After sleeping on the matter, I am now thinking that the best thing may be to create a very good preschool article on a preschool worth having an article on. There probably aren't very many, but the Long Beach Day Nursery was founded in 1912 [3] and I think qualifies. ^BlankVerse 08:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|140px|right|another cool guy

Thanks for participating in my RfA. The final vote was 57/4/3. I hope I don't disappoint those who voted support, and that those who didn't won't wish they'd campaigned more strongly in opposition. Tomer^talk 03:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that the old Busch is totally down already? In just two months time? Yikes!

Thank for ocrrecting the mistake I made to the dollar coin page. I obviously focused too much on the spelling mistakes and not enough on the actual meaning of the sentences. I appreciate the fix. Markkawika 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've never seen eye to eye, but they're trying to delete this article. Deleting it and keeping NA and Black American lists is just racist IMHO.Gateman1997 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less agree with you. But, what can I do? I'm not an admin and there is a speedy, posted by an anom (which is lame) on the article. Even if it went through AfD, the list would probably or almost definitely get deleted, based on the previous vote. -- JJay 00:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You could delete the speedy. I'd do it myself but it's against policy since I started the article.Gateman1997 01:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah...I'll leave that for the admins to decide. The list may qualify as a speedy. You also should know that I am more interested in process and policy than content (as demonstrated by my recent voting on the Indian List- my original vote had been delete). There is a way that you could get around this in the future I think. Do a sourced list of self-proclaimed caucasians. -- JJay 01:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I may have not been exactly sensible in what I posted, but there's never a need for name-calling here. It doesn't seem to me that a Wikipedia whose articles are written in English (a language of England, whose location is Europe, making them a predominately Anglo-Saxon country, who sent white people to America, who colonized the land, and built for themselves a country, filled with mostly white people) needs a list of all the influential Caucasian Americans, because most Americans are, in fact, Caucasian. Cernen 14:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

I know you want to generate more discussion on AFDs hence you're relisting them, but is that such a good idea. You're cluttering up the new AFD list with no less then 25 old ones daily and now the AFD list is going well over 200 AFDs a day. It's getting hard to navigate them all with the relists of old ones in addition to the new ones.

You have a point. I'm open to suggestion, since all of the ones I've relisted have almost no votes or any clear consensus on what to do with them.

• Not really. I've been "combing" the uncategorized articles and sometimes I stumble on articles which are at least dubious, which I usually submit to the AFD list. What I've noticed is that he always votes against my submittions and never voted for them. In the beginning I thought that is was natural because some of my submittions are very debatable (I submited them in hopes they could be discussed). As the days passed and the submittions piled up I noticed a pattern forming. That pattern consisted of 100% of the votes being agains the deletion and sometimes those votes were/are accompanied with inflamatory comments. He seems very active in the AFD list but yet, he is always against the AFD, which looks like a troll-ish behaviour. That's why I asked that question. Is he a real troll? --Mecanismo | Talk 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, that's been a recurring pattern. It seems his actions are starting to leave a distinct impression or at least he is starting to piss more and more people. Let's see what the future holds on this subject --Mecanismo | Talk 20:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think our edits on this clashed. To answer your question how is a giant list of streets useful I agree it's not very. What I do think is useful is the structure of a master list and sublists and I feel it would be a pity to remove that. If any editor wants to go into these lists and remove all the red links that's fine - people can then create the blue ones from scratch for any streets that are notable enough. Alternatively, we can leave the red links as an encouragement for people to turn the important ones blue - I have a mild preference for that but it doesn't really matter. There seem to be only about 20 live street links which is too few for a major city like Paris - I imagine there could usefully be articles on up to 100 or so and we should try to encourage their creation. Dlyons493 Talk 02:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I probably jumped the gun, but it looks like the name was leaked: http://www.goal.com/NewsDetail.aspx?idNews=110879&progr=5 . Of course, it's best to wait for it to be official.

That box DOES directly pretain to Firefox.Gateman1997 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rules only allow for use in ARTICLES, userboxes aren't covered so we can't use them there. I've protected your page temporarily since you obviously are willingly violating Wikipedia policy on this and doing so relieves the need to revert it back every time you re-add the image.

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for nothing. You're being reported.Gateman1997 19:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I just wanted to say, as an aside, that you shouldn't get too uppity over people editing your user page. It's best to think of all pages as belonging to wikipedia - including user pages. Many users, Jimbo included allow and even encourage people to edit their user pages. I heartily recommend it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining! Our current focus is

PS: Do you think it's safe to go back to the good but fair use image for our template? The Apple icon rather than the Finder emulation we have now?--HereToHelp (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your last edit summary on this article. My bad too, I should probably have done a manual revert rather than an admin one. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Wikipedia.PNG, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. —Bkell 05:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:BuckShaw.PNG

Here's another one: Image:NewOaklandPark.jpg. —Bkell 06:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like Ed has responded to the Rfa after 2 days is the basis of my decision, and given that he was desysoped less than 2 weks ago is a factor,

Gateman1997, your decision to start an RfA for Ed Poor without asking him first, and without posting it on the main RfA page, was not a good idea I believe. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have understood my point. If all the edits had been positive endorsements I would not have said anything but as they weren't I felt it important to flag the situation. A number of editors have left wikipedia due to negative feedback in their Rfa's so we must remember that an Rfa is a sensitive thing,

I appreciate the gesture, but I simply can't do it right now. Maybe in a few months when I'm less busy. Cheers! Uncle Ed 00:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the discussion, my vote above yours explains why this article needs to be redirected. It is policy to redirect to the merged material to retain attribution. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No it's not irrelevant. We need to attribute specific edits and addition of material despite the fact we're working with a free license. That's why we've got a history tab in the first place. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And it's not mentioned in
  Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion for nothing. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Gateman1997, thanks for your reply and offering to help! Googie Man, 5 January 2006 18:33, (UTC).

Actually "U.S. Route X" is the official name, used by AASHTO and Federal laws. See the bottom of

Interstates are called both "Interstate X" and "Interstate Route X" by AASHTO, so no problem there. As for U.S. Routes, usage of Route vs. Highway depends on the state, which is why we should go by what AASHTO uses. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The northeast typically uses Route - often omitting the U.S. even. As for redirects, there's nothing wrong with linking to them. I'm fixing all the double redirects. The only place links should be fixed is navboxes like {{U.S. Routes}}, so they show up bold on the pages that template is used on. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP, that was an effort to standardize the naming of the articles per WP naming conventions, there is discrepancy between USCG and other naming conventions. Thanks for letting me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In "DO NOT edit this page without first consuting me on my talk page" , "consuting" should be "consulting". FreplySpang (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in creating {{

I'd have speedied the Scientology template myself, and I have so voted, but I think it's fair at this point to let the TfD run its course. I advise you take a deep breath in the meantime, since further disruptions of Wikipedia won't do anything but cause trouble for you. -- SCZenz 11:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my mistake, i confused the start of the second half of season two with the beginning of the thrid season... sorry... I had thought I had backtracked my error completely.

I found some vandalism on your page while tracking a user. I have reverted it for you. Hope this is OK. Mikeroberts 14:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second recreation of

Personally I liked the Jan 4th box (never saw the New Year Day box). After the Lord High Executioners of Userbox Templates had their way, I recreated it in non-template version on my page under "Pseudo-Babel." — Eoghanacht ^talk 16:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that since you and many other editors felt that I should clarify my positions better I have expanded my answers to people's questions and have clarified my statements. I would appreciate it if you could take another look when you get the chance.

I believe this would be a better image: [4], since there's more visible than just the screen. I'll leave it up to you to change this if you agree. --Dantheox 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

As long as it exists, it is worthy of inclusion. Kurt Weber 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]