User talk:Brian0918/Archive 05

General Slocum
I replied. It was a valid VfD vote, there isn't anything more that needs to be said. RickK 20:12, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Lists Lists Lists
Dont forget to add your disaster victim list to rootsweb: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=board&r=rw&p=topics.disasters.usa

I added mine there. The trick is to find three places to archive your data.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons for General Slocum
Hi Brian,

I found it absurd that Wikisource deleted your list--that information would have been a great contribution. Alas, there might be hope: have you tried the Wikimedia Commons page?

Their description:

''The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project. Unlike images uploaded on other projects, images on Commons can be embedded on pages of all Wikimedia projects.''

I'm sure it'll be deemed acceptable. Good luck. Phobophile 02:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day
Hi Brian,

Just to let you know that the photo Image:LakeEffect-Superior-Michigan-EO.JPG you nominated for WP:FP, is up for Pic of the Day on the 10th April. You can the caption at Picture of the day/April 10, 2005, but since you wrote it yourself I guess it will be OK. -- Solipsist 11:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for note
Thanks for the note about feature picture candidate, I have done so. --Electricmoose 16:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FPC for Kurando-san
I've noticed your bot has been moving FPC older than 14 days. Would it be possible to extend its operations on FPC? I understand that it wouldn't be able to determine if an image should become featured, but it could do the rest. What I was thinking was this:
 * For old nominations, we can manually determine if it should be promoted, and place the phrase "PROMOTED FILENAME.JPG" or "NOT PROMOTED" on a new line in that subpage, and move the link to the subpage to the bottom of the current archive (link to that archive is determined by: Featured pictures candidates/July-2024
 * Your bot could then determine if it was promoted or not, and do the following:
 * If FILENAME.JPG has or  in its summary, remove that tag and replace with, else just add the  tag. Any other images displayed on the subpage should have their  or  removed if present.
 * Add the following new line to Goings-on, below the line which reads:  Pictures that gained "featured" status 
 * *NAME_OF_SUBPAGE (July 29)
 * (where NAME_OF_SUBPAGE is the name of the subpage where the FPC took place, without the prefixed text: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/
 * Add the following new line to Featured pictures thumbs, below the first occurrence of --> on the page:
 * [[Image:FILENAME.JPG|100px|NAME_OF_SUBPAGE]]
 * Determine the person who nominated the image by either grabbing their first sig on the subpage, or (probably better) grabbing the first edit of that subpage
 * Determine the person who uploaded the image (probably should use the most recent upload of the file; the one at the top).
 * Add the following new lines to the bottoms of these two individual's talk pages:
 * ==FPC==
 * If the subpage says "NOT PROMOTED", remove the or  from any of the images displayed on that subpage (people might on occasion link to an image, so be careful; [[:Image versus [[Image ).
 * If the subpage says "NOT PROMOTED", remove the or  from any of the images displayed on that subpage (people might on occasion link to an image, so be careful; [[:Image versus [[Image ).

This would cut our workload by a large amount, and all we would have to do is make sure we put "PROMOTED FILENAME.JPG" or "NOT PROMOTED" at the end of the subpage, and list the promoted pic on Featured pictures visible and Featured pictures. I think this is all the work you would have to do, but I may have missed something. -- brian0918 &#153;  02:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll add those features if and only if you can give me some kind of code or point me in the right direction that allows me to find out the first contributor of the page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * To get the first contributor, I guess what you would do is take the URL for the subpage, append to that url: ?action=history&limit=500
 * Then take the last name on that page (look for the last occurrence of   and the user's name is immediately after that, in the following text: ''' <a href="/wiki/User:USERNAME"
 * Will this work? You can reply here if you want. -- brian0918  &#153;  03:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well... granted it is a safe assumption that no FPC nomination will have more than 500 edits, my only issue is what do you do in the event that it isn't? -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You can set the limit to whatever number you want. limit=5000 should be plenty. :)   brian0918  &#153;  03:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, and you want the bot to check how often? Every hour or what? -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how often the bot should check. Say that I add several new entries to the bottom of the page all at once, will it be able to tell that all of those need to be checked?  What if I move the subpage links to the archive page, but have not yet added "promoted" or "not promoted" text to their pages when your bot checks them for changes.  How will it handle those? -- brian0918  &#153;  05:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember, it's checking below the Nominations older than 14 days, the minimum voting period, decision time! section and it will automatically remove those which have been promoted and not promoted. Question is whether you prefer them to be removed at all once or one by one (with an indicating comment of it's status). -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I found some code in the pywikipedia framework, so I can get the bot to do this fairly quickly. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One more thing... "Promoted" and "Not Promoted"... that seems kind of, well, troublesome to search for. I will need to make several clear assumptions to ensure against abuse and the like. The only assumptions I can make now are: the status of the picture will always be the last line, and before the status will be the three quotes indicating the status is bolded. Are those okay assumptions? What other assumptions can I make? The comment from the edit history? -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you can assume they will be bold.. people might forget. Maybe you can just look for the last occurrence of "promoted" or "not promoted" in the page? -- brian0918 &#153;  05:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * See, I need to make safe assumptions to guard against vandalism. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:12, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We can always add in hidden text, so we could add at the end: or for promoted or not. -- brian0918 &#153;  05:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be a lot easier if there was a template or something that did something like fpcresults|Promoted|+9|-0. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and create the template to how you like it to appear, update the instructions on the WP:FPC page, update your suggested process (above) and then get back to me. I'm still programming Mgm's bot at the moment, but if you get everything straighted out, I can finish your bot relatively quickly. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me up to date on this automation concept. I recently stopped promoting images because it was biting too deeply into my time. This should be of some help. I'd like to commend you for the fine work you've done on that page [a barnstar well earned]. On another note. Do we still need Featured pictures thumbs? It seems Category:Wikipedia featured pictures does this job as well or better. BrokenSegue 20:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your request on irc
Owing to a who-watches-the-watchmen problem (and instruction creep, of course), I'll need you to ask on WP:RFAr under 'clarifications' before I can check. Then I'll be able to do a basic check straight away - David Gerard 10:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Utoy artist
Not to be too critical, but that Utoy Creek artist you pointed to is really lame. [I hope you aren't related or something. :-)].

BTW, that Battle of Missionary Ridge picture you found deserves a caption of some kind.

Hal Jespersen 23:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg
As you may or may not be aware, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg is up for deletion. I'm never one to electioneer, and I deplore the necessity of contacting you, but Achilles has contacted all the "delete" voters from the previous autofellatio image debate; and since that has already been done, I didn't think fairness would be served if the "keep" voters were not also contacted. I have attempted to contact only those people who have not voted in the current debate, but the information was hard to sift through by hand and I may have made a mistake. If I have, I apologize. Cheers to you! Demi T/C 19:34, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Bot?
What does the bot do? Leonardo 04:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help needed on the Ethics article
Unfortunately, someone set up an article parallel to our article on Ethics, in violation of Wikipedia policy. That parallel article violated NPOV by acting as a blog for one man's personal views, a person that also happens to be hard-banned user. Please see Votes_for_deletion/Simple view of ethics and morals Thanks for your time. RK 20:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Copy Vio
Brian, I noticed that the baldness article might have a copy vio with in the text. However only parts of the text look to have been copyed from this site. I have posted a question on the talk page to see if anyone got permission to use that site. And i am going to place the copy vio notice on the baldness page to, if i did anything wrong or missed a step please correct it. Thanks. bakuzjw (aka 578) 13:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infocom
Great work on the plethora of Infocom topics you've edited. It's good to meet a fellow enthusiast trying to ensure Infocom is represented as it should be. -DynSkeet 19:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

In fact, uploading box cover art was such a great idea I did it for the rest of the titles too! -DynSkeet 17:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes are a great idea. Is there an existing template to use or will one need to be created? -DynSkeet 17:50, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Which games do you want to tackle? -DynSkeet 17:56, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'll get started on the unzorkian ones. -DynSkeet 18:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Infocom box covers are a great addition, but where did they come from? If you just lifted them off the Internet, we can't use them.  If you got the websites' admininstrator's permission, then its fine.  If you scanned the covers in yourself, that's fine.  Whichever method you used, please indicate it on the Image's page.  Thx. :^)   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I got permission from the original source, but I don't think permission is necessary for fair-use game covers. He doesn't own the copyright, and game covers are fair-use. -- brian0918  &#153;  18:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Game covers are fair use, but we have to indicate where we got the images from in the case a user didn't take the scan or photo themselves. Actually, in those cases, the user should indicate that s/he took the scans themself.  Since the site you got them from gave permission, just indicate it on the Image's page.  Also indicate you used them with permission.  That way, no one will come along and delete the image assuming they're not allowed. :-)   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

FPC
Why did you post that message? I already supported the first one and I said I hated technical requirements. If I support a lo-res, I support the same pic in hi-res too. Mgm|(talk) 18:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry (Re. God) - revert
I have read most of the newbie stuff - but perhaps not enough?

I do think there is another position (against arguments for God).

How would I go about opening this?

Cheers, Mome-Rath


 * I read your addition: It may have some merit, but you'll probably have to work on it to make it seem like something other than a sophmore's poke at the establishment.  It would help if you had some philosophical jargon, if there were a philosopher you could cite...  It's not really an argument against God's existence, rather a meta-questioning calling the entire enterprise into question.  It might grow out of an agnostic position rather than an atheist's.  You have no reason to be "Sorry" since you seem to have done it in good faith... User Brian0918 seemingly has a rather strict, proprietary interest in the God article.  'e provides an important service if you go back and see the other reverts 'e's done...  But 'e can seem a bit brusque, no?  If you develope your addition a bit more, I suspect that it will fit in fine under philosophical considerations of God.  Looking forward to seeing what you'll do...  Emyth 16:53, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Note that I have listed you at Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for four reverts on Adolf Hitler, which I consider part of a content dispute and not fighting vandalism. 119 22:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting in Fir0002 semi FPC
Hi Brian, I was wondering if you would be interested in voting in my semi Featured Picture Candidates page. I made it after User:Solipsist asked me not to submit multiple images to the FPC as it made tallying the votes and choosing the FP very difficult. So now all my multiple images I put first on my semi FPC voting to see which is the best one to eventually put on the FPC page. Thanks --Fir0002 00:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry I meant to give it last message! User:Fir0002/FPCandidates--Fir0002 02:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template standardisation
I created a submission for the Template standardisation proposal, and I would value your input on it. They're voting on three aspects: style, colour, and wording. What do you think of what I proposed on these criteria? – ClockworkSoul 03:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Civil war?
Could you explain to me how two battles between the US Army and Native Americans have anything to do with the Civil War? Grant65 (Talk) 01:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of the battles in the Civil War category was confusing to me, as I know relatively little about US history. I looked for some indication that the tribes in question had some kind of alliance with the Confederates. If the US govt considers them to be part of the Civil War, it shouldn't matter to Wikipedia, since it's patently untrue. There is a case for making some battles "orphans" since some wars are one battle (e.g. Battle of Halhin Gol). The fact that the Union was involved is irrelevant; many countries throughout history have fought more than one enemy at a time, without it being considered a single conflict. Grant65 (Talk) 09:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Civil War map
I just came across the map you created of the Civil War battles. It is the most useful Civil War learning tool I have ever encountered. Thank you so much creating it and for sharing it. Kingturtle 04:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kurando-san for FPC
Please look over the suggested pseudocode outline on User:Kurando-san/FPC. Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler article
i think the protection should be removed, this page was protected for too long time. --Haham hanuka 12:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FPC process
The thumbs seem to be missing a few featured pictures... I don't see my Chicago Skyline up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't see it on Featured pictures either... -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any at the moment... -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bot requests...
Have I become the person to fulfill all bot requests now? -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vicksburg
Don't know if you noticed my edits, but I did a drastic change to the Battle of Vicksburg recently, rewriting it to be an article only about the battle and creating a Vicksburg Campaign to describe the full campaign. The original BoV article had 7 sub-articles:

* Seven Failures Before The Taking of Vicksburg * Political Questions before the Siege of Vicksburg * Politics Before the Battle of Vicksburg * Actions Prior to Grant's Landing Before the Siege of Vicksburg * After Grant's Landing and Before the Siege of Vicksburg * The Siege of Vicksburg * Consequences of the Battle of Vicksburg

that are now all superfluous. There was also a template that linked all these sections together. Would you recommend deleting these files or redirecting them to the Campaign article? (If the former, I will need some Admin help.) I have been waiting to see if anyone complained about my action and so far no one has squeaked. Hal Jespersen 00:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spoken articles project
Thanks for the kind words. I've had some good vocal teachers. This project could be a tremendous boon both to the visually-impaired web-browsers and to the recreationally-challenged ipod-people. Editors have demonstrated that minimal equipment is required, so it's a project that almost any editor with a clear voice can participate in. The hardest part, of course, are those foreign names.... Cheers, -Willmcw 11:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clean-up. We all benefit by having someone esle check our work. As I grow more facile with the recording software I expect to have more nearly perfect recordings. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

HELP
Please unblock me (User:Fish Supper).

"Jayjg" has blocked me claiming I have violated 3RR on Historicity of Jesus, which I haven't edited once!!!.

And if he is talking about Jesus, then he has blocked me without blocking User:Slrubenstein as well, who made 4 more reverts than me!!!, like he is corrupt and biased or something.
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. User is also suspected of being a sockpuppet of banned User:CheeseDreams. Jayjg (talk)  23:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spoken links
Hi there. Isn't it a bit redundant to have the spoken link on both the talk page and the article? I think that people reading the article itself would be more likely to want the spoken link, so IMO it should be there only. I didn't remove it from the talk page- I'll leave that up to you.

I've considered contributing to the spoken project...but my voice isn't particularily soothing (not that it's a cacophony either); plus, I have a blocked nose right now, so I bight talk a bittle unny. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 02:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I also think the link is better solely on the article page. For me, a useful rule of thumb is that things that primarily target the readers/users/audience of Wikipedia belong on the actual article, and things that are directed at editors belong on the Talk page. In this case, a link to a recording of the article targets the readership (er, "listnership"!), rather than editors, and would be better (IMO) just on the article page, and not on the Talk: page. &mdash; Matt Crypto 02:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But the Spoken Wikipedia template links to the WikiProject, just as other talk pages have wikiproject templates at the tops of them.  It's similar to the featured article template, which isn't specifically about editing the page, but has links to ways to contribute.  -- brian0918  &#153;  02:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw the new link on the talk page- it's much better :) I'm glad that the new one focuses more on getting people to contribute than advertising the link to the sound file. Thanks. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 03:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppenheimer spoken article
Thanks for your help in getting the Oppenheimer reading ready in time for its FA rollout. I tried downloading your cleaned-up copy and inserting the corrected readings in Audacity, but when I re-converted it to OGG it sounded like crap. The best thing might be for me to fix the errors in the original Audacity file and then do the conversion. Only I recall you said you'd made other corrections. If you could communicate those to me, I could repeat the fixes. Or, I could upload a high-quality Ogg file with just the two corrections if you have a way of inserting them without having to re-convert the whole file.

Also, I found the Noise Removal filter in Audacity. It seemed as if the second-to-the-lowest setting was sufficient. And the Normalize filter, which apparently works with the default settings. Any suggestions on post-production? Cheers, -Willmcw 21:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

You can try submitting the high quality ogg with the corrections, and I'll try putting them in. I made a number of changes to the original, taking out about 35 seconds of pauses and other stuff (no words). I just got Audacity today, so I'm learning as well. -- brian0918 &#153;  21:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, here is the file Media:Corrections.ogg. It has the phrase "and spectroscopy" and the final GNU license. Thanks. -Willmcw 21:40, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * The newer image:Corrections.ogg, the war elephants, is now up for you to play with. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, sorry to be so late in getting back to you. Yes, four clicks from the left seems to be the "sweet spot" for noise removal. Less results in the chirping, and more makes it sound hollow. Thanks for finding that. Do you think it is general? Maybe you should add it to the project article. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:35, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Spoken
Brian, thanks for the note and adding the copyleft notice. Actually I'm surprised myself how a tiny builtin laptop mic works for the process. No audio signal cleanup is done other than the normalize and compressor filters, though I do respeak certain sentences to edit back in later. Fuzheado | Talk 00:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How u doing, Brian. Don't be so hard on me.

Images for deletion
Hi Brian,

I'm trying to help clean up WP:IfD. It looks like there are a fair number of images which you originally uploaded, such as Image:MontyPythonGlassesArt.jpg that are ready for deletion. Part of the deletion process requires that you are notified of their imminent deletion. Has this happend? -- Solipsist 13:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FPC bot...
Updated my comments @ User:Kurando-san/FPC... -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Brian, I can not write any of the bot until you have fully confirmed what it is I need to program. Without that I can't really start. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Jimbo's page
Having a little fun on Uncle Jimbo's page, eh? Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WHL Wallace
Would you assist in an admin task? Someone has cocked up a series of pages on W.H.L. Wallace. The main entry is under William Hervy Lamb Wallace, which is a mispelling of his name. There are 13 redirect pages, some with typos, but none are linked-to. Would it be possible to move the main entry to "W.H.L. Wallace" (the form every historian calls him) and delete the obviously bogus variants, such as the ones including ranks? Thanks, Hal Jespersen 22:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your blocking of "vandals"
Hi!

I've seen that you block alot of people when doing RC-patrolling. Quite rightly so in most cases, but I have also noticed that your blockings sometimes are for minor stuff that I really don't think qualifies as vandalism. For instance your recent blocking of 203.94.130.77 seemed a little hars to me. All he did was this edit, and it's even an edit that could be defended by some, though I myself agree that it didn't belong there (I was the one reverting it). And thats his only edit in a month.

Just wanted to give you a friendly note to let you know how I felt about it. ;-) Shanes 00:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pandeism?
Hello Brian0918... Since you seem to have a particular interest in the God article, and you have eliminated additions to it in the past based on the fact that they seemed to be "original research", I thought I should bring to your attention something that I find odd about the God article and get a second perspective before I do anything about it.

I notice that an odd word has been introduced into the article: "pandeism". This is a neo-logism; it does NOT appear in the dictionary; if you Google it, there are only 81 (actually 38) results, mostly in GNU free style wiki encyclopedias; if you follow the wikipedia link to find out what pandeism is supposed to be you find an article that was originated and expanded by a user BD2412 who seems to have concocted this theological position on his own.

The Pandeism article seems to be articulate and has a scholarly sheen, but if you poke at it, there doesn't seem to be any real substance beyond the author's own thought. There are no real connections to historical philosophers, theologians, religions, etc. that would lend any credence to this article. There are no external links to other discussions of "pandeism"... And if you take time to track appearances of the word in other wikipedia articles, it all seems to have been done by the same people in the very recent past (i.e. since March 12, 2005.)  The superficial nature of the concept and the article makes me think that it is NOT an appropriate addition to the wikipedia. The link to pandeism ought to be removed from the God article in my opinion.

What do you think? Have I missed something important in my analysis?

Thanks, Emyth 16:55, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pandeism
I've responded to your query on my talk page. -- 8^D BD2412gab 20:14, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * The quote that you pulled off of is not from me, and you have absolutely no basis to present it as though it were. I request that you clarify this on the vfd. -- 8^D BD2412gab 21:35, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * I never even suggested that you said it. -- brian0918  &#153;  21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the clarification, to avoid any misunderstanding. -- 8^D BD2412gab 22:19, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * The Albuquerque Journal for Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10 quotes a Vietnam vet-turned trappist monk who "describes his current spiritual position as "'pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the Native American concept of the all- pervading Great Spirit..." That's within 6 months of when my professor was describing the philosophy, a few thousand miles from Albuquerque. -- 8^D BD2412gab 01:17, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Point is, the speaker used the term "pandeism" in the same context; and pandeism is no more of a neologism than panendeism, which you'll note has no more basis in the article than pandeism. Analogous to the pandeism article, the panendeism article only refers to the origin of panentheism to demonstrate the origin of the term. -- 8^D BD2412gab 01:24, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Pamtheism
You obviously haven't met Pam. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pandeism edits
Hi. Please stop signing all your edits to the articles in which I discussed pandeism with:
 * removed pandeism stuff. it's all original "research" by User:BD2412 and stuck by him into numerous articles. <20 non-wiki hits on google. (he admits having no sources). please help!)

It's rather inconsistent with your own statement on the vfd that
 * I also don't believe he is acting in bad faith, and didn't mean "creating the appearance of legitimacy" in the way you've interpreted it.. rather inadvertently creating the appearance.

-- 8^D BD2412gab 02:37, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * You could post a follow-up edit clarifying the prior edit summary. Otherwise, it creates an unrefutable record that leaves a very bad taste. -- 8^D BD2412gab 03:17, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * I noticed you've said nothing in response to the above suggestion. Why? -- 8^D BD2412gab 15:05, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Please consider changing the basis for your nomination in Votes for deletion/Pandeism from "original research" to "non-notable." I believe I have adduced sufficient referential evidence to show that this article was not "original research," but simply an exposition on a philosophy which, although real, lacks enough adherents/proponents to be notable enough for inclusion. I apologize for having overestimated the importance of this topic. It was, after all, one of my first posts, when I was new to Wikipedia and not yet familiar with the criteria for notability. -- 8^D BD2412gab 04:45, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Forget the above. I have found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833, being used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D BD2412gab 10:22, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
 * Pandeism = completely rewritten, in accordance with above source. You win. -- 8^D BD2412gab 13:24, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Civility
As an administrator, you should be familiar with policy, specifically Civility, which I'm am concerned have been paying little regard to recently. Comments such as "For once, he's right" seem somewhat immature and are undermining the effort you are putting in on FPC, which is nonetheless appreciated. ed g2s &bull;  talk  17:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Main Page Featured Articles
No need for apologies. To be honest, I hadn't realized you were recording a special link, though I'm glad you did as that's a logical addition. On May 2 the article on Charles Ives, which I recorded, will be on the main page. If it is inconvenient for you to do so, I could record the link if you give me the script. Thanks very much for your contributions in getting the Spoken Wikipedia project going. The number of "cheerleaders" attests to the value of the project. Special thanks for helping me get started. My meager contributions are much better because of your input and editing. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you were just chopping out introductory section to create a stand-alone piece you'd have had a tough time on Order of the Bath. I rewrote the article to reduce rampant duplication, which resulted in a somewhat different introduction. In retrospect I probably should have edited the print copy as well. That was not a very well-written featured article. By contrast, I was able to read Charles Ives almost verbatim. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:10, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Because of my own poor wording, the matter of doing the Main Page text was left ambiguous. I assume you'll do it, as you know what you're doing. But if you prefer that I do, just tell me so and give the me the details. Thanks for your contributions. -Willmcw 08:32, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Charles Ives is up May 2, about 15 hours from now. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry.
I apologize for having contributed the initial article without having done sufficient research to determine if it was in wide enough use to be a notable contribution. Had you asked me at the time of our initial contact, I would have immediately investigated to find out how common its use actually was. I would have concluded that it was, in fact, not notable, and would have immediately removed all the references and changed the article to a redirect to pandeism, with a note that people occasionally say pandeism when they mean pantheism. I apologize for having over-reacted in my posting of material on the vfd in an support of this not being original research, and I apologize for posting so many updates of the situation on user pages. I felt as though the vfd was initially framed as a personal attack against me, rather than addressing the content of the article, and I was excessively fervent in defending myself. I apologize for only posting notices that the page had been rewritten under votes to delete. That was impulsive and immature of me. I did not come to Wikipedia to make enemies, and I do not want to continue down this path. Can we please end this trading of derisions and accusations now. -- 8^D BD2412gab 16:01, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

diagram drawing question
Hi, I've been working a bit lately on welding and in my mission to bring to featured status, I'm interested in doing some diagram drawing of some of the different welding processes. Do you happen to know anything about that? From your work on WP:FPC, I know you're skilled with some photo editing software, but I wasn't sure if that's what would be the best to use for actually drawing stuff. What do you suggest? Or do you know of anyone who might know anything about this? --Spangineer &#8734; 02:53, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Awesome; thanks for info. --Spangineer &#8734; 03:31, May 1, 2005 (UTC)