User talk:Mulad

Old stuff: User talk:Mulad/2003 archive, User talk:Mulad/2004 archive, User talk:Mulad/2005 archive

Music of Minnesota

Hey, I know you've made a lot of changes to music of Minnesota in the past. I just did some reorganizing, and plan on doing more soon. Hopefully, I'll be getting both that article and maybe even music of Minneapolis (which doesn't yet exist) to featured status. Would you have any interest in working on that as well? I've already got music of Maryland through the process, and Minnesota has a more well-known musical heritage than Maryland, so I think I can do it. Tuf-Kat 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Public Media Group

I wanted to draw your attention to the APMG page, which appear to be the primary contributor on. [209.98.64.3] has made a couple MPR-related edits that are rather dubious, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Public_Media_Group&diff=28690809&oldid=16877393. You can see that some criticism has been changed to marketingspeak. I couldn't decide whether it deserved a complete revert or not -- I'd encourage you to take a look. I've already reverted an edit to Bill Kling that seems to have been pasted by 209.98.64.3 from somewhere else (some text can be seen verbatim on http://www.pavekmuseum.org/kling.htm ).

User:Mulad/images

Hi, I notice there are a number of fair use images on this page (36 acording to this report). Wikipedia policy is to not allow fair use images to be displayed in userspace (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy), so I'll have to ask you to please replace those images with links instead. The free licensed and public domain images can stay as is, just not the fair use ones. Thanks in advance. --Sherool (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^{Copied from my talkpage}

I don't appreciate this policy, though I suppose I shouldn't be complaining to you about it. One of the reasons I have a gallery of the fair-use images I've uploaded is that they can occasionally be altered or removed. I like to have a place where I can monitor the images without having to visit each one. —Mulad (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is a problem, and you are not the first to say so (not quite good enough reason to allow the images in userspace though IMHO). However I have submited a request for a new software feature that would make things like file overwrites be noted on the watchlist. This would go a long way towards fixing that problem I think, you can comment and vote for the proposal at bugzilla if you wish. --Sherool (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hrm if you made a page off your user page and didn't link to it, what would that fall under? -Ravedave 02:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:The_Daily_Show_colorbar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The_Daily_Show_colorbar.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 02:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Copywrites

I am just trying to protect the pictures that i have taken, since last fall i found out that several, that i have since deleted, were used without permission and published in 2 books and on 3 websites. I guess i got frustrated and didnt know how to protect myself from this happening again, so i put "do not reproduce without permission." This, however, does not mean that i havent allowed them to be used on wikipedia. I dont just want to give up either, seeing as, pardon the cliché, "Pictures are worth a thousand words." Anyways, lets not explode this situation into unnecessary enmity. --Geppy 01:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota

I noticed your work on MN articles, thanks! I have been focusing on parks on and off for the last few months. You might want to add [[Category:Wikipedians_in_Minnesota]]-Ravedave 03:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's now a new WikiProject Minnesota that just started. Since you've done a lot of good work on Minnesota articles, I think you'd be interested in this project. Check it out. --E lkman - ^(talk) 16:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Radio Stations

I'm a part of the WikiProject Missouri, so I was looking through the Category:Radio stations in St. Louis. I noticed that some of them were marked with the WikiProject Radio Stations template and some were not. You or someone else on the project should probably go through that and tag all of them. I can do it myself as well, but I didn't want to do it without informing someone on the WikiProject Radio Stations first. Leave me a message. Thanks! Amalas 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locks and Dams

Do look here: [Lock and Dam No. 2]], on the talk page. USGS site listing all the locks and dams. I've dumped the info here for future development. --FourthAve 11:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]