Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*: Just needed a break from the Bureaucracy here. Nice to see your procedure went well Tony, Welcome back. Got any Tasks for me? Let me know, You know my specialty. ]] 12:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
*: Just needed a break from the Bureaucracy here. Nice to see your procedure went well Tony, Welcome back. Got any Tasks for me? Let me know, You know my specialty. ]] 12:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
==You can express yourself==
I am sick an tired of the BS that goes on here in Misplaced Pages. I would like for you to check out the link here and if you wish express yourself. . Thank you. ] (]) 23:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 23:18, 6 July 2011
Quazgaa is busy and is going to be on Misplaced Pages in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.
It is approximately 3:04 PM where this user lives (US-EST).
and I may be asleep.
Picture of the day
The Kefermarkt altarpiece is a richly decorated wooden altarpiece in the Late Gothic style in the parish church of Kefermarkt in Upper Austria. Commissioned by the knight Christoph von Zelking, it was completed around 1497. Saints Peter, Wolfgang and Christopher are depicted in the central section. The wing panels depict scenes from the life of Mary, and the altarpiece also has an intricate superstructure and two side figures of Saints George and Florian. The identity of its maker, known by the notnameMaster of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece, is unknown, but at least two skilled sculptors appear to have created the main statuary. Throughout the centuries, it has been altered and lost its original paint and gilding; a major restoration was undertaken in the 19th century under the direction of Adalbert Stifter. The altarpiece has been described as "one of the greatest achievements in late-medieval sculpture in the German-speaking area". This image shows the upper-left wing panel of the Kefermarkt altarpiece, depicting the birth of Christ. Mary is portrayed kneeling in devotion in front of the infant Christ, who is placed before her on a fold of her dress. On the other side, Joseph is also kneeling in front of the child. Above Mary, on the roof of the building behind them, are two angels playing a mandolin and a lute. The annunciation to the shepherds can be seen in the background.Sculpture credit: Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece; photographed by Uoaei1Archive – More featured pictures...
Quazgaa, I am amazed at your ability to find images that I have looked for and could not find. This is especially true for the Major Rodriguez Vargas image. In appreciation of your work I would like to thank you with this "Boricua" barnstar. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You are truly amazing. I am really glad that I met you and have interacted with you here. I knew that I was dealing with someone special when you found and uploaded Major Fernando Rodriguez Vargas' image. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Re:Schatz Fan Club
I reverted the vandalism and warned the unregistered user. If the vandalism continues, let me know because I do not have Schatz in my "watchlist" and I will protect the page. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Update. There isn't much in the net on Aviles to go on for an article, however I got in touch with RADM Ronald J. Rabago (USCG), who happens to be a member of ANSO as I am, and he will help provide me with some info. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Image check
Do you know in what image the box appears? I couldn't find it.21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC) O.K., I see now, I just checked the template and saw that it wasn't attached to any image. By the way, the USCG historian has made the arrangements so that the Aviles family will get in touch with me. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The template is a very good one. I will use it on images that I check, but not on images that I have uploaded to avoid any accusation of COI. I read with a lot of interest the link that you sent me. As a result I added a couple of names to Hispanics in the American Civil War. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. The above matter has been re-listed with an amended proposal to a shorter title, and the period for comments is about to expire. You are welcome to comment if you wish:
Hi Quazgaa -- I notice you've added photos for one or more U.S. National Register of Historic Places-listed Puerto Rico places. Thanks for your contributions in general! But, although I assume you are completely well-intentioned, you need to understand that most photos in the National Park Service's PDF Focus system are NOT public domain. In particular File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion y San Fernando of Toa Alta.JPG is not public domain. The photo with its credit information appears in photoset at http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/84003158.pdf. The photograph, although displayed at U.S. National Park Service webpages in its PDF Focus database system, is NOT public domain, is identified as being taken by private parties. I have documented similar cases in past; it is an understandable confusion that editors assume Federal website -> public domain content. Note search at NPS website at http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov upon "Toa Alta" yields this church, but states "All rights reserved". Also there is this general Disclaimer at http://www.nps.gov/disclaimer.htm, including: Not all information on this website has been created or is owned by the NPS. If you wish to use any non-NPS material, you must seek permission directly from the owning (or holding) sources. NPS shall have the unlimited right to use for any purpose, free of any charge, all information submitted to NPS via this site except those submissions made under separate legal contract. NPS shall be free to use, for any purpose, any ideas, concepts, or techniques contained in information provided to NPS through this site. --doncram (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It is conceivable that copyright can be obtained and released by the Puerto Rico SHPO office. I obtained helpful cooperation from that office in getting release of photos for one Puerto Rico property, Casa Paoli, but in that case i was able to deal directly with the photographer who worked for that office (and was a Commonwealth of PR employee or a u.s. Federal employee). For these the photographers were private and the photos are from 1984 and other dates; it may be harder to obtain release of these. But, you could inquire to the PR SHPO office. --doncram (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem: Church Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion y San Fernando of Toa Alta.JPG
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:
That's an official boilerplate notice. See more general note above from me explaining that NPS Focus site provides photos that are, unfortunately, NOT public domain. --doncram (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
same problem for other photos
Checking your recent contributions history i see the same problem applies to:
Thanks for the Heads up. My original justification for loading was because images were taken for the PR State Historic Preservation office (State Govt entity). All photo Negatives are kept there link. I still believe these images are Public Domain and am working on getting an OTRS verification from PR state Govt entity as they have done in the past with similar items: {{PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits}} {{PD-PRGov-IPC}}. I will keep you updated and suspend my NPS activities until then, I anticipate Creation of another new PD template for PRGov concerning the PRSHPO. Quazgaa (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay good. Thanks! I do hope it may work out for you with these Puerto Rico ones, that the office can provide the photos into the public domain. --doncram (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
In accordance to Kenneth D. McClintock; former Secretary of State of Puerto Rico and actual Lt. Governor, the images of the Puerto Rican State Historic Preservation are clearly in the public domain because: (1) nobody is paid for their continuous use, and, (2) the government does not claim payment from anyone from their reproduction and use. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder if there is some translation issue going on, because I am not sure if i understand that statement correctly. I interpret that you are saying that you consulted with Mr. McClintock, whose view is that images held by the Puerto Rico SHPO office are in the public domain. Okay, but that doesn't convince me. I can hold a copy of any photo, and yet not own its copyright. It is in fact illegal for me to post a copy of copyrighted material that is in my possession. In the case of NRHP applications, applicants who may be private persons or who may hire private consultants to take photos, are required to submit photos with their applications and to give limited permission to the National Park Service to use those photos on the NPS websites. I personally think the NPS should have always required private applicants further to give over copyright of those photos, but they did not. So, the NPS can use these photos, but the NPS cannot put them into the public domain or give permission for anyone else like wikipedia/wikimedia to post them. The NPS disclaimer notice that i quote above makes that mostly clear. Also this is clear from previous correspondence about different, non-Puerto Rico images. I agree that the Puerto Rico SHPO is not itself trying to claim payment from anyone. The actual owners of the copyrights are, i believe, the original, private photographers who are credited. They might or might not be aware of any interest in the photographs and they might or might not want to seek any compensation for future use. Possibly you or the Puerto Rico SHPO could obtain the photographers' permission for them to be put into the public domain. However, the current status is that there is no convincing evidence that these are PD. The reasonable assumption is that these, like most other NPS Focus photos are NOT public domain. Note, they are labelled "Public access" but "All rights reserved". I do concede that if these photos were taken by Federal employees, as some PDF Focus photos were, they would be Federal property and in the public domain. But these ones are credited to private persons. --doncram (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPGI dispute the Private Persons claim. If I was not clear, I apologize, but my impression is that all PR RHP pictures where taken by a state employee of PRSHPO or another state agency such as the institute of PR culture which makes its images PD as referenced above. An example can be found here. The picture was taken by Felix Hector Santiago Cazull / Architectural Conservator ; Robert Rabin / Historian. (Revised and edited by PRSHPO). His Organization: Cultural Center Yaureibo and Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, of which a PD licence already exists (I already changed to the correct Licensing). It is my belief that most if not all of the images fall under this example. So the fact of the matter is that there is convincing evidence that these are in PD, and it is not reasonable to assume that Photographs taken by PRSHPO officers which are posted to NPS Focus are not PD. The only issue here is that their licencing is probably mislabled. I will review the current licencing for the images, and in the event that I find a Photo from a Private Person, will nominate for deletion or resolve the licensing as stated above. I think that this is an isolated issue with NPS Focus images from PRSHPO, and that for the image above, the NPS focus site is incorrect in stating the rights are reserved for the above image. It would not be the first time a Government website was wrong... Thanks for the discussion. Quazgaa (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry i didn't see your reply here before. Your reply does not end the discussion, however. You may hold the misconception that state government employee photos are in the public domain; they are generally not, while U.S. Federal employee-taken photos are generally PD. If all of these are, as you say, state employee taken, they are NOT PD. The document you linked by "here" is a NRHP application document to the Federal government. Including photos in NRHP applications DOES NOT put them into the public domain. As explained above in the National Park Service's copyright notice, the National Park Service does get the right to use those photos in their own websites, but the right is not further extended to Misplaced Pages or anyone else. This has all been hashed out several times over with other new uploaders, all well-meaning. User:Acroterion is one other NRHP editor well familiar with this issue. It is unfortunate but not so tragic either, as the NRHP-listed buildings generally survive and can be photographed anew. The existence of the non-PD photos is very helpful in guiding wikipedia editors to find the same buildings. (By the way, for New York State, about 2000 out of 5000 NRHP-listed places have been photographed by Misplaced Pages editors, see Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in New York.) At this point I will comment in favor of deletion of these photos. --doncram (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I identify 52 photos in total of this type, uploaded during April 30 - June 9, and list them all in this version of "Possibly unfree files", to be addressed by deletion. --doncram (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I will check into more detail with the Puerto Rican State Historic Preservation in regard to the status of the images. If the images are PD, as I believe they, then I will look to see under what category they fall under. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still on it. I haven't forgotten. Quazgaa, ask for a temporary hold on the possible deletion nomination process of the images until I find out what the exact status of these images are. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I wrote to the people in charge of the PRHP. Once we recieve the confirmation that the images are PD, I will send said confirmation to OTRS requesting a ticket number for the images of the PRHP. You will then post on all of the images that an OTRS ticket is pending. After OTRS assigns a ticket number then I will create a template to be used for the images. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The important thing is to find out how the ranking system worked during the period that Aviles served. He may have very well been the first Chief Petty Officer in the U.S. Navy if the Chief Gunner's Mate were its equivalent, worth investigating. One thing that we are investigating is the following: Did the USCG have the rank of CWO1 during WWII. We know that it doesn't have that rank now, but we are researching the rank during WWII. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion y San Fernando of Toa Alta.JPG
Most of the photographs were developed as part of a HPF Sub grant sponsored by our Office or were submitted as part of a nomination to the National Register. For this reason, they can be considered of the Public Domain. We require that credit be given to the photographer (M. Gomez and E. Cardona for the Church San Fernando, Toa Alta photos) and to the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office. If you should have any questions, please contact us.
José Marull
Especialista Principal en Propiedad Histórica
I will forwarded the e-mail to OTRS requesting a ticket number for images of the Puerto Rican State Historic Preservation Office. Meanwhile go to the images and post this "tag" {{OTRS pending}}. When OTRS grants a ticket, which they should, I'll do the rest. If for some reason it is denied, I will notify you. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so those tags are specifically for the "M. Gomez & E. Cardona" photos. I'm operating on the assumption that there's a document showing that they worked for the PRSHPO that I haven't seen yet, although an explicit link would be appreciated. Do either of you know of evidence tying any other photographers to the PRSHPO or the IPC? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Where does it say that the "tags" are specifically for the "M. Gomez & E. Cardona" photos? The tag specifically states that "We require that credit be given to the photographer and to the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office". Which simply means that any image which is uploaded from the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Office, must provide the name of the photographer, who ever it may be. A link to the website with the photo and the photographers name must be provided. Simple as that. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The email you sent only mentioned those 9 photographs which I tagged. There was nothing that indicated that everything on their website was public domain as indicated in your template. Note the first sentence "Most (not all) of the photographs were developed as part of a HPF Sub grant sponsored by our Office (these are the presumptively PD photos) or were submitted as part of a nomination to the National Register (not presumptively PD, as there's no indication that a nomination involves forfeiting copyright)". The fact that they say "For this reason, they can be considered of the Public Domain" does not inherently make it so. We may continue this here (or somewhere else on-wiki) or on OTRS if you prefer. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I realize I may have sounded harsh in my last message and I'm sorry if I came off that way, I didn't intend it to be. It occurs to me now that I should have said earlier "So far those tags are specifically for" those photos. I'm working on adding information to the list at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 24#Attempted Organization of Puerto Rico NRHP photos to establish which photgraphers can at least be presumed to have been working for the IPC or PRSHPO and thus have the OTRS tickets applied to them too. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you VernoWhitney, I appreciate your help. I would like to note that VernoWhitney is one of our most respected members of the community who is involved with OTRS and whose opinion I value. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Puerto Rican Americans
First of all, my name is not "Dude". Second, the paragraph has been amended to clearly reflect that voting in U.S. elections is reserved solely to states that have been admitted to the Union and the District of Columbia.--XLR8TION (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Quazgaa, you have been among the best people that I have interacted with. Your contributions have been outstanding, therefore it is with great pleasure that I have placed your user name in my Wall of Honor.Tony the Marine (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite a bit of the information appeared either accurate (factual) or possibly common knowledge (in which case a cn tag cannot be added). I still added several cn tags on text, whether or not from that user, that could be challenged (mostly statistics). There were various typos, grammar and syntax errors that needed fixing as well. Hope this helps! Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for the Puerto Rican award. Yes I thought the old maps looked highly dated. Sometime it wuould be nice to work together and reference/improve these municipal articles. Regards.Dr. Blofeld09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank ypu for the "Jedi", you as I must be a Star Wars fan. I will take a crack at the article once I create and finish the one which I have in mind about Jose Maldonado, El "Aguila Blanca", a fascinating person who for some in the 19th century was a criminal while for others he was a patriot, somewhere along the lines of "Roberto Cofresi". I must tell you that I am very impressed at your dedication to PR related subjects. I believe that our work here is helping to create a different perspective as to the positive contributions and true story of our people. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem; I was also bashed with the "inexperienced" tag once, but disregarded it and kept on working, eventually being nominated to RFA within a year of my "debut". You are doing a good work, keep it up and you will undoubtedly be #7. As a side note, I'm moving "Beaches of Puerto Rico" to "List of beaches in Puerto Rico" so we can begin working on that one. - Caribbean~H.Q.02:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am concerned about this article. Seems that starting today (that's August 4 for me) a certain user named Fort Brooke, with very limited editing history, has started to edit this article with names such as DC and DF (yeah as in Mexico's Distrito Federal). Hopefully I am wrong but, look, I never heard that Puerta de Tierra was also called Distrito Federal. I admit I am not the most knowledgable being when it comes to PR stuff, but I'd like to believe I have a fair amt of knowledge, and this FB user just doesn't smell right to me. And even if the user was legit, his/her approach seems to have too much of a travel flavor to it, and this is not wikitravel. What do you think? Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I had the same feeling. I was going to investigate further their contributions later. I was going to undo those edits as this list will only have municipalities and their respective beaches within. For now I just am assuming good faith. I was Planning to mention it to Caribbean H.Q. as I have not had too much experience with investigations. I would be inclined to follow your hunch. Oh and about the Travel Flavor...I am adding Tags to the Beaches which may give the impression of "wikitravel" now that I think about it. Let me know if not encyclopedic. QuazGaa20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it, what's the official name of the beach located at the end of Ashford Avenue, next to the hotel, corner of the bridge. Condado Lagoon Beach, Playita Condado or Condado Bridge Beach. (Fort Brooke (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC))
Re: compresses edit links?
Heh, my talk page is always open for any reason (even though I desperately need to archive the older stuff) ;) Sorry I didn't explain myself better in my edit summaries...when images are placed immediately after infoboxes (or many images are stacked on top of each other) in the code, when the page is displayed any section edit links that may visually fall between the infobox and image are all compressed together, making it very difficult to impossible to figure out which edit link goes with what section, especially for pages with very long infoboxes. So, when placing images, always make sure the image falls approximately in the same place in the code as it does visually. Hopefully this makes a little bit more sense! — Huntster (t@c) 03:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Puerto Rican Campaign
While doing some research which may provide some information on Fort Buchanan, I came upon some interesting facts. I have often asked myself, why did the U.S. invade Puerto Rico, and what did they really want? What were their true intentions? I mean the racists element never had the intention of making Puerto Rico a state since they considered Puerto Ricans an inferior people made up of mixed races. Was the battleship Maine attacked by Spain or was it that the United States was willing to sacrifice a few thousand American lives in order to expand it's territorial and military might by blowing up the ship themselves? I think that you will find very interesting the minor addition that I just made to the section "Prelude to the Puerto Rican Campaign" of the Puerto Rican Campaign article which should make you think about what I am stating here. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Although it may sound illogical, any US citizen who resides in PR for one year is entitled to request a Puerto Rico citizenship certificate. PR citizenship is a domiciliary state-level citizenship within the US federal system. Legally, it has nothing to do with where you or your parents were born. If you move from California to Texas and live there for a year you are a citizen of Texas! Likewise with respect to Puerto Rico. Pr4ever (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Are you sure you are not confusing it with residency? If live a year in any state, Including PR, you become a resident for tax purposes etc. I thought that you had to have been born on the Island for the PR citizenship certificate but it appears that I am wrong. No Worries. It also seems that the PR certificate is no longer offered. Thanks for bringing this to light. QuAzGaA12:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope. See http://1898.mforos.com/1104685/6452419-certificado-de-ciudadania-puertorriquena/ which describes that the State Dept. regulation allows for the citizenship cert to be issued to any US citizen who resides for a year in PR. BTW, I have no doubt that the PR Supreme Court ruling that gave way to the cert will be overruled, not only because of the recent ideological shift on the Court but because the Court's original decision did not take into account a law, authored by then Sen. McKlintock, and signed by Gov. Roselló, that clarified that non-US citizens could not be PR citizens because US citizenship statutorily is a pre-requisite to PR citizenship. It was signed into law days before the SCt decision was handed down. It is not even mentioned in the ruling, which suggests that they weren't even aware that the law had been signed. The old adage that ignorance of the law doesn;t excuse its violation, in this case, could be applied to the Court! Pr4ever (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Rebekah Colberg
Suggestion, lets keep both (younger and older Rebekah) versions of the images. I suggest that you delete the one that you uploaded and then re-upload it independently of the other. This way we can have both images in the article and we can show how she looked as a young athletic. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Haha Tony! I knew you were going to contact me on this. I tried to undo it but for some reason it did not work. I'll try and delete it but if it does not work then Please fix it the best you can. QuAzGaA19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
My brother, here is some friendly advice in the uploading of images over previous images. When you upload a better version of the same image, as you did with File:Juan Evangelista Venegas 1.jpg, it is fine to keep the same (original) "Summary", "Source" and "License". When you upload a completely different image, such as you did here File:Fermín Tangüis.jpg.,then you cannot use the "Summary", "Source" and "License" of the other original image. This will cause others (deletionists) to ask which image came from the source and may cause some confusion. You will have to post ac completely new "Summary", "Source" and "License" of the image which you uploaded. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Some people seem to think that because the 1980s are "over", that such history is not supposed to be written !!! But ask them about 1898 or the 1776 and check if those years are "over" for them...Unbelievable! Mercy11 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that consensus was not reached. As creator of the category, I suggest that Mercy appeals the action and as soon possible post it the the PR Wikiproject so that we can go at it again. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Quazgaa, I am not sure what you meant by this. In any event, I think there is a suggested Misplaced Pages recommendation (not policy) that a grieving user whose category was deleted (me in this case, hahaa) consult with the deleting admin (Ruslik0 in this case) before submitting to a deletion review. However, recently someone tried to make that into a policy and it was shot down by an almost 100 to 0 margin. In any event, I would like to get the deleted category listed for a Deletion Review, but have not figured out how/where it is done. It does not seem to be done where articles are listed for deletion reviews. I thought I could use this as a lead, but No Cigar, didn't lead me anywhere. I wouldn't want this to get cold; it's been 7 days since the category was deleted, and I would really like to give the category a 2nd chance at "life". Any ideas? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
In the photo File:Sotovelez.jpg I am sure the Soto Velez is the person pictured in the left and that Juan Antonio Corretjer is in the middle. I was wodering if you could "crop" Soto Velez's picture so that we could have his lone image and upload it. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I just checked it and something seems to have gone wrong. Let's do this. We'll start from ground zero, you go ahead and upload once again the original photo with the three nationalists which we can use in various articles including Soto Velez and Corretjer's. After you do this I will delete the messed up one if you like. Then I will upload an independent "cropped" image of Soto Velez and it should work. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Remember the inclusionist principle "chat"???? well, check this out!!! >>> . What a shame, a 4-year veteran of the force! Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Please reduce your sig size to something less excessive, like 12pt or 14 at most. I'm a big fan of custom sigs (and used <big> in mine for a while until I got WP:TROUTed for it :-), but yours is incredibly distracting, and it's also messing up line spacing. Any line on which your sig appears is spaced farther apart from the preceding line than it should be, making it look like a paragraph break happened. Looks like you tried to compensate for that a bit with line-height, but it didn't entirely work (well, maybe it did in your browser). You probably don't want to use px sizes anyway, but em sizes, since you have no idea what resolution other users are using on their systems. Or just don't size it. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ Contribs. 19:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that these users are getting out of hand. The problem with these people is that they will drag you into a senseless and endless disruptive dispute. I believe that the issues should be taken to Arbitration Committee here: Dispute resolution requests where uninvolved parties could take action. Since our computer time (Yours and mine) are limited, I don't think that it would be prudent for us to be dragged into it. I have already made that suggestion to WikiDan, you are more then welcomed to do the same to the others. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hola, I believe I made a big mistake on the Peñuelas, Puerto Rico article. Although I haven't been there in almost 20 years, I just read in the article Barrios have been converted into Districts and Wards? My father was from Peñuelas, but he never mentioned anything about Barrios being converted into Wards. Anyways, are you familiar in any way with the Peñuelas municipality? (Spacestoned (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC))
I Beleive it to mean that Districts/Wards is the English translation of Barrios. Barrios is a Spanish term and a translation is encouraged on the English Misplaced Pages. Hope this Helps! QuAzGaA13:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
An article I created William Riefkohl is being nominated for deletion could you help me out. A simple google search proves he appears in pr newspaper in a monthly if not weekly basis, I would not have had created the article if I did not consider him notable. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Riefkohl
Alright thanks for letting me know that, I wasn't sure at first. And wish me good luck for our first potential GA Puerto Rican album! =) Magiciandude (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Sotovelez.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Sotovelez.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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.
Thanks for uploading File:Anolis roosevelti.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.
Actually, I'm not really interested in pursuing a review. This kind of users only go around nominating everything that they see for deletion and they come in packs, which can make the search for consensus a rather tedious task. - Caribbean~H.Q.01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I knew that you were going to like it. What I basically did was gather information from all my other articles to come up with this one. Now with this article I have covered the story of our contributions to the Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and the Marines. Someday I will do a similar one the Army. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
Hi. Your name has come up in a matter up for discussion at WP:ANI. Not in any threatening manner and you are by no means central to the conversation, but I'm supposed to let you know. :) The conversation is here. --Moonriddengirl11:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I am interetsed in this matter, , but don't undestand what the issue here is. Is someone proposing this map image be delted from Misplaced Pages? Mercy11 (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Nelson Antonio Denis
Quazgaa,
Feliz Navidad y prospero año nuevo. I hope all is well.
I'm writing to ask your assistance with Nelson Antonio Denis. Under the guise of "good faith editing," the page has been savaged and butchered by two editors who are teaming up. They eliminated entire sections and over 20 newspaper citations, all of which were carefully sourced.
They even took out the Puerto Rico portal which YOU helped to create.
If you look at the page as it existed on December 12, 2010 you will see a balanced, well-researched article that had educational value -- with citations and newspaper references for every major point.
The editor Off2RioRob has had problems with administrators before, so he is teaming up with someone to destroy this page. The page has been up for over a year, with no major problems. Now in two or three hours, they came by and destroyed it.
If you have a chance, please take a look and provide some assistance. I cannot win an editing war against these people.
All changes were discussed and agreed to on the talk page, and were urgently needed to restore neutrality and remove the most egregious COI edits. It was revealed in a sockpuppet investigation that this article was principally authored by the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor with an obvious connection, per user name, with the subject of the article. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Nelsondenis248. The article was a mess, with multiple issues including peacock terminology and unsubstantiated text. (P.S. the claim by this IP that I'm a "teammate" of this editor is laughable. My only previous contacts with him were in the climate change articles, and I believe we were on opposite sides of that as I recall.) ScottyBerg (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Reply:Initial review of the article seems to meet WP:NPOV. There may be some unnecessary hatnotes applied but a more in-depth review of sources will be required. However, I will refrain from doing this until the more serious matter of the sockpuppet investigation is resolved. I will say that preliminary analysis of the article history indicates that ScottyBerg was just being bold and is acting in good faith. QuAzGaA02:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
At present the main issue is sourcing of dubious "CRA" claims, which I've toned down but probably do not belong in the article even as presently constituted, because they are unsupported by reliable third party sources. Until I added that information, this article did not contain obvious information such as the fact that this person was defeated for reelection by Adam Clayton Powell IV, and that he twice ran for elective office again. I think that the best path is to stubbify and start from scratch, eliminating all unverifiable (e.g. "68th Assembly legislative documents") and primary sources cited by the COI sock/meatpuppet account that created the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Well my brother, here is wishing you the best. I was wondering if you could find an image of Rafael Cancel Miranda that I can use in an article that I'm writing. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Rather than direct you to my user talk page, I'll just let you know here as well that I've heard back from the National Register, but not with good news. :/ The text on the forms is under copyright and permission must come from the document preparers. If you want to talk about it any further, please feel free to pop by my page. :) --Moonriddengirl19:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Quazgaa! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Misplaced Pages, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
Hi, Quazgaa - having a hard time finding the source page for the above file...I'm sure it's legit, but I wanted to fix the sourcing and copy the image to Commons. If you can remember how you found it, could you drop a link at my talk page? Thanks! Kelly17:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Never mind - found it. I was searching in the wrong collection. For some reason the digital ID isn't resolving correctly at the LOC website. Kelly17:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I moved the Puerto Rico maps out to Commons - over there they have the template {{LOC-map}}, which correctly formats the ID from that division at LOC. If you upload maps directly to Commons in the future you shouldn't have any problems. Ta! Kelly18:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the page already had a bannershell, why add another? And generally: WikiProjectBanners should only be used for pages with around 5+ banners that clutter the page, please don't add it indiscriminately. Regards Hekerui (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Y Sorry, did not notice the other banner shell. I hopefully fixed it now so it looks less cluttered. Adding BLP and GA status make the page cluttered which has the effect of adding additional Wikiprojects to the Talk page. Thus I think the use of WikiProjectBanners template is justified in this case. Cheers! QuAzGaA18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, the Bannershell and its collapsed version (you can also use a parameter for that, no need to replace the templates) is for Wikiproject banners, not article histories (and "will only work reliably with such templates" per the description). Please don't include them there, it basically hides them from view because no one expects them where they don't belong. Oh, and some of your previous bannershell additions miss the blp parameter, could you add it to them? Thanks and best wishes Hekerui (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Y No Problemo, I added the parameter toward the end once I figured out why they where not showing up. Thanks for your insight. QuAzGaA21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
RE: Puerto Rico Map Topographic
Hi. Regarding your request HERE, it looks like the request never proceeded to the site suggested there by Jon C. FYI, I have been using the suggested site myself; it is located HERE, then you just press on "request" (next to "Photography Workshop") and re-enter your facts there. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the "List of Puerto Ricans" be moved and renamed "List of notable Puerto Ricans". The current name reflects a misleading title since it is politcally incoreect and may lead to the misconception that any Puerto Rican may be included regardless of the explanation given in the introduction. Misplaced Pages does not allow that the term "famous" be used since that term depends on the perspection of what an individual may consider what the term "famous" means, however the term "notable" is widely accepted by Misplaced Pages since there is an established criteria of the meaning of the term and there are variuos "lists" in Misplaced Pages which currently use the term notable. Therefore, I am calling on a 7 day consensus as to the renaming the current list to "List of notable Puerto Ricans". Go to: List of Puerto Ricans-ConsensusTony the Marine (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
I am also listing multiple other Puerto Rico NRHP images you have uploaded onto this same day, just continue down the page. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Doña Felisa Rincón de Gautier.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Doña Felisa Rincón de Gautier.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
File copyright problem with File:Sepelio de Rafael Hernández en San Juan.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Sepelio de Rafael Hernández en San Juan.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
Just needed a break from the Bureaucracy here. Nice to see your procedure went well Tony, Welcome back. Got any Tasks for me? Let me know, You know my specialty. QuAzGaA12:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The Kefermarkt altarpiece is a richly decorated wooden altarpiece in the Late Gothic style in the parish church of Kefermarkt in Upper Austria. Commissioned by the knight Christoph von Zelking, it was completed around 1497. Saints Peter, Wolfgang and Christopher are depicted in the central section. The wing panels depict scenes from the life of Mary, and the altarpiece also has an intricate superstructure and two side figures of Saints George and Florian. The identity of its maker, known by the notname Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece, is unknown, but at least two skilled sculptors appear to have created the main statuary. Throughout the centuries, it has been altered and lost its original paint and gilding; a major restoration was undertaken in the 19th century under the direction of Adalbert Stifter. The altarpiece has been described as "one of the greatest achievements in late-medieval sculpture in the German-speaking area". This image shows the upper-left wing panel of the Kefermarkt altarpiece, depicting the birth of Christ. Mary is portrayed kneeling in devotion in front of the infant Christ, who is placed before her on a fold of her dress. On the other side, Joseph is also kneeling in front of the child. Above Mary, on the roof of the building behind them, are two angels playing a mandolin and a lute. The annunciation to the shepherds can be seen in the background.Sculpture credit: Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece; photographed by Uoaei1
Archive – More featured pictures...
Done Quazgaa (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Y Noted. QuAzGaA 12:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
