoo, they think I mean Congress or the Pentagon. So I guess I could say I'm "NearTheZoos." Anyway, I have a feeling we'll be discussing other Jewish pages. Hope so! And -- I will turn you you if I need help! It will be good to have a Wiki friend! Best wishes - NearTheZoo (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good photo, but one related to something in the text would be better. WCCasey (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add a note in the text about the way he was singled out at the reception as a hero for many American Jews! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of American Jewish Military History Project, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.jwv-tampa.org/jewish_us_military_history.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean to leave that note for an IP. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_S._Wood&action=historysubmit&diff=406108527&oldid=398946381 this is the edit in question. regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Oops! Thanks for alerting me. Just left the same note to the IP address user. Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The IP also inserted the "Peacock" tag. Rich Farmbrough, 00:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The title sounds a little odd on a labor leader, but as far as I know, he's entitled to it.--CMG (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I see it's on the wikipedia page for his predecessor. I always thought that anyone with Senate confirmation gets the "Honorable" title, but didn't know if the recess appointment changed that situation.. Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:KazablanPoster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it for you, you can try again. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD - Thanks!!!!! :) NearTheZoo (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You have to be an administrator to delete a page. If you are the only author (check the page history) you can tag it for speedy deletion using the template {{db-author}}. An administrator will delete the page. To learn more about deletions, you can review the material at WP:CSD, WP:AFD, and WP:PROD. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! I was the author - and only accidentally created the page, so I'll tag it as you explain. Many thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - see that you both explained the system to me AND you deleted the page for me. Thanks again!! NearTheZoo (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Seymour Simckes.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sreejith K (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sreejithk2000: I need your help! I received a msg from you regarding the image Seymour_Simckes.jpg on wikimedia commons, telling me it is OTRS approved. (You did ask if I could get an image that is higher resolution, and I will try -- but the image there is approved.) However, an image of the same name (two immages, I think) -- Seymour_Simckes.jpg -- was uploaded to the English version of wikipedia, and this one is not approved. I would like to delete the wikipedia/English images, and use the approved wikimedia commons image for the article, Lazarre Seymour Simckes. Since the files have the same name, I don't know how to change the image being used in the article. Could you help? Thanks!!!! NearTheZoo (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please note: We have already received an email which may result in this image being verifiably released under a free license.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, VernonWhitney! I have been trying to change this image and permission and have alerted permissions-wikimedia.org of the following:

1 - I originally uploaded it until fair use onto wikipedia (English) 2 - I was able to track down the subject and copy holder, Seymour Simckes 3 - At that point, I uploaded it from wikipedia to wikimedia-commons, with a note that OTRS permission was on the way 4 - Then, I gave Seymour Simckes the exact wording of the email to send to permissions-wikimedia, including the correct license. 5 - Seymour Simckes did send that email, and sent me a copy.

My hope is that all of this effort will prove successful, and the OTRS people will change the image to show that it is OTRS verified and approved! I hope that happens soon! Many thanks - NearTheZoo (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this page isn't transcluding the description from commons correctly, but a missing file shouldn't have a talk page and I deleted it. With the OTRS ticket on commons you shouldn't have to worry about the file being deleted from there. --Selket ^Talk 01:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!! NearTheZoo (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's showing up now. It was probably just a caching issue. --Selket ^Talk 10:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked again, thanks to your message, and I'm very happy you're right! I apologize for the trouble - and thank you very much! Have a great day! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Mystery solved! At the same time I put this help-me note up, I put a note at wikimedia commons on the approved photo, and just saw that someone working on permissions there went ahead and deleted this old image, which solved the problem. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Seymour_Simckes.jpg&action=submit I am happy that this problem is resolved, and I am grateful to both wikipedia and wikimedia! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually a software bug on Commons - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Commons_image_details_not_transcluded_to_Wikipedia.3F  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It sometimes "takes a village" to get these things fixed, and I'm grateful to the village!  :) NearTheZoo (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- I've taken the liberty of noming Wilson's Arch at DYK. If you have a preferred hook or image, feel free to suggest them.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wilson's Arch (Jerusalem), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Israel allowed a highly unusual interfaith, mixed-gender worship service at the Western Wall's Wilson's Arch (pictured) as part of a special welcome for the U.S. Sixth Fleet in 1983? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Please consider nominating Daniel Coughlin at WP:GAN.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TTT! I've never done that before, but I'll look into it now, thanks to your suggestion and the link you provided! NearTheZoo (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I almost always avoid reviewing articles that fall under WP:CHICAGO. Unlike many projects that classify as special interests, it does not usually cause an article to be lacking of expert consideration. It avoids WP:COI of me reviewing what is in my domain. It is becoming more common for projects to share assessment responsibilities and it would not be unfair to assign B to other projects. You might want to give the biography group a chance to tag your article since they often add relevant of subprojects to an article if their parameter is blank.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this response! I keep trying to learn more about wikipedia, and I appreciate it when another editor helps teach me. Best wishes and thanks - NearTheZoo (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of United States military chaplain symbols at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yoninah! Answered you on the nomination page. Nice to hear from you again! (The last time you thought my name might come from living near Jeruslam's Biblical Zoo, but I said it was the Washington, D.C. zoo.) Best wishes! NearTheZoo (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NearTheZoo. I just read your reply on my talk page. You're welcome. Wow, contacting the Army Chaplain Museum director -- you are clearly a "do-er" -- way to go! When I put my "new message" note on your talk page earlier, I read some of the discussions between you and other editors. It reminded me of some of the discussions I had, in 2009, when I was a "newbie". The other editors' comments to you (at least the ones that I happened to read) seemed very cordial, which should apply to all such exchanges on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, every human being has a different personality, temperament, etc. If you receive any unfriendly comments, please try not to let them discourage you. Sometimes, the editor doesn't mean it personally, but instead perhaps has a "different" writing/commenting style that comes off as brusque, etc. Even if an editor does seem to be using intentionally confrontational words, I hope you will try to avoid responding in kind. Sometimes, it is better to not respond at all. As you know, we can't change other people. The important thing is that Wikipedia needs all the editors it can get. Thank you for joining this wonderful world of Wikipedia. I'm glad I joined. Eagle4000 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NearTheZoo. You have new messages at Talk:Daniel Coughlin/GA1.
Message added 13:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Moray An Par (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• 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) 06:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Jack Moline you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't you responding to concerns at Talk:Daniel Coughlin/GA1 and Talk:Jack Moline/GA1. I see no responses by you on either nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC) TonyTheTiger, thanks for the "nudge." I will respond to both that I'm just too busy right now to think about making changes to those pages, and would be willing to retract my Good Article nominations for now if that would help. I am putting in an amazing amount of time on the article "Religious symbolism in the United States military," and that's just about all I can afford to contribute to wikipedia right now. I definitely should have responded, though.... Thanks!NearTheZoo (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how much effort you have put in to this article. I would like to explain why I believe the extra flag is unnecessary. I spend most of my time on Wikipedia with images. It is one of the reasons I have also spent quite a bit of time with this article. I understand that you are trying to show the various changes to the symbols used, however, it is very clear to anyone who looks at this article that the insignia of the Jewish Chaplains was modified to include the use of Hebrew in 1980. There are many images showing this change. When looking at the flags of the four faith groups, along with the two additional images, the use of the old style Jewish flag throws of the symmetry. The last image in the gallery contains the old style flag, and I think, makes for a pleasing display. The extra image, in my opinion only, is superfluous. If you really want to leave that image in the gallery, I will make one that matches the others for continuity, but I do think it looks better without it. Let me know what you think, and I will go along with your choice. And I do like the article and found it very interesting.SGT141 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this msg -- for its civility and support. My fear is that taking this one out would raise the question of deleting other images, for example the Navy worship pennant with Roman numerals, which is also shown before the present pennant that displays Hebrew letters. So, although you are right in terms of the pennant with Roman numerals kind of disrupting the flow in this gallery, I think there is a consistency in terms of the other photo galleries throughout the article. I do take your point about the fact that the final image in this gallery does show the old flag...and that's why I'm a little conflicted.... So, although at this point I'll go with your decision, I guess my preference would be to keep the image but to take advantage of your expertise in terms of improving it! I'll watch to see what you do! Thanks very much for all your work-and, again, for your civility. As you and I discussed once before, not every editor "plays well with others." :) NearTheZoo (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job on the article. I think it looks a lot better. I guess the question we need to ask now is do we want to get it to FL status or FA? FL is a bit easier and as its a list would IMO be appropriate. I think its close to GA now on the FA scale but its also fairly close to FL. --Kumioko (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kumioko! It's funny, but I had no intention on working on this article -- but I saw that Patrick Conroy had been added as the latest Senate Chaplain, so I deleted him, since he's the new House Chaplain. Then I added a little more...and a little more...and a little more! :) I think of lists as articles that pretty much are *only* lists, like a list of 9/11 memorials, so I think of this now as more of an article. However, I'd bow to your judgment, and think it would be wonderful if this could be featured in any way. By the way, I'm searching for more photos for the table, and have added a few more today. Thanks again -- NearTheZoo (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this picture, it more closely resembles the others. File:Boarman sm.jpg --CMG (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just substituted this one for the last. Feel free (of course) to tinker with the set-up if you want to integrate the photo more fully with the others. I just wanted to ensure we included this photo along with the others. Thanks again - NearTheZoo (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think this is what you have in mind. The original pictures came from Gpo's Portraits of past Public Printers webpage. That's why Boarman wasn't included. --CMG (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Many thanks! I did make one tiny change in terms of the caption, which was my mistake to begin with, since I captioned it "Bill Boarman" instead of "William J. Boarman," to match the more formal captions for the other photos. Thanks again! NearTheZoo (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Starz Shows has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Starz Shows has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Ryulong (竜龙) 03:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case there is some confusion, this is a new and separate discussion, not a relisting. If this issue is a concern to you, you need to come comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a new discussion concerning this template.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi, love the work on the article. however a note of caution. for pictures of sculptures by living artists, you may have to use "fair use" such as here [1] rather than government Public domain here [2]; [3]. i.e. if the artist was not an employee of federal government then they retain copyright of statue including photos of statue. see Korean_War_Veterans_Memorial#United_States_postage_stamp_court_case. i expect a copyright images nazi will be along shortly to delete "non free" images from a gallery. see Wikipedia:Non-free#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries_or_tables. however, and article on the sculptures should be in order. Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Slowking4 - Thanks for the compliment on the work I did, and thanks also for the heads-up. For images that I thought clearly had copyright problems, I just included links under external links; and (as you noted) I wrote up non-free rationale notes for a couple others. But I thought that photos that were already up on govt sites would be public domain since an employee of the govt put them up. However, thanks to your heads-up, I'll monitor closely -- and if any are taken down, I can just add more external links to those govt pages. (If there is a problem just having an external link to another page, then I'm out of ideas!). Anyway, thank you again. It is nice to have the images available to readers of this article, I think.... NearTheZoo (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, where is the conversation for this proposed deletion? Second, apologies that it took this person so long to respond he was driving across the United States and could not respond properly on a hand-held and does not take laptops and i-pads on the road as a rule. It would seem rather strange to put up for routing to another Joshua Goldberg on the top of this article then to nominate it for deletion -it is as if you took a hit out on an article to be executed by yourself. if you did not have it in the crosshairs already this might be a surprise. Anyway the problem with the double attribution of Jonah Goldberg's elegies to his brother were posted by another more conservative contributor than I. However being that his family is who they are and were and his role in politics and information and opinion dissemination would prove a counter-weight to this nomination. i will put in other sources.Masterknighted (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the deletion debate for this article? Second even though he was not victorious in the election he had a higher tally as republican for the seat than any candidate in years ---which is in itself notable in a heavily liberal democratic district of some fame. As well there is a new source listed form Commentary magazine. As well the readership level of the blogs he edited renders the subject notable. Masterknighted (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masterknighted, please indent responses with a colon, plus other colons as the discussion continues. I just added one to your recent comment. Doing well in an election may be notable in a local sense -- but not in terms of meriting an encyclopedia article. But as I wrote, I started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Please put your comments there, and I will get an administrator with much more experience than you or me to weigh in. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion now moving to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Goldberg.

Discussion now moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Goldberg (2nd nomination).

Hi again NearTheZoo :) Thanks for the nice comment on my talk page! I'm honored to have provided you with your first barnstar! Here is to many more! On that note, if you are ever interested in meeting up with fellow DC area Wikipedians offline, we do have a DC Meetup Invite List which you can sign and then we'll let you know when we have edit-a-thons, meetups, and other cool events (including museum tours, etc). Just wanted to throw that out there in case you had interest (no pressure, of course). We also have a local chapter, which might interest you also: Wikimedia DC. Feel free to drop by my talk page if I can ever help you out with anything. SarahStierch (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Aleichem. Please do not make edits like you did at the article, claiming Samaritans are not Jews, unless you know your subject well. Here[4] is all the reference you need for this detail. If you revert this edit again in a religiously biased way you will be in danger of possibly violating 3RR. Thank you. Djathinkimacowboy 23:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think you and too many others are missing the point, which is simple: scholarly consensus in the real world is that Samaritans are Jews. Pure and simple. Wikipedia articles, I have noted, do not wish to reflect that. It is baffling to me. Checking on the article about Samaritans, I saw the same ignorant approach that they are "related" to the Jewish faith. That is a patent insult to the intelligence as well as to the Samaritans. I am not Samaritan, I simply think they deserve to be called what they are like everyone does. Djathinkimacowboy 04:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1983 Beirut barracks bombing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Fort Jackson

Beirut Memorial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Fort Jackson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be happy to check it out. Just to note that it usually takes 3 weeks for the DYK reviewers to work their way down the list... Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Didn't realize it normally took so long, since my past few nominations have moved much more quickly. (Guess I was lucky!). Now I'll know more about the timeline for the future!NearTheZoo (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Rule H2, I'm not allowed to approve my own hook suggestion. So we'll have to wait a little longer for approval. (If you look at the current number of hooks on the nominations page, you'll see there's quite a backlog, so be patient). BTW, you might consider using these templates for your next references section. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yoninah. Even though you're not allowed to approve your own hook suggestion, I can approve it. I thought I did that in a previous comment, but I added another one, just to make it absolutely clear. Shabbat Shalom and shana tova! NearTheZoo (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you can't approve it because it's your nomination! Anyway, I just saw you posted a new article about the architect. I proposed a double hook under your Yad Kennedy nomination. Let's wait for another editor to weigh in on it. Best, Yoninah (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, I think you have more experience on wikipedia than I do (!), but I think it's possible you're not right here. In the past, when I have nominated an article for DYK, a reviewer has suggested an alternative. Once I approved that alternate, the reviewer went ahead and approved the DYK. The rule says that the person suggesting a new hook cannot approve that new hook, but it doesn't exclude the person nominating the article from doing so! (The person nominating the article cannot, of course, approve the article for a DYK -- but he or she can, I think, approve an alternate hook.)
Anyway, yes, I often "go on a roll" when it comes to articles. If I do a wiki page about a film, I often end up doing one on the director if he or she is noteworthy. Here, when I contributed to the page on Yad Kennedy, I was surprised to find that the architect (a winner of the Israel Prize) did not have a page -- at least on the English wiki. I learned a lot creating that page. Best wishes again, for a Shabbat Shalom and a Shana Tova! NearTheZoo (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Yad Kennedy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My, what a remarkable talk page! I regret my coding skill is so basic.

If you take a gander at my contributions, you can see I an eccentric person who is unnaturally concerned with capitalization. The word marine is not capitalized as there is no real reason to capitalize it. It took me years to unlearn military usage. (Heck the US Air Force capitalizes Air Force when it refers to the USAF, but not when it applies to lesser air forces.)

All that being said, let me run off to the MoS to find the cite you asked for. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the MoS page for [[5]]. It does not require a capital for marine, and so I draw the conclusion that a capital is not allowed. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of course, so to speak.) It really just falls to the fact that there is no obvious reason to capitalize the word. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I think I side with the Marines, whose perspective is that when applied to a member of the USMC, the word is not an occupation (like, say, architect), but instead a member of an organization (such as--as pointed out in the article I cited--Democrat or Republican). (Some Marines would say it is like American!)  :) I do know that the trend in English-language usage (or I should say, American English-language usage) is to capitalize it, as the article pointed out -- with the NYT "joining" the ranks of others like the Associated Press. It is a matter of pride with the Marines, I know.... What do you think? NearTheZoo (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick PS -- Here is a little more background on the NYT decision to change to capitalization of "Marine." They not only seek consistency with other manuals of style, but also with words like Democrat, Catholic, and Rotarian, where the individual is using a title that stems from the larger organization or entity. Basically, the same info quoted in the Marine Corps Times article, but with a little more detail. Best, NearTheZoo (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me. I did not put this page on my watch list and so did not see that you replied. I have fixed that. In any case, whatever the MoS says is fine with me. You cannot (or at least I cannot) help but imagine the marines generated a plausible argument to support their own opinions. It took me years after I retired to learn to write again. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I looked at the article and put my comments on the DYK talk page. I don't understand what you meant by the article being created on 5 October 2012 – it's still September now! :) When you see an article that was created a while ago, it means that the nominator is nominating it for a 5x expansion. In that case, you should not look at the byte counts in the history, but at the character count of the prose sections of the article. This character count does not include lists, block quotes, headers, images and captions, the "See also" section if any, the references section, Table of Contents, edit buttons and all superscript like [6] and [citation needed] tags. I copy and paste the prose into this tool, delete all the superscript, and then I get the character count. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, I put a thank-you note on your user page before I saw this note. Now I went back and corrected the beginning date in my review (which was actually 2003!) -- but the main issue is that you clearly showed why the article does not qualify even under the expansion rule. I very much appreciate this note, which continues to tutor (and mentor) me! Best wishes for a Hag Sameach! NearTheZoo (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{tmbox

The article Yad Kennedy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yad Kennedy for comments about the article. Well done! Kürbis (✔) 09:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are deleting a personal attack, for example, a more normal way of redacting talk page comments[6] is to strike through the section. Myself I do quite a bit more editing of talk page comments than is recommended, such as fixing spelling errors, and even adding a sentence, but I just wanted to point out the normal practice - see WP:REDACT. The normal practice it should be noted solves some problems but introduces the problem that struck through text is difficult to read, unless the whole paragraph is struck through and re-written as whole new paragraph. Apteva (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a valid reason for nominating an article that was created or expanded more than 5 days ago, simply put a note to that effect on your nomination. E.g.:

• Comment: This article was nominated two days past the five-day requirement because I lost power due to Hurricane Sandy. Yoninah (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Yoninah!! I did that for my three most recent nominations -- and I hope an editor will accept this explanation. Again, many thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Herbert Tarr at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this note, Yoninah, and your willingness to review my DYK nomination. I couldn't find more info for the book article -- however,now I've found an old review in the NYT archives, and just paid $3.95 for it. (I have applied for a wikipedia HighBeam account, to save money, but so far it has not been granted.) I'm having some problems opening the article, which is: NYTimes Book Review, July 21, 1963, "Between the laughs, a sermon or two." With any luck, I'll get it opened and add some additional content. A double DYK would be great! Thanks again. NearTheZoo (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on DYK talk page. And please look at this edit to get a feel for basic Wikipedia punctuation (e.g. period after the close-quote mark) and reference formatting. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Fumanekile Gqiba at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NearTheZoo, on my talk page, you address Elizium23, saying "I'm glad I went to your talk page..." I think you're confusing him with me.

Anyway, I replied to you on my talk page, since you went back to it. My position is that both "Evangelical" and "Evangelical Protestant" are acceptable, but that "Evangelical Christian" is completely unacceptable. Before I said it's a way of snubbing Catholics and Orthodox, but maybe it's a way of snubbing mainline Protestants. Who knows. I don't recall seeing it used anywhere, in any case. – Herzen (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I was completely confused! :) I wrote on your page and then got an answer -- assumed it was you -- and went on from there. Again, I thank you! NearTheZoo (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your latest comment on my Talk page, you wrote that "Protestant" "was being used... more [as] a broad term for non-Catholics than a strict term linked to the Reformation". The only thing I can conclude from this is that some Catholics still have bad feelings about the Reformation.

In this matter, I am strictly a bystander: I was raised Easter Orthodox and am not a believer, as I mentioned. That said, as far as I can understand, "Protestant" has a very clear meaning—a Christian belonging to any sect that derives from the Reformation. Indeed, the Compact OED defines Protestant as "a member or follower of any of the Western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation." – Herzen (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you've got bigger worries than whether Evangelical Protestants can be called simply "Evangelicals". Somebody just changed "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic". – Herzen (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I thought for sure Holy See was still linked above, but I checked too quickly. I'm not sure about the way you want to include it, but I'll think about it. Good working with you!

I mostly try to stay out of squabbles and look for more hard info to add. Just conflict averse these days. It sucks a lot of energy sometimes. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Soldiers Bible.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Holy Bible Armed Forces Edition.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]