User talk:Edeans

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Bull (locomotive)[edit]

I found and added a photo that is permissible under fair use as far as I can interpret the Smithsonian's copyright page, but I'd really like to add a photo of the locomotive as it appears in the museum today (since 1981 was over 20 years ago) that is free of fair use restrictions. slambo 13:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Equal Protection Clause[edit]

Hello again, this is the fellow who has been editing the Equal Protection Clause article. You commented very helpfully on the article when it was under peer review. Could you look it over again, and if you approve, would you mind voicing your support for featured article status on the above-listed page? Thanks so much, Hydriotaphia 00:55, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your support very much. Thank you, Hydriotaphia 08:32, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

VfD voting[edit]

Please don't vote "Concur":

It looks like concurring with an unspecified comment.
Multiple comments on a vote or on a comment may have been inserted just before your concur by the time votes are counted.
Putting it as a single-bullet point doesn't make it clear it's a vote, as many comments, or even responses, are unlabelled and given 0 or 1 bullet.
On a bad day, i'm likely to Tally it as "No clear intention" when tallying votes, instead of wasting time on someone who won't take the trouble to be clear.

Tnx, tho, for taking an interest in the important task of VfD decisions: you're a good colleague, tho i hope you'll improve your technique. [smile]
--Jerzy (t) 03:00, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

FAC vote[edit]

Thanks very much for the Colley Cibber vote! I see you like hoaxes, might you care to contribute to one? (Reviewed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-14/Article hoax.) Bishonen | Talk 17:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FAC[edit]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia. I'm particularly worried that the article goes into more detail than almost all readers would be interested in reading (not going into so much detail is a FAC criteria). Thus longer sections should be summarized and the detail spun off into daughter articles, allowing readers to zoom to that level of detail if they so choose. --mav 16:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

verses[edit]

Hiya,

you recently voted to delete John 20:16

Uncle G has made a wider proposal covering a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

Kammerlader[edit]

Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Believing in recycling[edit]

Hey, this is ProfessorPaul, and I wanted to say "you're welcome" to your "thank you" comment to my talk page. Also--I have noticed, lately, that in the entertainment industry, they DEFINITELY believe in "recycling," in this case, recycling a plot from a 1970s movie (The Lincoln Conspiracy) into a movie made today (National Treasure 2: The Book of Secrets)! Good to hear from a fellow Wikipedian. Regards. ProfessorPaul 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interview for public radio show[edit]

Hi there,

My name is Neille Ilel and I'm a producer with a national public radio show called Weekend America. We want to do a story on the fine line between an individual who deserves an entry on Wikepedia and one who doesn't. As someone who's weighed in on the issue, I was hoping you might be able to chat over the phone for a few minutes.

We're a conversational show and want to have a relatively laid-back discussion about what goes on in Wikipedia, just to let you know that this isn't a debate-type show where we encourage fighting.

If you're up for it, or if you have any questions, you can e-mail me at nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org to set something up.

[http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/ ] Thanks! Neille

Neille i 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web Producer Weekend America 213 621 3450 http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/

Pamela Fischer[edit]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Fischer. I expanded the Pamela Fischer article, and you might want to take a second look at it. --Eastmain 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Planet[edit]

The Snow Planet page is not spam. Please go here to learn more about Snow Planet. [1] (Be sure not to confuse snowplanet.co.nz with snowplanet.com) --KylePIB 05:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

roads[edit]

I think you've been saying things just right. Take a look at the debate on their project page--there is hope after all. I sometimes comment in projects where I know I'm in the small minority view, but in this case i'm leaving them alone there, since they seem about to compromise. WP changed course on Radio towers & just might on this. DGG 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey,did you start any mass deletion.? Not a good idea, in my opinion.DGG 05:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Total propaganda. Note your talk page. Edeans 05:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherie Blair[edit]

I agree with the logic behind cutting controversies section here. Please proceed. Lafem 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37 is an inappropriate nomination[edit]

... in my view anyway. Please work to reach consensus on what are good criteria for what should be kept and what should not before nominating clear speedy keeps like that one, for to do otherwise is disruptive. If you seriously are considering nominating 5400 articles for deletion, you may want to reconsider that approach. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

didn't I say something about being careful.? Even I would have voted keep on this one.DGG 05:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37 all closed as keep, the last one as a speedy under SNOW. I think that pretty firmly establishes practice as being that we keep even notable county roads, and certainly all state routes. See also Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Highways I would, were I you, very carefully consider the disadvantages of any further nominiations without first gaining considerable consensus that there has been a change in notability standards. In particular, actually nominating all 5400 road articles or even joking about it, is something that I would very strongly advise against. Very strongly, as it might well be viewed as disruption by some. (remember 5400 out of 1.6M is not a very big fraction of our total articlespace, after all) I bring that 5400 number up because I did not see any comment to my previous caution and I'm concerned that you might still be considering same. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems to be a lot of sound and fury over just two individual AfD nominations. For the record, I never stated or "joked" that all 5,400 road articles on WP should be deleted. I have to take Lar's word for it that there are that many, and I have no reason at this point to assume that all, or even a majority of them, are non-notable. There are any number of roads and trails that are notable for historic, cultural or economic reasons. Indeed, I am pleased to note that someone finally started an article on The Lincoln Heritage Trail. Edeans 23:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the latest count shows about 5700 articles. For the record, you did state that all 5400 road articles should be deleted. I'll pull up a diff. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - [2]. The number of 5700 comes from the WP:USRD/A project. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How interesting you omit the very next line: "Still, some roads are truly notable. Edeans 02:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)" I added this to make clear (to any reasonable contributor) that I was referring just to roadcruft (non-notable roads), not to all road articles. Also this from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999 debate: "Comment: Is there any state in the Union that fails to "number and mark" those public byways for which they have financial (i.e., construction and maintenance) responsibility? If we accept this public budgetary argument of notability, are not all of the persons on a state's public welfare rolls similarly notable, and similarly entitled to WP articles? Edeans 01:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. But there are some states that designate a portion of a state highway (example Pennsylvania Route 60) to be maintained by another commission (in this case PTC). Those commissions also do their part to sign the highways as well. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specially designated portions of highways, due to cultural or historical significance, are not at issue here (like the Lincoln Heritage Trail (Oops! No article! How did that happen??)). Edeans 02:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)" [Note: no such article until Feb. 11, 2007][reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players[edit]

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijunior Big Cats[edit]

I noticed you were talking about Wikijunior Big Cats on the website The Wikipedia Review. The conversation turned to doubts about me (Gabriel Hurley) and whether or not I had good intentions. I want to assure you that Jimmy Wales is aware of the book I have been attempting to publish. Indeed, it was originally supposed to be a collaborative project on Wikibooks, but all the collaborators have disappeared, and it's mostly up to me. I am half-way through revising the layout of the book. You can get an idea of what it will look like by previewing the PDF at http://www.scribd.com/doc/2490736/Wikijunior-Big-Cats . Please share this information with the people at The Wikipedia Review, and if you have any questions, please email them to me directly - I don't have an activated Wikipedia Review account as of yet. All the profits that I make from the books will go towards covering the expenses related with reserving ISBN numbers. --Munchkinguy (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]