User talk:Pharos/Golden Age of Alpinism

Sunday plans have been crushed
Something came up a couple minutes ago for Sunday, and I defenitely cannot go. However I will give my opinions tomorrow. If you wish to take these to meeting, go ahead.Mitch32contribs 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC

 * Thanks for your efforts to include me. I read the exchange, but I have no strong opinions yet.  I'll be at The Symposium and I'll be interested to hear what the gist of the discussion is on Sunday.  I am a very active Wikipedia editor, but I have no bright ideas about organizational issues, and I will need to weigh the discussions before I can form any intelligent opinions.  I'll be happy to tell you what I think on Sunday night.  If you look at the last meetup page, you'll see my photo.  All the best.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Pharos! How did the meet up go? I could not attend despite being in NYC :( Anything on the Hebrew manuscript?--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Does the deletion of ScienceApologists username, etc. affect the NY group's plans?  BTW, aside from his plan, we need more information about what happened at the meeting.  Can you beef up the description at the meetup page?  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Move
I think I will move back the article about Judeopolonia to this name, since the name League of East European States doesn't appear on any google search outside of Wikipedia, the term Judeopolonia has been adopted (rightly or wrongly) as the widespread name of this concept. While some may feel discomfort at this, Wikipedia is not a place to judge accepted naming, similar situation is in Polish Corridor article which is a propaganda term that describes an area of Polish administrative region with different name, yet the propaganda name has entered widespread usage. Also a proper move should be be made after voting and discussion. The term Judeopolonia is widespread enough that I thin is notable to have an article on wiki.--Molobo (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Perhaps a an article about Attempts to create Jewish state in Central and Eastern Europe ? But at beginning they will be similiar to each other.--Molobo (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wikback
Thanks for the heads-up about this. At the moment interest is a bit low in the PA chapter because of all the delays, so there isn't much to talk about. Plus, i'm trying to be patient and work through all problems we discussed with delphine and the chapcom. If we have need of it, we will definitely consider wikback for our communications. thanks! --Whiteknight (talk) (books) 23:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

m:Image:Wikipedia pseudoscience.pdf
Precise source and license, please?--Jusjih (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup/Philadelphia 6
 You're invited to the

Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup

January 2008

Time: January 26th, 5:00 PM

Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut RSVP (view/edit this template) You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless you!
Mythological information on the Giant Otter was precisely what I was missing! Marskell (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Archival permission
Hello Pharos,

I am the archivist for the language subcommittee. You sent a message to the language subcommittee on January 29th 2008 about historical languages. Discussion with the subcommittee is regularly copied to a public archive for transparency. Since you have not agreed to archival, your messages are currently replaced with the message "&lt; this user has not agreed to public archival &gt;".

Do you agree to the public archival of all your emails? Even if you do agree, you can mark any email or comment as private and the message will be replaced by an appropriate note to that effect. The archives can be edited at any time to remove a message you forgot to mark as private.

Thanks. — {admin} Pathoschild 15:17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 NYC meetup
I placed a note on scheduling the March 2008 meeting here: Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC — Becksguy (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me I might have messed up the way you've been archiving the meetup page histories (moving instead of copying). Would you like me to speedy my own version so you can move it correctly? Sorry. BusterD (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's OK. I'll speedy it and do the move in the next week, by which time we should hopefully be starting the page for the March meetup.  Thanks for your note.--Pharos (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Enphon
A tag has been placed on Template:Enphon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Schedule
The schedule sounds good to me. I have had zero luck getting anyone from the library to talk to me. You might give it a try. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Libraries
Rare books or the medical library might be the best bets. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your list looks good. Maybe it's time to make some phone calls. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone working on the Solar System featured topic
Please come settle the current debate raging over there. Thank you.  Serendi pod ous  11:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Celebreality
Hey. Got a question. What do you do if no other users chime in on an AfD page? Should I delete the article outright? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I figured as much, regarding that last part. Nightscream (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured sounds
I noticed that you have participated in Featured sound candidates in the past. There are now two candidates and the project appears to be abandoned. If you could look at the candidates and vote it would be appreciated. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for helping promote the Garvey speech to Featured Sound status! Now that I see what you've done, I can better prepare new sounds I nominate. You're the best! – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two Stickney image
Is this page the source of Image:Two Stickney circa 1836 drawing.png?--Pharos (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly. I actually wasn't the original uploader of this photo. I converted it to PNG format and had the old GIF copy deleted, but it looks like the name of the original uploader was lost in the move to the Commons. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost article
Thanks for your contribution to the Wikipedia Signpost article. I think it was considerably improved by the changes. There are couple of things that I think needed to be corrected, however:


 * "according to Ratzinger's 1991 book Turning point for Europe?"
 * The date of the English translation (Turning point for Europe?) was 1994. The date of the Italian edition (Svolta per l'Europa?) was 1992. Since the Wikipedia article cites the Italian edition, I have gone with that.


 * "It is their consideration of the date discrepancy that led L'Osservatore Romano ... "
 * No. Since they (mistakenly) thought that the date given was correct, it could only have been the discrepancy in the location which they based their conclusions on.


 * "The date and location mentioned in the petition could have been based on a later version of the Wikipedia article, which had been altered considerably since the scientists' petition was written."
 * I don't understand this at all. How can anything in the petition have been based on a version of the Wikipedia article that was not written until later? The original point of this paragraph, which disappeared with your change, was that L'Oservatore Romano must have based its accusations on a later version of the article that was not available when the petition was written. I have restored the original and tried to clarify it.

I have made a few other cosmetic changes which I don't think alters anything of substance. The main one was a shifting of the text


 * "Ratzinger in fact repeated this speech several times in different cities about this time, and it is possible that the slight difference of wording might reflect a different deliverance of the speech."

to a later part of the article which seemed to me to be a more logical place for it. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Captions & Conjectural Images
I think we agree more than disagree. Certainly there are some who raise the conjectural images innocently enough, but it seems that there are others who persist in arguing against them do to their inaccuracy even after acknowledging that they are conjectural images. While a caption would catch the former, I'm not so sure it would do much to dissuade the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonicDevice (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it!  Cbrown1023   talk   21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)