User talk:Esseh

 Welcome, !

Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Anas, one of the many editors here at Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links you might find helpful:


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps kalzium.png|23px]]  The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps kate.png|23px]]  How to edit a page
 * [[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]]  Help pages
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps bad kcontrol.png|23px]]  Tutorial
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px|]]  How to write a great article
 * [[Image:Crystal_Clear_app_kedit.png|23px]]  Manual of Style
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps kasteroids.png|23px]]  Fun stuff...

 I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type  here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. I'm looking forward for your contributions! -  An as  talk? 14:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance
Don't mention it. :-) You can get a great deal of help from a peer review. There's a couple of excellent reviewers who will help you turn this into a GA or even an FA. The article looks much better after your recent expansion, but it's going to need some work before going anywhere, particularly in referencing. Leave a message if you'll be needing any help, I'll be glad to lend a hand. Regards,  An as  talk? 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, you seem to add the vandalism again, not revert it. See this diff. The article currently has no vandalism. You were reverted because you reverted the reversion of the original vandalism. Confusing, I know. -  An as  talk? 11:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. :-) -  An as  talk? 11:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalists
Saw your note on this at talk:American Revolution... why not write (or at least start) an article yourself? You seem to know quite a bit about the subject. Blueboar 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

anatomical photos request
Hi Esseh

Unfortunately I'm going to have to disappoint you as others have done. Although I do have "naturist tendencies" I'm not involved in any organised naturist clubs/groups/activities (nor at present to I have the time or money to become so), so I don't have access to the models required (posed photography is also not my best). I would love to be able to help though, so I do appologise. My only suggestion is that you perhaps get in contact with a naturist organisation, perhaps British Naturism or American Association for Nude Recreation, if nobody here is able to help. Sorry I can't do any better than that for you. Thryduulf 09:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

photo details
Regarding the photo, there has certainly more than one doubt expressed whether the said soldiers are muslim or hindu or most likely sikh. As u can see in this diff by another editor and also on the talk page of the photo. It is definitely possible that it could have been an error by the photographer or maybe muslims of punjab were also dressed like sikhs in that age. Unless we get a good source that says it's most likely sikhs we have to stick to what the photographer says for now. Idleguy 10:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

skin colors
Hi Esseh - I like your take on race and color and language, but ... black people aren't black colored. They are various shades of brown. So if you really want to be consistent you should consider changing that. Cheers, Debivort 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What's your gripe on Battle_of_Arras
re: Battle_of_Arras_%281917%29 && this revert from this tighter version I was in mid-change on that template, and wonder whether your change was while I was trying an additional change to that (things broke for a moment) or whether you just don't like the position, as shown now or in Battle_of_Jutland, for example. For my part, our over busy right margin has needed a solutino for TOC positioning for quite some time. There are a lot of articles where we get unsightly half and even full screenful page lengths of whitespace with only a TOC interupting article flow. Hence, I'm trying to solve that. Your reactions appreciated. (Let me know what you're using for a browser too!) // Fra nkB 18:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * re: Hi FrankB. Sorry about the edit conflict - I hate it when that happens, too. No, I don't have a gripe, and listed reason for the revert in my Edit Summary. Basically, by moving it to the right, it started to overlap with the Campaign box and the text above. I had no idea you were in mid-edit, and should have checked the time as well as the date. I agree with you that the long blank spaces are annoying, so I'll let you get on with your changes and look in again later. Sound OK? Esseh 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. You might want to check the Battle of Jutland. Your tighter version still has a blank column on the left, with a long, hanging "The" to the top left, at least with my browser. Very annoying break, I find... Could you move the "The..." to be with the rest of the text below? Esseh 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Netscape v 8.1.3, based on Foxfire. Esseh 19:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

''Hmmmmmm - see nothing like that with my Netscape, also version 8.1.??? though. Do you generally zoom in tight or can you tolerate small text? Did see a zoom-in/out-ing problem with Firefox next to the Admirals, and alas, have temporarily lost some color in my attempted fix (at least I got the width back, with proper zooming!). Can you please elaborate on the "Long hanging "the"..." etc. with enough of the surrounding text so I can get a better certainty I'm looking in the right places? Thanks!'' // Fra nkB 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi FrankB. Yes, small text is OK. In Battle of Jutland, what I see is the 1st para. of text, a break (to next para.) and then "The" with the ToC just below it. The ToC is then followed by the rest of the sentence. That's the bad news. The good news is, at least the ToC doesn't overlap with the Campaign box to its right. Hope that helps. Just a thought - is there any way to just get the text to wrap around the ToC. I don't know how, but it would be the best way, I think, to eliminate the annoying white space. Esseh 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OKAY... I can work on that again later. MrZaius (below link) has appears to have reverted it for now. I think the approach in TOCsetright may have promise there. But I'm tight for time right now, and want to see what CBDunkerson has to say about the wikimarkup code interaction in all this now that I've amassed some data. The problem seems to be that different browsers (as well as each individuals user settings) are a bit more unpredictable than is compatible with KISS measures. The outer div in TOCsetright may cure some of that. But it will have to wait-- I'm tight on time today. Thanks! // Fra nkB 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. More amplified comments to other editor on same topic. -- Fra nkB


 * Please see this edit. What happens now? OK, holding yer nose, or what? I found an 'standard solution' (How to fix bunched-up edit links) that seems to cure the rendering ills. All is still monitor/screen size/zoom level dependent of course, but I generally like the TOCnestright so long as the section titles aren't long winded. If you have a minute, sample the linkshere's for that and give me an impression. Thanks // Fra nkB 07:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just had a look again. Part of the problem is the large size of the campaign box, which seems to be due to the width of the map at the top (300px). Maybe making the map smaller would help shrink the width of the box and let the text flow a bit better. (Anyone wanting to see the map would just have to click on it anyway.) Just a thought. Esseh 07:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have it on good authority the Battleboxes are set at 315px standardized per the MILTHIST project-- that from Kirill Lokshin, who was (and still may be?) one of it's co-ordinators--though damn if I know where he finds the time for that and the ArbCom, if he still is! In any event, while I agree with you, even this large size sometimes need tweaks like this one, so I'd guess the size is very solidly fixed!  How about some of the more general (political) pages? // Fra nkB 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

re: ''Hi again, Frank. Checked the Battle of Jutland article again. I've still got that floating "The..." then the ToC, and "...German..." below it, for some reason. I wonder, would there be any way to set the ToC below the campaign box? If so, it wouldn't break up the text. Then, of course, you'd have to get the text to wrap to the left of it. Sorry, wish I could have given you better news. Esseh 07:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)''
 * Ooops... missed this one:

to the end (same line) as the last period of that first paragraph, and other such tweak attempts. My "The Germans'..." is right where it should be, so your experimentation may tell us something. I'm suspecting it's related to your normal font selections in Windows or the browser... If you can't clean it up, just replace the TOCnestright with the magic word and see if the word is still isolated. Baffling! Thanks and sorry I missed the double post! // Fra nkB 08:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that in my Netscape, and the IE and Firefox pages are rendering fine. Suggest you try adding

Post experimentation

 * Hi Frank. Tried line breaks, and they still didn't clear up the problem. However, I went in and experimented wildly boldly. I've tried moving the ToC below the campaign box. It took a bit of fiddling, and I had to move the next image (UK map) down a bit, but now there seems to be no break in the text at all - it all wraps to the left of the Campaign box and the ToC beneath. How's it look to you? I must admit, having no large blank space is great, and should be done everywhere (if it works). Esseh 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * my observations below...
 * IE7: (reply at here @ Post_experimentation
 * shows huge swath of whitespace between the bottom of the campaign box and the map following below.
 * "Additional 3" swath breaking the sentence in 'German planning': By the spring of 1916 the German High Seas Fleet had only 18 battleships and were falling increasingly further behind as the war

progressed..." (Ooooopssss! [simulated 3" gaping gap much like this!)
 * Firefox does not show the SAME 3" swath, but DOES break the sentence in the same place... which is/was the location of the image within that paragraph.
 * SO... I just relocated that within the DIV-/div fence, so hows that look to YOU now.
 * Just to check, suggest you retry moving TOCnestright BACK up, and see if YOU still have that same issue now that the picture is bounded.
 * While we're at it, recheck that original battle (played with again last night)!
 * Thanks! // Fra nkB 21:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * re: I give up. I must have removed IE, and can't find the disc. Esseh 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I'm just sitting down to take a look. My Netscape (isn't showing the same effects as yours either) which adds mystery to the matter. brb soon with an eval on the other browsers! // Fra nkB 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See [this now]... IE6 was leaving the map on the right. Now my Netscape looks poor... the title line for German Planning is split into two words and there is no text between the TOC and Map.

Wow! Just had a ceiling fixture lightbulb, not only burn out, but implode or something behind me 10' or so! Spooky! Yikes. Report on your netscape. Firefox showed the image left despite the (assumptive) missing /div. I'll wait to hear from you, or a half hour min before changing anything. // Fra nkB 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Got this too. (Ok, just checked. Whatever you tweaked, it looks the same (fine) to me. Go figure...! Esseh 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

re: Screenshots... Screenshot // Fra nkB 02:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Submit we need to revisit your experimental path with the new /div in place to see if there is a difference now. I'm going to rollback the page, add the /div, and then let you see what the effect is. The other thing is that I'd prefer the placement of the TOC to be higher in the intro so it impacts the mininum number of following sections. Email me direct, and we can trade screenshots assuming you kept your MS Paint.exe! (My email is in semi-plain language on me upper talk page) ttfn // Fra nkB 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Exp, phase II
re: ''(The "British response" section below has crammed-up images, but I'm not sure if it's because of the major goosing we've been doing above, or if it was there before. Maybe something to look at after). Let me know how other browsers see it. Esseh 02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)''


 * Ahhh... guess that was unclear, my bad! Apologies. Firefox looks fine, IE6 too now that I added the /div, with the aesthetic caveat above on all three. (i.e. all close enough for me now... in general, all three box elements end about the same heights... my standard zoom reading setting... circa 10-12 pt.) // Fra nkB  02:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. try again now. My three all look good. // Fra nkB  02:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My turn to machine gun you between your posts... Try again with this position tweak too! // Fra nkB 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (P.S. - Just got your email. WOW oh WOW!

Boy are we are seeing very different things! All my TOC's are aligned on the LEFT side of the Battlebox (as was the plan and intent with TOCnestright! Please pin down the date stamp on the version you imaged. I'll image and send you a return email.


 * PING email... My Netscape 8.1.xx screenshot of current version dated 02:34, 7 May 2007 Summary: m (58,107 bytes) (move up again for double test of fix -- Note: my prev edit looked fine now in Netscape, Firefox and IE6, (vertical TOC plaement) aesthetics aside). // Fra nkB  03:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * re: (Oh, and Climie.ca is apparently on vacation. I don't think he meant anything by this. I left him a note to say "Bon voyages", and mentioned you and I were batting this over. I think the change was inadvertent. Esseh 03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he'd just made the edit, and deleting the div style was almost as bad as truncating the whole page. I'm yelling for help. An email will be there in a moment. // Fra nkB 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Checked!
Hi Esseh - deep breaths now! I made a comment on the AfD, yes the article appears to be claptrap, and largely lifted off of other webpages. As for your earlier photo request - that's a toughy for sure. I'll ask among my friends if anyone wants to volunteer. Does it really have to be naked? Debivort 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Woman hear you roar!
Hello. This is the thread I promised to start about the article on woman. Feel free to vent about me, the article, the inappropriate images, and so on, here. If you'd like, I'll copy your posting verbatim to the talk page for woman without your signature, and delete it from here. Just ask me to "Post" at the beginning or end of your message, and I'll do that. Otherwise, I'll just leave the comments here. All the best. Esseh 06:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

bathroom in other languages
Actually, you don't really need to know how to say "Where is the bathroom?" in other languages. You simply come up to someone, clutch the groin area, and whimper. That tends to get the point across quickly (It worked for me in Frankfurt).

Climie.ca 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for the image.

That will definately help.

Cam 23:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you could go through the article and input all of the accents, that would be a big help! Cam 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

CMHTF
Are you a member of the Canadian Military History Task Force? Because you probably should be, considering all of the help I've gotten from you. You should join.

Cam 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks yet again
Thanks yet again for the info.

Where do you get all of this stuff?

Cam 22:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Battle of Verrières Ridge
I've moved the page - it doesn't look like there were any redirects that needed to be fixed, so you should be in good shape now. Carom 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also created a redirect from the un-accented form. Carom 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of location
Hi Esseh, I looked through the images on the article more carefully. And the photos work great. I guess I just have a preference for diagrams for scientific articles. Probably some hangover from school text books or something. the amoeba and diatom are way better as photos than I'd expect a diagram to be. But I notice the fish image seems to be a created image, and I think that looks great too.

You seem to be doing a great job with what you have available - it's a real shame we don't have what you need. I've spent a few hours trawling through Flickr and a couple of other free image sites looking for decent nudes but have had no luck so far. I wonder if a museum would give one or if we could generate enough media interest ('cause they do seem to love anything with a hint of the salacious they can spin in some fashion) to get a public ask going. That might be a way to make an "ideal naked woman" statement achieve something for us. -- Siobhan Hansa 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A naturist society is an even better idea. You're right they'll probably think the whole discussion is faintly ridiculous.  I'm not well connect to the press, I'd been thinking we could try to get one of the folks who speak to the media often to mention our need (along with our big drive to get more images in general) in an interview.  It's a long shot and even if it works it will raise drama and probably bring a lot of annoying vandalism to the article, as well as the possibility of the image we want.  So a low key ask to a group who might be inclined to provide would be better :) -- Siobhan Hansa 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: glans
Heh, well. I'll have to get back to you on that a little later on - I can't really look at the articles in question right now, as they're not exactly appropriate for my workplace...

First thought, though: the stub, as it stands, is not satisfactory. However, I understand the desire to avoid wholesale repetition of the main articles on the individual organs, hence the reduction in content.

I think a compromise can probably be brokered here, but give me some time to read the articles a little more thoroughly. Carom 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, after looking at all three articles, I would say the most sensible solution might be the following: retain the main glans article as a location for broader discussion, and expand the sub-articles as appropriate. The main article should still have about a paragraph of text summarizing each of the two sub-subjects, and can use the main or details template to direct readers to the sub-article. I don't know if this makes the most sense from a biology/anatomy standpoint, though. Carom 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with your suggestion. — An as  talk? 06:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Carom and Anas. (I'm replying here just to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks for the input. My problem is with the other individual, who refuses to discuss anything. I found the article in about the state he's reverted it to now, worked it up to what it was for about a month. I have been soliciting suggestions, have received none, and all of a sudden, this individual comes in and removes everything with no prior discussion. Honestly, I would like some discussion, and was thinking of putting it up for review. Can't do that now, though. So, how do I proceed? I can't revert it - have tried. I can't get discussion of points, just accusations of POV and that it will be blanked unless I can convince this one person. I have solicited other comments as well, but so far, it's just frustrating. Next step? Esseh 08:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll post some comments on the talk page and see where that takes us. If it doesn't prove fruitful, you will probably want to start an RfC to solicit a broader range of opinions, but lets hold off on that for now. Carom 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have solicited comments from the Biology, Anatomy and Sexuality Portals. That may help get a bit of input from some. Thanks again, guys. Esseh 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Carom. Thanks for the new category. Actually, there were a number of categories in my expanded version. They were reverted. Right now, I'm cooling... :) Esseh 01:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetics
Thanks for looking it over! Your change to the intro -- maybe you saw this already -- that contrast is definitely what I originally meant to have there. I'm working on adding more content to the outline (on the talk page) on this draft: User:Madprime/Genetics. Many thanks! Madeleine 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My edit to include histones in regard to scaffold proteins was primarily to serve as a bridge for readers between the 2 articles and not to fill the already cluttered page with information on scaffold proteins (as the article is about Genetics mainly). Was the deletion necessary? If so I understand. Pwnz0r1377 05:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I noticed that non-histone proteins red-link but I do see your point in how my statement could have been unclear. It's probably best to just leave histones out of the article. Pwnz0r1377 06:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! I looked through your "contribs" and we seem to be interested in the same things so I will be in touch soon enough :). Pwnz0r1377 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My username is lame I know, it's because I'm a teenager and we enjoy names like this I guess. It comes from l337, a computer nerd language ;] Pwnz0r1377 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you were right about one thing, not many people would get it (I certainly don't). One question, do you have the ability to block people from editing? as one of the people who edited the Genetics page was a vandal. Pwnz0r1377 04:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah I noticed that too. Usually I just wait for someone named MadPrime to look at what I added to her Genetics article and see if it needs improvement in anyway. Sad story. Pwnz0r1377 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(Interjecting... re your last post on the email-- It was that same idiot Windows movie, I'm beginning to suspect your ISP doesn't give you much space to fill up. It's funny, but not worth worrying about! // Fra nkB 13:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sherbrooke
Canadian cities are never filed directly in Category:Cities in Canada; they are subcategorized by province only. Additionally, if a city-specific category exists, as is the case for Sherbrooke, then that category goes in "Cities in province" instead of the article. Bearcat 08:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. Esseh 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey thanks for reverting that vandalism for me! That was exciting, someone actually took the time to vandalize my page ;]. I'll start watching your page to return the favor now :]. Pwnz0r1377 01:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm so sorry. I totally forgot. What are your thoughts on the current suggestion on the talk page? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

old regiment
you mentioned, on my talk page, that folks from you old regiment were murdered by Kurt Meyer's 12th SS. What regiment would that be? I know that the Royal Winnipegs and North Novas both had folks "executed by him", which regiment is your old one?

Cam 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Climie.ca

Evolution FAC
Hi there, I've nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

working man's barnstar
I tried putting this on your userpage myself, but it didn't work, you can do it.

Lahore Division
I know its a while back but you may still be interested...

The source on the page gives the formation of the Lahore Division at the time of 2nd Ypres as follows:- Division - Major General H. D'U. Keary. - Ferozepore Brigade - Brigadier General R.G. Egerton. - Connaught Rangers. 57th Wilde's Rifles. 4/London (TF). 9th Bhopal Infantry. 129th Baluchis. Jullundur Brigade - Brigadier General E.P. Strickland. - 1/Manchester. 47th Sikhs. 4/Suffolks (TF). 40th Pathans. 59th Scinde Rifles. Sirhind Brigade - Brigadier General W.G. Walker, VC. - 1/Highland Light Infantry. 1/1st Gurkhas. 4/King's (SR). 15th Sikhs. 1/4th Gurkhas. Royal Engineers - 20 and 21 Field Companies. 3rd Sappers and Miners. Pioneers - 34th Sikh Pioneers. Mounted Troops - 15th Lancers.

As you can see it wasnt simply an Indian soldier / British officer type of setup. It looks to me the each brigade was 2 battalions of Indian/Gurka etc and 2 battalions from the home countries. Virtually impossible to flag in modern terms other than with the Union flag to denote British Empire. --LiamE 14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Arras (1917)
Blimey. I don't know how many times I've looked at this without spotting the missing "war". That's what makes it so difficult proofing your own stuff, you know what it's supposed to say so read that into the text. Thanks for picking it up: I'm notorious for doubled words, missing words etc. -- R OGER  TALK 10:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How to get the box of current women heads of state into the English woman article
I looked at the French site for woman & it has a box of current women heads of state. I tried to cut and paste it into the English article, but in the edit box it appears in template form, with Two{'s atthefront and Two}'s attheend of a template.

Anyway, I have the fuller query at the Talk Page of the Woman article. Dogru144 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Women leaders under attack
Greetings, Happy New Year!

I hope that you support the listing of woman leaders and the photos. An editor has opted to take them down. Hope you support the preservation of the list and photos. Cheers. Dogru144 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

update
Hey, noticed you were online earlier (as the edit from my watchlist indicated). Just thought I'd give you an update on "the article". Since we last communicated in June 2007, Battle of Verrières Ridge has come a long, and I mean A LONG way. it failed its first GA in July 2007 (rightly so. Looking back on it, I'm surprised I had the nerve to nominate it). After some huge revamping of the article, it passed its second GA in April 2008 (the citation density having tripled, the POV having been eliminated, the sources having been broadened, & maps added). It looks to be on the verge of passing its A-Class nomination at the moment (voting closes saturday). I'm still extremely grateful for all of your hard work in helping to get the project off of the ground (those first two months.....difficult times). Just thought I'd give you an update. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More updates. I've managed to take a lot of the, for lack of a better term, formerly skimpy Canadian WWII articles to significantly higher ratings.  Operation Tractable, which once barely consisted of half a paragraph (as little as 8 days ago), is about to go for GA Nomination, I'm copyediting Operation Totalize to be at the same stage within a month (and trying to get several other articles to B-Class).  Just trying to keep you posted.  If you wish, have a look through Tractable.  If you've got any suggestions, I would highly appreciate them. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 06:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "gross disillusionment with Wikipedia", what exactly does that mean (what happened)?
 * Hey, thanks for the copyedit. I'm not particularly good at proofing my own stuff.  That has been most-helpful.  Now, I just need to wait on Enigma to compress the footnotes, and I should be good.  Thanks for your help! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over Totalize. Yeah, there are some serious issues with that article. Most of my heavy-duty work lately has fallen under Tractable, while Totalize has sort of gotten shafted to the side. Just a few things:

1: I've already put in a request at the Logistics Department to reformat the image to have the colour-schemes along the lines of those used on the maps in Battle of Verrieres Ridge, simply for consistency (I'd get EyeSerene to do it, but I've already overloaded him with graphics & review-requests).

2: As I mentioned on the talk-page in response to your concerns, I've got a two-week period coming up (after June 17) in which I have absolutely nothing else on the table. I should be able to do a huge rewriting of the article after that date.

Thanks for looking over it. Criticism is always appreciated & necessary. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One more update, Verrieres Ridge is now a Featured Article. Cam (Chat) 05:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And was featured on Portal:Canada on June 30. Cam (Chat) 05:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Battle of Arras
Ping! -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ping!) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

equids/ anatomical terms of location
Hello- Thanks for the kind words about the edits. I see your point about rostral as cranial in a lamprey. Still (while I'm definitely splitting hairs pointlessly), one could argue that the cranium is caudal/posterior to the mouth even in a lamprey, implying that the rostrum extends beyond (rostral to...) the cranium. But this is a pretty useless point. Your edits have been very constructive and are helping to mold this article into what it should be. Please feel free to give me a Whacking with a Wet Trout if I become overeager in my edits... Getwood (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I must confess that I am an equine veterinarian. This biases me in two ways: First, the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria terminology is what I learned (and use daily...).  This is why I don't like Anterior/Posterior, and why rostral is a commonly used word for me.  Second, well, I use hosres for examples...  In my defense, in terms of the rostral usage, equids do have pronounced noses...  :)


 * I must say that differences of opinion usually create better articles IMO, because it makes us think, and really try to understand our own views. (And, yes, sometimes I have to realize that I'm wrong...) I'm sure we've all had bad experiences with contentious edit wars.  The most satisfying are where editors can work things out civilly.  Again, your edits (including edits of my phrasing) have been constructive in substance and tone.  And, yes, I think the article is strong largely on the strength of your contributions.  So, keep up the good work.


 * In terms of the standard positioning photo, one possibility would be an old illustration, such as or .  Getwood (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Brayon Language Proposed Deletion
This article was proposed for deletion