Great pictures, but is that one pic from Clifty Falls or from McCormick's Creek. As they are 100+ miles apart, there's a big difference.--BedfordPray17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers!
The Indiana Barnstar
In acknowledgment of your many recent edits, images, and improvements of article within, Wiki Project Indiana, most notably your work Native American articles, I hereby award you this barnstar! Keep up the great work! Charles Edward15:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these pages, I've created, others I've added images. Still others, a bit of text or details. Many of these pages are primarily the work of others, to which I was able to added a bit more information or an illustration. This may appear to be a big ego boosting, but it's really a way for me to check back on sites where I've left something still pending, i.e., History of the National Park Service (United States), National Park Service, Indiana Dunes Nat'l Lakeshore
Hi Chris Light -- I came across your nice new stub article Col. Isaac C. Elston House and found that i could fix it up a little, which i did. Great pic you took! I see also that you have made other edits to National Register of Historic Places listings in Indiana and some other individual historic sites. Just to let you know, if you are creating a new article for any NRHP site you can get a nice, prepared infobox ready for cut and pasting into the article, by visiting [1], a site developed and supported by User:Elkman. In the Elston House case, it looks to me like you copied an infobox from another article then modified it somewhat, but it appeared that you erroneously left in some info that applied to the other place. It's easier and more accurate to get a new infobox with the info from the National Register database already filled out. It's still just a start, and you are free to correct or expand on info that comes in that way. Anyhow, keep up the good work! :) doncram (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting a picture of this house a few months ago! I was just in Crawfordsville today and photographed it because it's in the Elston Grove Historic District, not knowing that it was also NRHP-listed. The NRHP lists the Elston House on Wabash Avenue, but with the Wabash College page to which you link on the Elston House article, I'm going to note that as an error by the NRHP. If you'd not posted this, who knows how long it would have been before the error was caught. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new gastropod article!
Just wanted to say thanks so much for creating the article which is now entitled, List of non-marine mollusks of the Indiana Dunes. I added in the bivalves from the National Geographic list, and divided the gastropods into land and freshwater species. I just wanted to say that with scientific names, only the first name (the genus name) is unique within one phylum. A species name may often be found in many other unrelated species within the same class, so be careful about creating links to what is sometimes the wrong species which just happens to have the same species name. In any case, the new article is a valuable addition to Wikipedia, so thanks! If you create any more mollusk-related articles, please feel free to ask me for help. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I can say one more thing? The scientific names (that is the genus and species) of organisms should always be in italics. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I need to ask: are you intending to make an article on Insects of the Indiana Dunes? Because if so, I will mention it in the invertebrates article. Insects are also invertebrates. As I said before, all the scientific names of all the organisms (including plants) in all of your articles need to be in italics, if you can go back and do that. And one more thing, if you can try to remember to always fill in the "edit summary" whenever you make an edit, that would be very helpful. Thanks and best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but the text in this (very interesting) article has the look of being copied verbatim or almost verbatim from somewhere, presumably from the National Park Service reference you used? Do you know, is that source in the public domain? If not, then you can only copy brief sections of it, and they have to be in quote marks and fully attributed. If the source is not in the public domain then you have to rewrite all of the prose from scratch. Take a look at [2]. Thanks for your attention on this. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in contact with the editor of the Singing Sands (J. Manuszak) and all of the issue is written and designed by government employees. Thus it is public domain. It's good to keep checking. (Chris Light (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Chris, how are you doing? Thanks for replying. That's great that it is in the public domain, but even with public domain material, according to the Wikipedia content guideline here: [3].:
"Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism".
Hi CL-- There was a few citation glitches with the weather table for Lutsen, Minnesota, which I think I have now fixed.[5] There is a similar citation issue at Grand Portage National Monument. I was going to fix that, but I wonder if the figures for Thunder Bay would be preferable, as Thunder Bay is closer to Grand Portage than is Lutsen. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably
I began to look for Thunder Bay, but was concerned that the international border might be misleading to some readers. But taking a 'world' approach, the border should not be an issue. Thunder Bay would be better and it's much closer. {Chris Light (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
I think it was quite premature to change all the numbers for national monuments. I'm posting here because you posted in multiple places. What was done seems a little inappropriate or incorrect. First, the reference you added [6] is just a useless list of links; it should link here. Second, now all the numbers are off. You number 99 and 74 on List of areas in the United States National Park System#National Monuments when 75 are linked, and you number 99 and 74 on List of National Monuments of the United States when 100 and 75 are linked, also not changing the 100 in the first sentence or the table. I compared the lists, and the NPS list is missing Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, so they must be wrong. It is co-managed by the NPS and BLM, but the NPS still has a page for it [7], so I don't know why it is missing. I have changed the numbers back until we can find a solution. Reywas92Talk22:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent the NPS and email about the status of Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. I will let you know if they respond, and we may decide to remove it from the lists, but the numbers should not yet be changed. Apparently it is not considered an official unit, but it is still a National Monument. Reywas92Talk23:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are now a Reviewer
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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.
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.
Good to see you back; you picked a great day to visit Holmes County! Thought you'd want to know — I've been working on expanding Ohio NR articles statewide, and my priority is on sites with photos, so it helps to have many more. As well, I replaced some of your photos at the Owen County, Indiana list, not because i objected to them, but because I visited when the sky was blue and leaves were on the trees, rather than on the cloudy wintry days on which you visited and photographed some of the sites. Nyttend (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I visit to say nice work with the pics, too! I like this Italianate house, the Joseph L. DeYarmon House, in National Register of Historic Places listings in Holmes County, Ohio. Also, i noticed Nyttend had removed a self-report of current conditions on a site; it is indeed unusual to include a source statement like that in an article, tho in the NRHP list-articles we do accept all kinds of location corrections, some significant enough to itemize at wp:NRIS info issues OH (if we want to get the NRHP to correct their info). Not sure if you are experienced or not, haven't checked your contribs. --doncram (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The C&I bridge HVRM uses looks nothing like your photo on their page. I don't think that bridge is anywhere on the whole line. Here are pictures of the Kankakee River bridge. Maybe you have one you could put up instead or find where that bridge really is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.230.185.102 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a problem with the description of this image. Thunder Bay is not visible from either of the Presque Isle Lighthouses. The one lighthouse with a view of Thunder Bay is Thunder Bay Island Lighthouse which is only accessible by boat and probably hard to forget that. It is possible that this is a view from Old Presque Isle Light looking at a freighter leaving Stoneport. But Alpena and Thunder Bay would not be visible in that case. Can you remember which lighthouse this was from? Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out)21:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fort C at GRPO
Hi Chris, You uploaded a photo of Fort Charlotte to the GRPO entry, we're trying to remove the file for fear of protecting the resources up there. Thanks for all the work and articles here in our Vertical Files at Grand Portage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.160.250 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Jeremiah Service House, mostly written by you, seems to be a closely paraphrased or in some cases simply a copy, of the nomination form. The nomination was written in 2000, and not by a federal (or even a state) employee. I may be missing something, but why isn't this a copyright violation? Generic1139 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Maybe I'll try to explain the nature of government forms and submissions for government action. Right now, I neither have the time or the details to try and explain it. Feel free to rewrite it if you wish, so that it's less paraphrase and direct quotes.--Chris Light (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi!09:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't recall ever loading this image. It relates to nothing I've ever worked on. So, delete away. The style of the bathing suits implies 1920's, in which case, it may have moved into public domain. But, as I said, I don't remember this image, and it's not the type of images I work with.Chris Light (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Locations of images
Hi, I've been transferring some of your uploads to Commons. By any chance, do you remember where these pictures were taken?
A tag has been placed on File:Paducah Floodwall Mural 1.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houck Covered Bridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“category:People of Valparaiso, Indiana”
You know there is already a category for “People from Valparaiso, Indiana,” right? If you are trying to differentiate people who live there but aren’t from there it would be more appropriate to add it as a sub-category of “Valparaiso University alumni.” I think there is danger of this category being confused with the “from” category though - do you know if other similar categories exist? Rikster2 (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was trying to add people to the category and all I could get was a new category. As such, I quit. I need to go back and do clean-up.--Chris Light (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!16:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Please don't remove the flags from {{USRD}} unless there is an adequate number of good photos that cover the entire highway. A map and shield in the Commons category is not sufficient. SounderBruce21:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]