User talk:Glassnote

Re: your note on my talk page. Heh, sorry for the mixup. I didn't actually leave the barnstar on your talk page, that was from

I did, however, edit that barnstar section of your talk page to remove some wiki-code which was causing your user talk page to be included into a category which just contains templates. You can see exactly what was done by using the history page and the "Compare selected versions" button to see a difference before and after. diff link. But good job on improving that article, it is definitely in better shape than most articles only a month old. — MrDolomite • Talk 07:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renominating the article at

• Just a note, I have passed this article. There were a few comments - please review them on the talk page. Naerii 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, in some places the references are formatted as:

• "complex interplay of transparent glass with multiple overlays of thin color. [6]"

When it should be:

• "complex interplay of transparent glass with multiple overlays of thin color.[6]"

Hope that makes sense. Thanks again. naerii 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on that article. Sorry to have taken so long to reply -- I'm not often around Wikipedia these days. No need to apologize for editing and improving an article, though, in any case. I'm thrilled to see someone go to the effort. Shimeru (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just noticed the note you left me (2 months ago!) regarding removing stub designations. I must apologise for not replying sooner. It looks like you found what you were looking for. Just a note for future, it is better to post messages on a persons talkpage rather than the userpage (You get a message bar if your talk page is edited but not if your userpage is edited). Again I am sorry for not replying earlier. Waacstats (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Littleton Blue Crown web .jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 16:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not

").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

sign your comments

with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

articles for deletion

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Citing e-mail sources

Hello Glassnote. I don't think Wikipedia accepts e-mail sources, private information isn't verifiable. Can you remove that from the article

Vejvančický (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

re: Hello

Hi, and thank you for the note of encouragement. Best wishes,

talk) 14:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Talkback

Hello, Glassnote. You have new messages at Shimeru's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Art Jewelry Forum

Hello, I am working on a pet project to help digitize information about the field of metalsmithing+jewelry. I started with making a page for Art jewelry forum (AJF), and have a list of artists that I would like to make pages for as well. The AJF page has been nominated for deletion because it is questioned if the organization is "notable". I am reaching out to you because I saw that you edited some pages that relate to studio craft, and thought you may have an informed opinion (unlike the mathematician who nominated the page for deletion) about whether or not it is a "notable organization". If you have an opinion, one way or another, please way in on the articles for deletion discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Art_jewelry_forumClarefinin (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Harvey Littleton revisited

Hi. I am working over time to edit and update the Harvey Littleton page. You did a great job on it to start with. I am taking advantage of Joan Falconer Byrd's 2011 bio of Littleton, which was not available when you did most of the work, to correct and expand the info on the page. I am trying hard to respect the work that you did initially. Please follow along as I make changes ... Following some initial cleaning up, I'm working section by section and will probably take days-to-weeks ... and feel free to complain (or even the dreaded revert) if you don't like what I'm doing!! Punty Jon (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Littleton-Vogel Sumac.JPG

The file File:Littleton-Vogel Sumac.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 01:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]