User talk:PoliticianTexas: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:41, 16 June 2008

Hi. Please don't remove cleanup notices without actually doing any cleanup. They're placed there to alert others that the article needs attention. Also, you really shouldn't blank your talk page either. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. First of all, unless you're leaving the project, you can't blank this page. Second, please don't remove cleanup notices without doing any cleaning up. Third, this is supposed to be a community effort. It would be appreciated if you were to interact with other users. Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your benefit, I've requested assistance for you here: [1]. This isn't an attempt to get you in trouble but rather an attempt to help you to understand the working of this site better. Please feel free to respond on my talk page and please feel free to ask me for help. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, be aware; the above is incorrect. While it makes everyone's life easier if you archive posts, you are explicitly permitted to remove anything you like from your talk page. — iridescent 00:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note at WQA

To begin, one doesn't need to be an admin to edit the articles of others and to place tags. Since you don't own the articles you create (no one else owns theirs either), everyone is free to comment on and edit the work of others. I'm not familiar with the article in question, so I won't comment on that. As far as userboxes go, well you do have a lot. However, that's up to you, and I don't have a problem with it. (Although it's probably worth noting that contentious userboxes, such as those that advocate disruptive positions, can be removed). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That last statement is just a general truth, I'm not trying to imply that any of yours meet that standard. (To be honest, I haven't looked in any detail). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Bureaucrat Nomination

Yes you can use my name on it!
I really cant stand user:discospinster He is just causing more damage to articles its really unprofessional.
Something needs to be done, Quick!

TomSalazar _Chat?! 9:36 MT, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

This isn't meant to be rude - quite the contrary - but I really strongly advise against an RFA at this stage, let alone an RFB; at the moment, you'd have no chance of passing either. Read the successful and unsuccessful candidates at WP:RFA to see what sort of thing you need. — iridescent 19:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Juan, New Mexico

Please stop redirecting San Juan, New Mexico to Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, New Mexico. They're different communities (check at Google Maps), and by redirecting the article you're hiding plenty of information. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article: it is for that reason that I gave you the Google Maps link. Anyway, the name change doesn't affect the existence of the census-designated place. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the merge request for San Juan to Ohkay Owingeh, but for some reason can't create the talk page to discuss it, so I thought I'd post here. According to the 2007 U.S. Census Boundary Files, San Juan is now Ohkay Owingeh. The Census Designated Place listed in the 2000 files has been renamed Ohkay Owingeh in the 2007 version. The files are available here. Also, San Juan Pueblo no longer appears as a named place by the US Geographical Survey's Board on Geographic Names [2]. The Census puts out an official boundary/geography change document, but the change from San Juan to Ohkay Owingeh is not listed in the 2006 version, and I can't find the 2005 version. However, enough evidence is out there, from news reports on the name change to the 2007 boundary files to the USGS findings that I would support a merge of the two articles.Dcmacnut (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohkay Owingeh and redirects

Thanks for your response. It's always good to keep articles up-to-date. However, in the future, if you encounter any similar name changes, I would recommend moving the page rather than simply blanking the old page and replacing it with a redirect. Using the "Move" command at the top of the page allows you to rename the article to the new, official name, while maintaining all of the old text, talk page, and article history (important for tracking changes). After the move, you can update any parts of the article as needed. Thanks again.Dcmacnut (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socpuppet Case

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby

You have been accused of using sockpuppets to evade being banned for removal of tags and notices, violating the Wikipedia three revert rule (3RR), violating the Wikipedia Civility rule, and Wikipedia Sockpuppetry to evade a block.

Suspected sockpuppets

IP4240207xx (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in Image:Ltgov gavel.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Ltgov gavel.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Ltgov gavel.jpg is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Ltgov gavel.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]