User talk:Coldupnorth/Archive7

Remark

Thank you for your note. Nowhere on WP:Consensus do I see support for your suggestion, though: that page explicitly states "New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that a poll is often more likely to be the start of a discussion than it is to be the end of one! The true decision is typically made during discussion. This is also why you should always provide a further rationale during a poll." If you wish to build consensus, compromise. As I point out, Churchill is simultaneously the most major ideological defender of imperialism in the post WWI twentieth century, and his position as such is central to the man. I provided RSes backing that up. Excluding that from the lead would be misleading; "balancing" it would be difficult, and violate NPOV. After all, we do not balance references to the Nobel for his histories with reviews excoriating his prose, or balance the reference to him as a strategist with suggestions that he was responsible for Gallipoli. The lead is supposed to mention the broad outlines in line with majority academic opinion. Relata refero 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nancy R

Haha well thanks LordHarris. I've seem to have picked the hardest article's to try and get to FA (just look here). I don't know what that Leranedo character's beef was, trying to complicate the situation, and apparently he has a history of doing so! Oh well. It's probably not going to pass this go around, but I intened to improve and just keep trying! Thanks for the support, and God Bless the UK! Best, Happyme22 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Thanks

Many thanks for the Barnstar. It took quite a lot of work to get the article up to its current condition and recognition is pleasing to receive.--DavidCane 02:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

Hello, you once helped me to promote an article to GA status. I would like to request, could you please take a look to this one and give me a feedback before its nomination for GA status, as I did not found similar articles with which I can compare quality. So feedback would be great to improving article. Thanks, M.K. 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the feedback! I will try to address your points. Cheers, M.K. 14:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jonathanband2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jonathanband2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JonathonBand3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JonathonBand3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan FAC

Hello again LordHarris. Just letting you know, Nancy's up for FAC again here; just wondering if you would like to weigh in, as you have helped out so much before by doing so. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I was just looking at another user's page and saw the Golden Wiki Award had been presented to him. I thought, "wow, he's pretty good. I don't count on getting that anytime soon." And now I have one. Thank you so much LordHarris! Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Steinbeck

I'm far from a professional editor, but as with everything, a second guy can always find things a first guy missed. Steinbeck's been a long interest of mine (I've been to many of his old haunts, read all the novels and much criticism, and over a lifetime have been assisted by my father, who used to teach a Steinbeck course at the university level). That doesn't make me an expert, but it does help keep me from making the really obvious mistakes. I'm happy to see anybody making constructive contributions, and have been watching yours with interest and also appreciation. Keep going! SBHarris 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Youngstown, Ohio

Hello LordHarris. I am an editor who has been heavily involved with Youngstown, Ohio. It has been peer reviewed twice and is now up for its second FA nom. I have been quite attached to the article and feel that some fresh eyes to read it over would be beneficial. If you have some time, please give it a read and give some comments if you are able. The FA nom can be found here. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the compliments and the bling. It's my first barnstar! Cheers, Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

I thought you might be interested in what is below:

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Senate_in_session.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- RG² 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

--Jiang (talk) 03:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

John Steinbeck

no problem - as I notice pages whose content I'm familiar with needing reverts, they go on my watch list Tedickey (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?

2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We've already gone to press for this week's issue, but responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

No problem at all. Perhaps I'll see your name on a future ballot? Best Wishes, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Joe Klein" article

I've made some changes and I did my best, but I think you should review the article as it currently exists. Comments, suggestions and criticisms are more than welcome.
--Nbahn (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TIME Magazine March. 16, 1942.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TIME Magazine March. 16, 1942.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Priscilla Painton article

I inserted a line delineating her role in the Klein/FISA controversy. Your input would be greatly appreciated.
--Nbahn 12:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Winston Churchill

Do you wish me to place my comments on your talk page (aka here) or on the article's talk page? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons in infoboxes

Hello, Lord Harris. A discussion on this topic has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Flag_icons. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Dormskirk 16:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

		The Original Barnstar
		For your outstanding contributions to the Winston Churchill article which has been greatly appreciated by me, and no doubt, others. I hope it wins (at least!) a little credit for such a remarkable transformation. — Rudget contributions 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason it didn't render properly before. Weird :) — Rudget _{contributions} 14:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)