Clevelander96

Does not your userpage contradict itself? You name yourself and give a brief bio but then say egos disappear amidst anonymity. C.m.jones 04:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I named myself simply because I agree somewhat with the editors at Citizendium, in whose fields I labored for a time, that a real-name policy would probably be a good thing. As for disappearing, that takes care of itself; what are four articles out of 1.5 million? Time takes care of the rest. But you have a point; I have deleted the more personal references from my user page.

Thanks for posting. Rapotter 10:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the article. If you are interested in G&S, check out WP:G&S. -- Ssilvers 03:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I beefed up the article a bit more. Take a look if you have time. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello -- thanks for your cleanup of Steven Millhauser -- but I have a question. Won't taking away the piped LastName/First Name details on the various categories have the effect of mis-indexing this article (under S instead of under M)?

Rapotter 14:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, because of

{{DEFAULTSORT:Millhauser, Steven}}

all categories that contain Steven Millhauser will be sorted as "Millhauser, Steven". Just take a look at any of its category. =) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looking good! A better arrangement altogether. Thanks for taking the trouble. I've added a caption to the picture, as I like not having to click through for the info, but the phrasing may need improvement. --HJMG 11:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanx for the kind words regarding this article. Editing for wiki has the benefit of expanding one's world view. (I was watching the Discovery HD show and went to the article for further info) Likewise with The Archers--I started with Colonel Blimp, was dazzled by Anton Walbrook's other tour de force in The Red Shoes, and then another editor here (after tweaking my editions to the Red Shoes article) turned me onto A Canterbury Tale. I caught Black Narcissus on Turner Classic Movies one afternoon when I was home sick from work. So credit wiki a bit for that. Again thank you, and yes, definitely see you around these pages. John AKA--Buckboard 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hudson's Bay locations and people:
AFAIK the exteriors of that segment were filmed in Wolstenholme (c.f. pic at [1]) and they were local Inuit hired to play the extras. I don't know the name of the person that fired the shot. But there's a delicious irony that it was one of the "lesser races" that killed one of the "master race". The Archers travelled all over Canada to get the shots they wanted and to try to give a feeling for the size and the different parts of Canada and different types of Canadian people. My site at [2] lists the following locations for 49P (as we abbreviate it):

• Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Canada
  (Submarine scenes)
• Wolstenholme, Québec, Canada
  (Hudson's Bay Company segment)
• Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, Canada
  (Where the plane crash lands)
• Lake O'Hara, British Columbia, Canada
  (Philip Armstrong Scott segment)
• Banff, Alberta, Canada
  (Indian Day)
• Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada
• Studio: D&P; Studios, Denham
• Studio: Associated Sound News Studios, Montreal
  (Ray Massey's scenes)

Their trips to Canada are covered in some detail in Powell's autobiography A Life in Movies and there are other views (not always complimentary) in The Celluloid Mistress; or, the Custard pie of Dr. Caligari by Rodney Ackland (co-writer) or Seventy Light Years by Freddie Young (cinematographer) -- SteveCrook 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Garrett A. Morgan. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. John254 03:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please lay off the article Garrett A. Morgan, as it appears as though you are attempting to provide a one sided view. There are many sources out there for the claims that you are removing. I am busy right now and cannot, at the moment add them, but would appreciate if you do dispute them (with a tag), rather than delete them. Please put a tag {{fact}} beside the disputed claim. I do believe you are editing in good faith, but please allow the good faith of others also. It is good practice to first put a tag beside the disputed content, than to remove it altogether. That way others can realize it is in dispute and that they should do further research to back up the info. Again, please allow time until the sourses are added to the disputed content. (It takes time, there are many.) Thanks. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mac Davis contacted me about this article since only administators can protect pages and he's not an administrator. Could you please provide me with more detailed specifics about the nature of the vandalism you mentioned to him and the names of the vandals, so I can provide a quicker assistence. Trawling each individual edit on the history page and evaluating what is true and what's not would take too much time for someone who's not involved in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you so much for your note. Here is a description of the problem I just left with John254, which I hope will clarify things:

Please have another look at the talk and history pages for Garrett A. Morgan. It is others, not I, who have repeatedly deleted the article's content and links, specifically two sections which very clearly set out the readily verifiable facts that Morgan' "safety hood" and traffic signal, though certainly valid inventions, were far from the first of their kind. These sections are accurately referenced and verifiable, and had been part of the entry for many months before users -- firstly several anonymous IP users, and then two named users -- repeatedly cut these items out, claiming that their source was tainted. Have a look at the source yourself -- you will see that, whatever motives might be attributed to the "Brinkster" site, every single statement there is referenced in considerable depth in scholarly articles as well as with original newspaper clippings, photos, and more than seventy original US patents linked directly to their sources at the US Patent and Trademark Office. These prior patents are (or perhaps now, I should say, were) referenced by number and with details in the sections of the entry itself. The most recent edits, I imagine, were attempts at compromise, but again reasserted inaccurate and undocumented claims, such as that Morgan's gas mask was "revised" and that this revision "led to" the modern gas mask. I certainly would be happy to see others edit, improve, and extend the article, that's the wiki way! But these edits have simply led to the entry's re-assertion, without proper sources or documentation, of plainly false claims. I myself am a local historian with a long familiarity with Morgan's life and work; I have researched Morgan's personal papers (though I am also mindful of the policy against original research, and always abide by it, documenting claims exetrnally). These folks who aer chopping out this content seem to be led by a misguided sort of boosterism for African-American invetion, where plain facts must be suppressed to make a certain man's achievements more glorious; I am also a lifelong advocate for African-American achievements and history, but because of that commoitment, do not wish to see positive falsely positive claims advanced any more than I would like to see falsely negative ones.

I believe that if you take a closer look at the article's Talk and History pages, you will see that I have attempted a reasoned discussion with everyone (most of them anonymous persons who do not sign their poists). I have offered tpo contact, and would still be very happy to have, an third-party mediator; if you yourself are an administrator (not clear from your pages), please forward my request for the same. I have spent many an anxious hour doing what I can to follow all the WP policies and to keep the entry accurate, NPOV, sourced, and documented, but this experience has been very sad and sobering, Clevelander96 08:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Note: the "vandalism" as such (repeated content removal) was by anonymous IP users (e.g. 198.36.23.228). I do not think that the most recent deletes have been vandalism as such, just attempts at patching up the entry by wikipedians who didn't take a close look a the history and talk pages. Jeeny, a friendly wikipedian whom I don't know personally, has been very helpful and has tried, as have I, to stop the repeated deletes of sourced material; you could contact her/him for another view of the recent edit war. Clevelander96 08:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Clevelander, you can use those papers if you can either have them scanned, or else use the name of the paper, article, journal, or whatever and put the page number and date or whatever accurate sources information. I understand your frustration, when there are some subjects which seem to have little or conflicting online references to compare, when you know something that was written is official and accurate. What kind of papers did you research from? Can you use them as references, are they in a special section of the library? If so, could they let you make copies? Do you have any personal books about the man? You can use those, if you use the title of book, page number and the ISBN # too? I do have some info in a folder on my hard drive to sort through, (conflicting stories, which I need to compare for accuracy and properly sourced) because I have to do more research on the sources, and like you said, I do not want to violate OR either. There are so many that either word it differently that making it look as though he was the first at the gas mask or never did anything first, etc., and the same with the first traffic light, but it wasn't the one known, but it was different and notable, etc. The wording needs to be changed, to reflect this, because I feel it is notable but, again, do not want to indulge in original research. I changed (I think it was me) the heading "Gas Mask", to "Safety Hood" in hopes that would help some of the disputes. Obviously it did not. Morgan's mask was not the same, from what I've read, as the gas mask most of us have come to know, and was not used in the service (I think), by my sources, but it was used and did have its purpose, and is notable. There is a great story that was in the paper at the time (not that I was old enough to read then), that credits him using his mask and saving those people. I would love that to be in the article. In fact, it was in Cleveland and they named a water works plant after him. That bit isn't in the article, or it only has a very small blurb which I feel should be expanded and included in it's entirety. Do you know that one or have access? I'm sorry I can't be of much help right now. I put work on this article on the back burner because there seems to be so much work to sort through (seeming to discredit him, rightly or wrongly so), and wish to carefully word the article so that to not make false claims, but claims that are important, notable and worthy to be in the article, IMO. You being in Cleveland may have it's advantages, if you can find the sources to back up claims. Sorry for rambling, I am so busy right now with many other things, and fear those with a grudge may destroy a good article and a noteworthy one. Another problem I'm finding, is what I think, some that actually copy from misinformation, and that gets copied elsewhere, and so on. Some from Wikipedia itself! lol. So now I do not know what is fact or misinformation, OR, POV, etc. <shrug> Good luck and hang in there. Things seem to right themselves, with help of course, over time. please forgive any grammar, spelling mistakes, or rambling I made. I am so rushed and hope I made some sense. - Jeeny ^Talk 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

copied from the talk page:

Clevelander, please do NOT quit. Take a break. This will work out. The problem is the wording, and the sources too that seem to be contradictory. One is the "light" as it was not a "light" at all, but a "sign", but that it served in a way a "light" would have and does now. Similar to a stop sign? It's the prose that needs to be changed, because the contributions of this man have been exaggerated in some sources and diminished in others. The wording is the problem, more so than the sources. I am not a writer or I would gladly take on the assignment. If one of you are, please try to word the article differently to present accurate information. If neither of you feel comfortable about rewriting the disputed claims, perhaps asking for an expert, (I think they supposedly exist here on wikipedia, but don't know where off hand to find that source, different from a moderator, I think) to help tweak the prose so it includes all the information and is formal? I would hate to lose good editors like you. We need you. If not, this will just stay as it is. It takes time, and sometimes it seems a futile effort, and, oh how I know, can be exhausting. Now that it has been made known that this is a hot issue, others will help out, and it will not be on just a couple of editor's "shoulders". Just add the dispute tags, or reword in a NPOV way, little by little and do what you can, for now. Come back later and add a bit more. Don't give up! I know it's tough. DO NOT GIVE UP! - Jeeny Talk 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Garrett_A._Morgan"

Oh, I think I know someone who may be of help. He's very busy but I'm going to ask him. His user name is Awadewit. - Jeeny ^Talk 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

I understand. Can I copy your article from the link? Just kidding. I have some of those images, some better quality in my folder). But like I said, I have been busy, and I just happened upon the article a while back and never knew of the man before then. That is one reason I do not do much to the article but minor edits, grammar, image placement, etc. Today, I've asked a couple of editors to evaluate the situation (one is an administrator, Ezeu, with whom I've worked with before on African and genetic related subjects, and the other is a very bright editor who is a graduate student in English literature (busy writing his dissertation) and does peer review all the time.) They both said they would take a look, and try to help. Both are very fair, and very different too (in a good way), both are very bright. Please reconsider. If you leave, damn it, it will be full of vandals and kids playing games. :( We need you with your credentials! Can't you do both? Please? - Jeeny ^Talk 21:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The brownies worked? Good to "see" you back. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 15:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, thanks for the brownies -- I haven't utterly abandoned hope. What the Wikipedia needs, I think, is some sort of 'rapid response' team to defuse edit wars, check sources, and consult if need be with experts in the field. The random, let's wait for the collective approach doesn't work very well, I fear, when this kind of dispute erupts. It's like sending firefighters after the house has already burned down! I've seen several efforts to correct the article's problems, but almost as soon as it's improved, someone comes along and undoes all the good work.

I'd invite you, though, to sign up for Citizendium; we could use someone of your gifts there! Citizendium's entries are free from vandalism, and the expertise of experts counts for something in the rare cases when a dispute arises. Discussion is civil, and no one can edit from an anonymous IP address! You can sign up here. All best, Clevelander96 15:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the invite but I am an expert at nothing. I totally agree 100% with your analogy of the fire/firemen and about the "rapid response team." I thank you for complimenting on what you feel are "my gifts", but that is all I have. I have a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, as I lack any great knowledge or expertise in any one field, or any field for that matter. I have no published works -- well none encyclopedic, and they are no longer "out there" for anyone to see or easily verified without actual physical contact to the sources, such as, via phone or mail.

My userpage is kind of making fun of Wikipedia editors (begun when I was frustrated, much like yourself, by contributions being made, and from looking at the user pages of certain editors, where most seemed (the ones I viewed at the time, anyway) to be children in high school!) where they posted userboxes such as "This user is fluent in English", "This user likes to play video games", "This user is a teenager", "This user is female", "This person knows no French", "This user hates (...)" etc., etc. lol.

Although, every single thing on my page is true, it is esoteric and cryptic. Displaying only a glimpse into my sarcastic personality and a bit, although useless to the project, generic personal background info. (Like you, I became very cynical, upset, disturbed, by the "anyone" can edit, although it sounded like a great concept and I was so excited at first, I quickly became disillusioned as there seemed to be too many out to have malicious fun, fun, as in, those who think graffiti is a cool thing (although it can be, in the proper place), or throwing rocks at cars on the highway from an overpass.

Since then, I've mellowed and decided to stay, for a little bit of that, and a little bit of this. Something of a self-proclaimed policeman/woman, of sorts. I keep my page, as it is, because it's fun and I dare not put my real name or any credentials, I may or may not have, for fear of the Internet boogieman (although I do banking online, but that's different). There are many out there, boogiemen, dontchaknow. It's the only real fear I still own. Although, anyone who may know me personally, and should access my userpage, will know my true identity immediately, or should if they truly know me. I only have something to hide from those I feel can do me harm, no telling what they would do if they had access to me directly if I should cross them. The few who are the boogiemen, that is.

The site you directed to me is exciting to me too. I really hope it works out, and becomes what Wikipedia was meant to be. Although I do feel that there are those, without PhD's and published works, could be benefical to this type of work too, but that a person should, at least, have character witness statements to allow the minor edits. So I'll be watching and reading. :)

Oh, hey, I'm an expert at rambling! Do I qualify now? I could get many to verify that. :p You for one. I stink at writing too. I contribute by adding bits here and there (knowing my limitations), formating outline, grammar, spelling, etc., that's my thing. Oh, and handing out a few admonishments for vandalism. I'm an associate, a director, (and hall monitor) not a producer or writer. Take care. - Jeeny ^Talk 19:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Lockwood combo.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 03:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Clevelander96. 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. As a near neighbor, your help would be appreciated. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Gilmour Crest.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, We saw and were pleased by your note on the John Franklin talk page. I'm working on a summary to replace the material we move from the John Franklin biography page to the new page. We are considering carefully what the new page should be called. Franklin Expedition has the advantage of simplicity but could be problematic because Franklin went on other Arctic expeditions before the final fatal one. Do you have any preferences or recommendations about the title? Finetooth (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know, the two of us who wanted to split out the page have done so. The new article is Franklin's Northwest Passage expedition of 1845. We have begun to modify it to conform to the Manual of Style, to check the sources, to subtract material (about Tasmania, for example) that properly belongs to the biography but not to the expedition page, and to add new material. Any advice you'd care to give at any point will be appreciated. Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a note from a friend and fellow native of "the best location in the nation". Thanks for your work on the John Bassette article. I was a fan, and compiled all I could find at the time. There are a few editors who have made a habit of attacking pretty much everything I have written for reasons of their own, so I am always happy to have additional editors input on articles I create or heavily edit. They are less likely to automatically delete other editors' input, even if the content is identical. If not for them, I doubt Bassette's notability would ever have been questioned.

John's story was pretty tragic, but his fans and friends remember him fondly, and it is my hope that his music will be re-released some day. There must be clean copies of his albums somewhere (or the masters thereof), and I know of a few live tapes that have never been released in any format that would be acceptable to today's market. I can only hope John's rich baritone and fun style will be heard by future fans of good honest folk music. Rosencomet (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I truly appreciate it. If I had thought of it sooner, I might have awarded each of us a half-barnstar because Franklin's lost expedition was a joint effort, and we succeeded together. Perhaps our paths will cross again. My best. Finetooth (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There wasn't a map in the article I edited. I just copied the map (lock, stock, and barrel) in the Franklin's lost expedition article to the John Franklin article. If the caption is wrong, feel free to edit it in both articles. --Work permit (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clevelander. I'm a public affairs officer contracted to a DoD program. We are trying to locate members of Garrett A. Morgan's family in order to invite them to a ceremony we're planning. Do you have a point-of-contact who could act as an intermediary? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.10.12 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the question. Quite a few years ago when I was in Cleveland, I briefly met Morgan's granddaughter Tracy Morgan Diaz; there's also another granddaughter named Margo Morgan living in the area. I don't have any current contact information on the family, but quite a few of them are still living in the Greater Cleveland area; you might try contacting the Western Reserve Historical Society there, which has Morgan's papers, to see if they can assist you. Clevelander96 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is the best help I've received in my short quest to find a POC for his family. I appreciate it and thank you very much! If I am successful, I will let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.10.12 (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Crozier.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, O Mighty Bot, but that ain't my image -- some time ago I mistakenly replaced that (existing) image with another, and only re-uploaded it when I realized my error. The upload history of that file should show who the original uploader was. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem; it happens. ... discospinster _talk 17:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

On my wonderful page, you said:

Dear Pdeitiker -- may I say I was a bit disappointed by your almost-instant tagging of the new entry I created for Tookoolito . She's one of the most significant Inuit women in the history of Canada, as can already be seen by her having an entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia, and having been the subject of a recent book. A complete bibliography would include over 700 articles and sixteen recent books (I plan to add only the most significant of these).

First off, I did not target the page for deletion, or afd, so don't be too disappointed. The page relied solely on one reference and the references were not cited within the text. Wikipedia has some rather strict rules regarding WP:biographies and many biographies get placed on speedy delete. I actually thought the page was interesting topic, but in order to prevent it from being deleted the primary editor needs to do some fast work. May I recommend in the future you created a page for example

User:Clevelander96/Sandbox within your area and work on the page until the biographies guidelines are met, in this way is would not be targeted for deletion or tagged.PB666 ^yap 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

But tagging the initial version of a new entry within 12 hours of its creation seems a little overzealous to me.

Tags are tags until you have an Afd or speedy delete, such as I went through for GEWEX. Don't take it personal, I am just recommending a strategy for preventing the wasted time of an Afd by better preparing the page. The most likely period in which an article is going to be tagged is within the first 2 hours, and the most likely reason for tagging is inadequate context, tone, vandalism, or lack of references and citing. Most of the articles, unfortunately, that I patrol on Special:Newpages are either already tagged, or I tag them, the average number of tags is 2. Spend some time reviewing the newpages and you will realize why using a Sandbox saves other people the effort other than pushing the [this page was patrolled] link.PB666 ^yap 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm an Arctic scholar who has spent many hours working to improve the English wikipedia (yes, of course I am familiar with the principles against original research), but it's disheartening to have a negative tag such as this already at the article's top.

While I don't use the word scholar as some easily profess. I study diseases of affluence and chronic diseases with a particular focus on Native Americans, I am as well versed in Native American history and prehistory as any molecular geneticist can be (particularly given the fact I own the molecular anthropology group on Yahoo). You may be aware that Westernization of indigenous peoples of the Arctic has some recently peaked interest among the Inuit of Eastern Canada. However wiki requires a WP:NPOV and I have to look at the article from a biographies point of view and the fact that many, longer, articles are deleted within minutes of being created, so that in order to both alert and warn that this article may reach the level of articles for deletion that the primary author needs to work quickly on the article. One of the criteria is that the creator relies two heavily on a single reference, that is acceptable grounds for posting an articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Biographies#Basic_criteria

The tag has been removed as the article is now adequately cited. A couple of issues, during the period of the Early Little Ice Age it was reported that two Greenlandic Inuit children were brought to England after being found close to an abandoned norse settlement, IIRC they were picked up by Bristol pirates. Exemplary of the fact these 'first such' claims tend to be vacuous - small incidental issue. The bigger issue is context, I am familiar with the location of both Baffin Island and The Labrador sea, but the Cumberland Sound I am unaware of by name, therefore its location (Island and connection to Sea) needs to be pointed to. Some context on the Polaris expedition needs to be given. You could provide a map of the Labrador sea showing the Cumberland sound and the Hall Bay and also the wreck of the Polaris and the drift (on both pages would be adequate).PB666 ^yap 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see the tag has been removed. I'll be able to look it over better later. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've nominated Tookoolito, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on July 12, where you can improve it if you see fit. Also, thank you for putting in the refs so quickly. Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, Clevelander96. Glad that you're okay with my DYK hook. Your nice new article will likely get featured on MainPage tomorrow or so. Congrats in advance. I hope you don't have to wait another 2 years for a third DYK.  :) Please feel free to nominate your work. Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting stuff on the discontinuation of the Baird system - do you happen to have a reference handy that we can put into the article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll provide a reference for this and other changes -- the book JLB: A Life, co-written by Baird's son Malcolm, is the best source to date, and corrects many myths which have sifted down into reference works, WP among them! Clevelander96 (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I was looking at an image you uploaded (Torring grave sm.jpg) and I was going to move it to Wikimedia Commons, so that it can be accessible to all Wikimedia projects. You listed yourself as the author of the image. Now, you are also listed by name as the author for these (duplicate) images as well: Beechey.jpg and BeecheyIsland_Graves.jpg. However, each image was uploaded by a different user (both of which are apparently inactive) and were released under different licensing, so I'm just making sure you are the author, and that you created that other image (in both guises). I'd also like to encourage you to upload any other images you have to the Commons (especially at higher resolution), as the ones you have already shared are rare and of great value! - Gump Stump (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, the unified login has been implemented now, so you can merge accounts from different wiki projects into one username and login; it's very simple to do, and saves a lot of future hassle. The sticking point is that with 'version 1.0', the merging of login info only works on your accounts if they have the same username. Since you have a different username on Wikipedia and Commons, you might want to have one of the names changed to be the same as the other before applying the unification. I think you can also ask to have your old inactive accounts merged into your active one, but I'm not sure how that works. Check that page I linked to, and it should have the info. - Gump Stump (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Clevelander: I'll re-post this from my talk page here, so you'll see it quicker: Thanks - I am realizing while reading it, that Parry's book is not really a serious historical record, it's written a little sensationally, and I plan on citing other books. My plan is to work through the Parry book, then replace as many citations as I can with other sources, like Berton and Fleming. Thanks for the tip on the Loomis book. Which Mowat book are you referring to? As you see, I consulted The Polar Passion and have cited it. By the way, thanks for your offer to help, it would be appreciated. How about letting me finish this re-write (I'll get through the Parry book) then if you could replace some of the citations (or back up more controversial ones) with the books in your library, or any other re-writes you like, that would be great. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your offer to help. I have access to Ninety Degrees North and The Arctic Grail in my local library; I can get the Loomis book via interlibrary loan from Toronto but I'm not sure how long that will take. I think I'll look at The Arctic Grail next. I'll be in touch. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clevelander: I saw your contributions to this article - thanks. I am done with the Parry book; I added details from the Navy board of inquiry. Hopefully some other references can be found to back up these details. I'm going to have a look at the Berton book next. Zatoichi26 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi again: Have a look at the Polaris discussion page, I'll start a discussion there in preparation for submitting this for GA status. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clevelander: I finished with the Fergus book, and added some relevant information. Just to let you know: I'm on a bit of a timeline to get this to GA status (or maybe even FA, who knows), as my wife is expecting (due date middle of March), so following that I will not have any time for Wikipedia for awhile. So if you have any more contributions, can you make them in the next week? Don't mean to rush you - if you don't have time I will probably nominate for GA anyway, as it is pretty good already. Zatoichi26 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again! I may not have a lot of time this week, but will try to front-load some material on the official inquiry, and add some further notes from Loomis. I think it's close to GA status right now -- but you might try contacting Finetooth, who worked with me quite a bit on Franklin's lost expedition. There are so many small WMOS matters to be attended to with a GA nomination, and Finetooth is excellent with such careful work, if he has the time. Best, Clevelander96 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Clevelander: thanks for your help getting Polaris Expedition to GA status! Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've come here via the Chaucer talk page (where, incidentally, you commented on a suggestion/query of mine). Anyway, this week I have some free time and a whole legal deposit library at my disposal, so I was going to have a go at sorting out the inline citations for the article, in the hope that I can help get it up to GA status soon, and - seeing as you seem to be one of the more learned and active editors of the article - I thought that I'd let you know in case you have any suggestions for areas that are in particular need of sourcing, or indeed expanding/trimming. Reply here or on my talk page, either way. Thanks. Hadrian89 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

my response [3]

South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 18:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

see [4] again.South-East7™^Talk/_Contribs 19:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clevelander. I've just removed the publication details for Wanting that you added to the Mathinna page. I think this information is relevant on the Flanagan page (or on a page for the book itself) but is probably too much detail on the Mathinna page. Happy to discuss further though if you disagree. Cheers, Sterry2607 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response Clevelander. I'm trying to find some good examples in Wikipedia and of course am finding a variety of approaches. My thinking is that the article on Mathinna is not the place for the publication history of a work featuring her. (An interesting example is the article on Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc - it's by no means a perfect article but has a go at listing works that feature her). The publication history belongs I think to the page for the book or if that doesn't exist the page for the author. However, I think it would be ok to give the first edition publisher and ISBN, as in: Wanting (Knopf, ISBN 978 1 74166 655 7). How does that sound to you? (I guess what I'm saying is that the strength of Wikipedia is in the hyperlinking rather than in duplicating the same information in several places.) Anyhow, let me know what you think. Sterry2607 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, no, that's fine. I hold no illusions that Providence public schools are in great shape or that we should pretend in the article that they are, but the statement that its schools were struggling was inconsistent, or at least not supported, by the source there. If we have sources that support the message of the schools struggling, I have no problem with commenting in the article that that's so.--Loodog (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested in the continuation of your Pogues question on The Raft of the Medusa's talk page.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 19:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

→ ROUX ₪ 20:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw your statement and added it to the file information [5]. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clevelander. Agreeing with your suggestion, I removed the LFBE section from the Henry W. Howgate article and placed it into its own article. LFBE would benefit from another editor's attention if you're so inclined. Note, there's also a lot of info regarding the expedition at Adolphus Greely#Lady Franklin Bay expedition; I'm unsure at the moment how to deal with consolidation. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Zorn child sm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

My reply to your comment. Thanks.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I moved our discussion to Talk:Lollardy#Caption_of_Wycliffe.2FLollard_picture.--Jim10701 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is to thank you for your continuing interest in this article, and to let you know that I have now nominated it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Brown University has been a recurring candidate for the Universities Collaboration of the Month but it has been short the votes necessary to win on several occasions. If you'd like to see a concerted effort to improve the article on your alma mater, please drop by the collaboration page to cast your vote. Also feel free to help improve our current collaborations during their last few days. Cheers! -Mabeenot (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since you expressed some difficulty in reverting vandalism to a page, I've taken the liberty of enabling rollback for your account. Since rollback does not allow you leave a customized edit summary, please ensure that you only use it to revert obvious vandalism, or similar cases in which your intentions cannot be misconstrued. I will also protect the Garrett Morgan page as you requested. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much! I hadn't realized that this was a possibility. What had happened was that two users were having a sort of vandalizing "chat," such that each reverted the other's edits, and trying to undo any of them produced edit conflicts. So this would be an ideal tool -- I'll certainly use it only when no other tool will do the trick, and make sure I comment on the article Talk page. 14:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it so that both uses of foreign are now exotic, "...captured a exotic culture (that is, Indigenous and considered exotic to European colonizers)...". I'm wondering if it should read "...captured what was then seen as an exotic culture (that is, Indigenous and considered exotic to European colonizers)..." or would most people still see it as an exotic culture? Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 02:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 10:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

(We'd love for you to join us, and could really use your help!) Ryecatcher773 (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are confused. Redirection is not deletion, and does not involve or require AFD. AFD is for the use of the deletion tool, which you don't possess, not for making redirects with the ordinary editing tool that you do possess. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Understood, of course -- but the content of the article was blanked, that is, essentially deleted and replaced by a redirect. I felt (and feel) that the article should be improved rather than turned onto a redirect. Clevelander96 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dear Cleve,

I just created a "Past acts" section for this article, but I'm having a hard time establishing a list of notable acts I can verify. I believe Phil Ochs and Buzzy Linhart both appeared on stage there, for instance, and I'm sure Michael Stanley Band did. If you have the time, would you consider contributing (and perhaps to the article in general)? Rosencomet (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rosencomet,

Sure, I'll have a look and see what I can add. That's amazing, and news to me, if Ochs played there -- I will see if I can confirm that, at least. Regards, Clevelander96 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I've seen that are you are a member of the Wikiproject: Visual Arts and I would like to ask you for some help. The Wikipedia in Catalan have reached an agreement with the Joan Miró Foundation: They will include QRpedia codes next to the highlights of his upcoming exhibition about Joan Miró. It's the most important exhibit in the last 20 years, and has passed summer at Tate in London, this autumn will be in Barcelona, and then will go to NGA in Washington. The articles have been made in Catalan and are being translated into English, and I would like you to help us whether monitoring the translation, translating articles or expanding or translating them to other languages. The more languages ​​we have, the better the experience for the user. You can find more information about the Wikiproject here. Thank you in advance!.--Kippelboy (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you said there (in 2008) that you contacted the copyright holders. Do you still have their contact? I have a question about translation of her lyrics in other language. Thanks. --Shakko (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States 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.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just created an article for guitarist Jim Miller, with sections on the bands Oroboros and JiMiller Band. I would certainly welcome any help with it, as you did for John Bassette. Thanks.Rosencomet (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to point out, in case it's not on your watchlist, that a notability tag has been put on the John Bassette article again. I'm afraid it may have more to do with the fact that I am a contributor than anything else; over 30 of the articles I've edited have had big chunks edited out and/or been challenged on notability by this same editor.Rosencomet (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'll look into this. If anything, notability should be easer to show today than it was back then -- there are more books, articles in Billboard (one with a photo of John at the Newport Folk Festival!), many more online refs! Clevelander96 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

As someone who is listed as a participant for WikiProject Poetry, I hope you will be interested to learn of an attempt to revive the WP and alongside this the creation of task force to improve coverage of The Canterbury Tales. We are currently looking for participants to help set up the basics. Please get involved if you can, and we can hopefully revive this important project within Wikipedia! Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, have you ever studied the Fiala expedition? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know a bit about it -- a friend is a descendant of Fiala, and I have an interest in the films he shot -- but much of what I know would be WP:NOR verboten. However, I'll have a look at the entry for Fiala and see what I can add that is sourced. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! Yes, I saw that you are one of the main editors of info about the Polaris expedition in general. I'm reading Hall's and Tyson's writing and some others on the subject and can see there are some thorny issues. Descriptions of Hall's different expeditions could use some work. His relationship with Budington, Ebierbing and Tookoolito should probably be described more carefully. They are all so interesting! --Lizzard (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why you took up this review as you're not an active editor. If you could complete the review when you have a moment I'd be grateful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I took up the review because I'm actually an expert in early films with Arctic subjects, and since I've had practically nothing to do with this particular entry, it seemed reasonable for me to assess it. As to "active" I suppose it's a matter of degree -- I've been contributing, mostly in very minor ways, to WP for years! -- on the other hand, I have a life :). I've worked on a few GA's in my time, though not in this capacity -- but I do have a question for you: how exactly does one complete a review -- has enough time lapsed, have enough contributions been made -- or does one just "make it so"?Clevelander96 (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Complete a review? Offer some pointers for improvement, then assess against the GA criteria. Add the checklist and pass then list it on the GA page. Review completed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have posted a comment to the Talk page of Franklin's Lost Expedition concerning the edit of mine that you reverted and would welcome your contributions to the discussion. Gould363 (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'll go read your comments there! Clevelander96 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Baird Televisor was specific piece of equipment. Specifically the early display unit. See here. The device in the picture is a camera as the original image caption says. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The image was originally published in John Logie Baird: A Pictorial Representation of Television Development, 1928-1938, edited by Burns and Winbolt and published in 2001 by Kelly Publications. Its caption there reads "Mr. John L. Baird carrying out early Television experiments in March 1925." Elsewhere in the book, this same apparatus is referred to as either a "transmitter" or a "receiver" -- they were essentially identical in construction as you can see here [6] and here [7] -- and so it isn't always possible to determine whether such a device in a photo is being used as one or the other.

Anyway, I don't think that "camera" really does justice to the device shown, although, if being used as a transmitter (as seems likely given the lamp visible next to Mr. Baird), it is at least in part functioning as a camera). How about "television apparatus"? I agree, "Televisor" really refers to the Plessy device (as shown in the link you cite), but "camera" does not seem to me to be fully accurate. Clevelander96 (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is not clear what the image next to Baird is. It looks as though it may be a reflection in the glass. The images that you linked to appear to be simplistic images. The camera diagram is mostly correct. The questionable part is the AC generator. The system was designed to work with a single channel wireless system, so it is not clear what the AC generator is doing. Baird relied on the extra long black interval between scans for synchronisation, and his method was magnificently simple. The receiver, did not have lenses in the scanning disc but just holes as they passed in front of a plate neon. Nor did they have a spiral slotted disc behind the main disc. The link to the service manual from the site I linked to above, shows fairly well how it was done. The camera had a need to focus an image on a relativley small photocell but the receiver did not. The equivalent today is the lens in front of the video pickup device, but a display device lacks any lenses. The other issue is scale. Baird cameras were relatively large, but his receivers though large for the eventual picture size were comparatively small limited by the available size of plate neon. I agree, that 'television apparatus' is sufficiently neutral yet accurate enough for the purpose. I have made the change. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. Yes, you're right, those images are simplified -- but interestingly, they come from a set of glass lantern slides Baird himself used in several lectures! I do agree that the apparatus in this particular image is certainly being used as a camera (you're right to point out that a receiver would have just pinholes, not lenses), but it is always hard to tell exactly why given pieces of equipment are present in photos of Baird from this period -- according to the book co-written by his son Malcolm, when old "J.L." allowed photographs, he sometimes swapped parts of his apparatus in and out, or added superfluous items, in order to prevent competitors from getting the jump on him! The apparatus at the old Science Musuem (now at Bradford) contained things such a a light-splitter which Baird had long before then stopped using). Perhaps he did the same sort of thing with his diagrams! Clevelander96 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

That makes perfect sense. I reckon Baird guarded his intellectual property just as jelously as people do today. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Aloha. Have you been able to take a look at the Ella Young article? I admit that it probably isn't ready for a GA nomination, but I would like to at least get us moving in that direction. Please review when you have a chance. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you give some tender love and care to the Disappearance of Beverly Potts article? I could use the help. Paul Austin (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Rapper's Delight page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You should have gotten an email from me about this - could you please either fill out the linked form, or email me if you didn't get it? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ping. Please respond if you're still interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Velaslavasay Panorama at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Velaslavasay Panorama at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. A user has asked a question about the year date used in the hook. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that -- I have corrected the date and made a note in the DYK nominations entry. Clevelander96 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

— Maile (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

[[ File:Ohio Wikimedians User Group logo without text.svg|175px|right|link=:meta:Ohio Wikimedians User Group]]

Hi Clevelander96,

I'm Kevin, one of the founding members of the Ohio Wikimedians User Group. Created in July 2016, we're working to be a central group of Ohio Wikimedians who organize and support offline events, promote the Wikimedia movement in Ohio, build connections throughout our state, and above all, support each other. We already have a handful of members and have worked to support multiple events, including Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States and several Art+Feminism edit-a-thons at universities throughout Ohio.

I wanted to reach out to you and invite you to join the Ohio Wikimedians User Group. Being a part of the user group will allow easy communication between active Ohio editors, notifications of upcoming events in the Ohio area, and, if you're interested, the opportunity to help organize events such as edit-a-thons or workshops. Some notes:

• All members receive a monthly newsletter with recent happenings, upcoming events, and more. Check out our April newsletter here.
• This Thursday at 8:30 EST, we're having our first online meeting. Check out our meeting page here for more details, an agenda, and a section to sign up if you'd like to join us. Topics will include introductions and brainstorming for future projects.

Right now we have a Wikipedia Takes Columbus photo event going on, a Wiknic coming up this summer, and opportunities to attend the upcoming Ohio Private Academic Libraries Conference. If you're interested in joining us, feel free to add your name here - and feel free to reach out to me (or post on the user group's talk page) with questions or discussions. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

John Wycliffe was not burned at the stake , only John Huss was... I fyou read about it , you will see that John was claimed an heretic but escaped being burned. When he died the Catholic priest was still not happy with him and orderd his work to be born, this didn't satysfy him and so he ordered John Wycliffe's remains to be dug up and burned. Please read about this . This is in History books as I study them, this is what I see. Thank you for your kind message.SAM191 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

As a member of the Cleveland Wikipedia Project, I'm asking for you to please weigh in in an ongoing debate (regarding off topic and/or redundant information as well the use of unencyclopedic/POV language) on both the Beachwood and Glenville articles. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)Reply

-- 109.76.204.243 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Clevelander96! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article Peter One (musician) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Fram (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article Peter One (musician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BostonMensa (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Clevelander96. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Peter One (musician), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Franklin's lost expedition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply