User talk:Rmhermen/Archive5

National Parks Project: Dates of Establishment
Hey Rmherman, I started making changes to some National Monuments which were very similar to your goal for your National Parks Project before I actually stumbled across your project page. I would like to continue your work, in a slow fashion, with some of the National Monuments.

The real topic for discussion, however, is dates of establishment. Your tabular format of your project lists a date of establishment, which appears to be the date of an area's most recent designation. I feel it is very useful to see the whole history, for intance to see that Congaree National Park was protected by the NPS first in 1976 as a National Monument, and then in 2003 as a National Park. Knowing that the establishment of the area happened in 1976 is at least as important as the fact that it changed designations in 2003. I have amended several of your pages to include this.

Do you have any opinions about standardizing my idea for your project?
 * Well, it isn't really "my" project. It is a Wikiproject of which I am perhaps the only remaining active participant and I haven't done a lot there recently either. First remember that the infobox is set up as an international standard and the additions that you propose don't mean anything for the parks of, say, South Africa. The detail should certainly go in the text where it is easier to describe the history of classification and often boundary changes the areas go through. I don't strongly oppose it but I don't know that I see it as necessary. I feel the detail in the article is most important. Remember, too, that there are a couple hundred U.S. articles you are proposing changing. Rmhermen 16:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * I know there are a couple hundred areas in the National Park System, but I don't believe the list of those which have changed designations is very daunting (based on my small sample of articles from NPS, and my personal visitation to at least 15% of them.) I did *not* know that the infobox was an international standard.  I tried to come into this conversation prepared, but I missed something.  Can you direct me to information about this?
 * I concede that making reference to "U.S. National Park" and "U.S. National Monument" in the international standard infobox isn't as meaningful as I had hoped them to be. Since the purpose of the infobox is for quick reference, though, it seems more appropriate that the date of the area's original designation to be listed.  For example, do you want to know that Katmai National Park and Preserve got its new name in 1980, or that it became part of the Park System in 1918?  I suppose that presents problems for the parks that were re-shaped or split... (More information about the layout of the infobox may make me sound like an ignorant whiner, so please don't consider me a pest yet.)
 * P.S. Do you use a Windows-based computer to redraw the dot maps? If so, what program do you use to edit the PNG files? (Again, I hope I've done my research and that I'm not talking about something that's already answered somewhere close...) Mrendo 16:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The project main page is WikiProject Protected areas. It was originally started by someone working on the parks of Australia. The blank map for the U.S. is at /Map Locators/United States and any graphics program which can handle JPG or better PNG can be used to add a red dot. I used Adobe PhotoDeluxe but many programs will work. Rmhermen 17:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Proofs
Hi, I noticed that you moved the proofs out of the article on Mobius transformation. Why? This goes against the current style guidelines established for proofs. Please join the discussion at WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs if you think the guideline should be changed. linas 01:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * We discontinued support for / subpages in an earlier version of the software and decided that pages should have independent titles. Rmhermen 01:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where does it officially say that this has been discontinued? The use of /Proofs subdirectory is discussed at WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. No one in that conversation seemed to make mention of this, I'm guessing no one was aware of this; it actually seemed like a very good solution to the problem. Problem is the proofs are not really worthy of their own pages, they're kind of cruddy; they're kind of like glorified special-purpose talk pages. I'm somewhat flabbergasted at the discontinuation, since large parts of the wiki still use sub pages.  Your talk page right here uses three subpages!!  Is there a fixed date by which these will need to be abandoned? Will there be automated migration scripts?  linas 02:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

USS Maine
I disagree. The article on the Naval Historical Center states that evidence of a mine or other methods of sabotage is slim and unlikely. Due to Anti-Spain sentiments at the time, it was easy to jump to the conclusion that the Spanish sabotaged the ship. Any sabateur would have to work a con right out of Ocean's Eleven. Reems of armed guards were on duty and lookouts were posted to watch for waterborne sabateurs. While the cause is disputed. It is extremely unlikely that sabotage was to blame and the dispute is often between two accidental causes.

(By the way: your talk page is 87 kilobites long! Might want to archive some of this stuff)

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 04:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly you can form your own opinion. But you cannot deny and acknowledge that there is still significant debate over the issue as the article describes in detail. Rmhermen 15:20, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Muir Wood National Monument
Thanks for your feedback and updates to the Muir Woods page. I will spend some more time reviewing the style guide to ensure that future articles meet the standards of the site. I am aware of the date convention. I apparently missed one of the dates while making my changes.

You asked if I made the map. I did. Is there an issue that needs to be addressed on the map?

Epolk 16:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Titles
You wrote:

Someone just created several pages like Lord Lieutenant of Argyll and Bute -that one with just one unwikified entry. I thought you would be the one to know if they are useful or improvable. Rmhermen 13:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think that these can be improved, if the full list of office-holders is added. Otherwise, of course, the articles are of no use at all. -- Emsworth 22:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of British units in American Revolution
Hey,

I've linked directly to most numbered regiments on that page because i'm hoping that articles will be created for each individual regiment. I fear it won't be complete until about 2020 :-(

Most of the British infantry regiments on the British forces in Revolution page were merged with each other in 1881 so, in my opinion, the numbered ones do deserve their own page. The ones that weren't amalgamted should, unless they've had a history longer than the current EU constitution or just deserve their own page, be made redirects to whatever they are called now or what the used to be called until they too were merged. Meh, the history of the British Army is so damned inconvenient at times.

I've probably made all that sound disjointed. The approach looks something like this:


 * The Royal Scots have never amalgamated so their numbered name (1st Regiment of Foot, etc) is redirectd to it.
 * The 33rd and 76th Regiments of Foot were amalgamated to form the Duke of Wellington's Regiment in 1881 so they should have their own pages.
 * There were three regiments numbered 79th. They should be made into a disambig page leading to seperate 79th articles if they're warranted. SoLando 15:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I'm prob atop the wheel and travelling on it as i'm using the format that is, with a few exceptions, used for most British Army regiments on Wikipedia. The articles that haven't were probably fleshed out by using text for predecessor regiments. Take care SoLando 16:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michigan wealthiest cities
I got the numbers from Wikipedia itself: there is a surprisingly convenient list of Michigan locations by per capita income that I was hoping to find on Wikipedia before but it's buried but among the per capita income articles and not among the Michigan articles. I figured it's incorporation in some way to at least one Michigan article was important and otherwise would have gone to waste in some way. I also added the list and the notes at the end of the subsection to clarify some of the colloquial and misconstrued ideas about Michigan's richest and poorest cities. Since the numbers come from the US Census Bureau, I suppose that's the source. I've updated the Michigan page to reflect this, along with the year in which these numbers were calculated. Gsgeorge 17:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

French and Indian War
Forgive me if I get a little crude, but

Why do you insist on reverting my edits to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham article? Only overzealousness and aloofness could explain your restoring the phrase "French and Indian War (US)" to the battlebox given my entry in the talk page. Also, my changes to the opening paragraph eliminate two redundant words and are no longer grammatically ambiguous - again, you revert without reason.

I'll desist from further editing until we've reached some understanding, of course. Albrecht 01:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your edits have not reduced grammatical ambiguity, they have introduced factual error. The Seven Year's War is not known as the French and Indian War in the United States as your first edit claimed. It is known as the Seven Year's War. The North American theater of that war is known as the Frewnch and Indian War in the U.S., however, which is what the article originally stated. Your second edit made little grammatical sense, "the French and Indian War of the Seven Years War". Would you say the Pacific War of the Second World War? Or the Great Patriotic War of the Second World War? I would say the "known as the Pacific War, a theatre of the Second World War." And as for removing it from the battlebox, this appears to me to be your overzealousness in removing American English in favor (favour) of Commomwealth terms. Rmhermen 14:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're spilling out grievances against the immaterial. You can belabour my first edit all you want while making stuff up about the other that followed. Or, you can accept that after you pointed out its weakness; I revised my edit as follows:


 * The Battle of the Plains of Abraham, fought September 13, 1759, was a decisive battle of the North American theatre (known in the United States of America as the French and Indian War) of the Seven Years' War.


 * Unless you somehow ignore parentheses, you've got little grounds to complain of any factual error. The sentence merely (and correctly) states that the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War is known in the U.S. as the "French and Indian War". Similarly, one could say that the Far Eastern theatre of the Second World War is known to Americans as the "Pacific War", or that the Eastern Front is known to Russians as the "Great Patriotic War". Where's the problem?


 * I find your entry to the battlebox unsightly and just plain unnecessary. A link to French and Indian War is given in the first paragraph of the article's text. And if, heavens forbid, an American were to enter the Seven Years' War article by mistake, be assured that, again, (s)he'd almost immediately find a link to French and Indian War (second paragraph). This isn't a question of nomenclature - I've stated before that I'm more than willing to accommodate American terms wherever appropriate. But your penchance for the plastering of this terminology into every cranny of every article (see Battle of Fort Oswego) - even at the expense of style or spacing - goes beyond "appropriate" and on to "overzealous". And it's mere sophistry of you to suggest that because I've dared remove a single phrase from a battlebox, I must be acting on some inverse fervor. As a Quebecois, you can be sure that I'm not terribly infatuated with British English and its historiography. I say "Seven Years' War" because - guess what? - that's what the rest of the world says as well. The United States is the only nation to deviate from the accepted name. Or maybe you'd care to explain to me how the Dutch, French, Russians, Germans, Spaniards, and Swedes are all simply deluded and enamoured with the British Commonwealth? Albrecht 15:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking over the article again, I find that what bugs me most about the battlebox is "(US)". This isn't really needed, but I can otherwise tolerate "French and Indian War". I still think my edit to the first paragraph should stay, though. Albrecht 16:03, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem removing the US, however it is important that each article contain a link to French and Indian War. Most Americans have never heard of the Seven Years War and almost none would connect that term to an North American war. If I didn't read the phrase correctly I don't see how "was a decisive battle of the North American theatre (known in the United States of America as the French and Indian War) of the Seven Years' War." is better than the original "was a decisive battle of the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War (a theatre known in the United States of America as the French and Indian War)." which doesn't include a parenthetical phrase in the middle of a sentence. I consider that bad style in most cases. Rmhermen 16:13, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * To me, repeating the words "a theatre" seems like worse style than displacing parenthetical content, but I'm no authority on this. Albrecht 16:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs
Dear Rmhermen, at the moment there is a poll taking place on the Macedonian Slavs talk page to which you could make a significant contribution. Thank you in advance for your participation. Ivica83 13:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controlled Combustion Engine
Hi, I was wondering why you moved the page because Controlled Combustion Engine is a name and not a description eg. the FBI page isn't Federal bureau of investigation. - Diceman 16:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless it is a trademark or other type of proper name, it should only have the first term capitalized: like Internal combustion engine. Rmhermen 13:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Kelleys Island Glacial Grooves
Great job in adding glacial grooves information on the Kelleys Island page. How did you manage to do it so quickly? I put in a suggestion for it on Sunday night. On Monday morning it was done.

Is there an appropriate way to have "Glacial Grooves" or Glacial Grooves State Memorial/Park" show up in a search? Regards, DD
 * Coincidence. I never saw your request but I was just on the island this weekend. We could have an article on glacial groves of which the pictured one is not the only example. I don't know if there is enough information to have a whole article on the Memorial but perhaps it could be a section in the as-yet-unwritten Kelleys Island State Park article? Rmhermen 16:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I just took a shot at adding Glacial Grooves myself - before I saw your note above. Hope it's OK      DD

Mississippi State Parks
Thanks for expanding the list of Mississippi state parks. The state's website says there are 28 parks, but I can only find 24 named there. The current wikilist is 25. What was your source for the list of parks? Thanks. &mdash; Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:14, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Well, the source was the State park website plus one listed elsewhere. Silly me, I thought they would have a complete list. Rmhermen 15:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
Hello --

I'm trawling for smart people with an interest in American Indian affairs, and if you happen to have anything to contribute to the Peter Matthiessen article, or know someone who does, I think that would be great!

Best,

Ben-w 08:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ooops!
In a bleary-eyed state early this morning I added a reply to your comment on my talk page on your user page instead of here. Apologies. Anyway, guess you'll see it now I've added a message here - SP-KP 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ==Reply to comment about "Currently being created"==

Hi

Just to explain: this phrase simply means that I am currently in the process of creating the article or series of articles but that it/they are too long to key in in one sitting; likewise sections with "to be completed" in them. The purpose is to signify to other authors that the article is a "work in progress" thereby letting them know that someone else is working on sorting out the incomplete bits so they don't have to. When I'm comfortable with my contribution I will go back and remove the phrase, so I'm not creating work for anyone else, unless I get run over by a bus. I realise that in a sense *all* Wikipedia articles are "works in progress", but I feel there is a distinction between an article that is obviously in mid-stream, and one which the origniator is happy with but which others may add to. So no need to worry on this one (but happy to listen if you can think of a better way of achieving the same end result). -SP-KP 06:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There are "in use" templates. Rmhermen 03:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks - I will add one of those to the pages you spotted, and a couple of others which I am actively working on - SP-KP 09:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?
It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

Eric 19:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William of Orange
Hey Rmherman,

I read your comments on my talkpage but don't understand a word you're saying. I haven't changed anything at William of Orange (disambiguation) and I have redirected William of Orange not to William the Silent but to William of Orange (disambiguation). It was directed to William III of Orange which obviously is not correct (as you point out). Chardon

Please visit the page and its talk page Talk:William of Orange - a vote ongoing. Arrigo 20:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Capital Punishment Deterrence
I noticed that you removed the following without discussion:


 * Deterrence &mdash; it is argued that it deters other people from committing capital crimes. Although US public opinion and recent studies do not support such a belief.

I believe that this statement is more NPOV than the present version you have included. It is an argument not a fact and to include a reference to recent studies, which in-fact do not support the argument is in line with NPOV. I feel that at the very least something like this should be put to discussion.

If you feel my edit was inaccurate please say so and cite a reference to back it up and we can reedit the section to reflect this. - Solar 8 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
 * This is not supposed to be a NPOV statement - this is a statement in the reasons for support of the death penalty. Reasons to oppose the death penalty are in the previous section. These sort of additions undermine the structure of the page. Rmhermen July 8, 2005 19:03 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that your opinion is that such extra information undermines the page structure. But I must say that it seems relevant to me to include a reference showing whether or not the argument is supported by research, which in this case it is not. Maybe this should go to discussion on the article talk page, fair? I also noticed that you moved all the links I added. I feel that an admin should consider discussing these decisions with other Wikipedians as I feel relevant information is being removed without any reason being given. - Solar 8 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
 * The links were not removed - they were moved to the Capital punishment in the United States page as all of them were about that topic. Pro and con sections are set up for exactly this reason so that each side of a controversial issue can present their arguments. If you wish to present a anti-death penalty argument it goes, therefore, in the anti- section. Feel free to broaden the participation in the discussion on talk, etc. The more the merrier. Rmhermen July 8, 2005 19:30 (UTC)

Please note I did not say you removed the links I said you moved them (see above). I feel the best thing to do is see if anyone replies to the points on the CP talk-page about links. As I feel it is very important to have research listed on the issue of deterrence I will add it to a neutral area and then link to it from the pro area, I think this is the fairest I can be as the evidence needs to be included. I feel that if there is evidence pro or against an argument it should be included, ideally both angles if such evidence exists. - Solar 8 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Country in Britain
Thanks for your answer at WP:RD about country music in Britain. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking July 8, 2005 20:53 (UTC)

Noric language?
Hi, Since you created the link to Noric language at Celtic languages, can you provide some sources for it? I already asked Pasquale, who made the red link blue, but said he just filled it in because it was mentioned at Celtic languages. As I mention on its talk page, none of the sources on Celtic languages I've consulted mention it. Is it actually attested, or does one simply assume that the inhabitants of Noricum must have spoken something, and that it was probably Celtic? Thanks, --Angr/undefined 9 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made Noric language a redirect to Noricum pending published evidence of its existence. --Angr/undefined 22:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't know where that information came from. It was probably from another Wikipedia article but I can't recall for certain. Rmhermen 19:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Native American
Thanks, I thought I had gotten all of the vandalism. Silly me. -Harmil 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Restored Image
I noticed you restored an image to the 8th Duke of Wellington Article, that had been removed as it is marked for deletion from wikipedia. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation#Request_from_original_uploader_to_delete_copyright_images and the bottom of the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington. 62.252.96.16 13:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that all I did to that article was remove a stray tag from a table. Rmhermen 13:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies I was looking through using a different tab, Firefox browser, and the image came up and you were the last editor, I must have clicked on a previous history tab in error. 62.252.96.16 14:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Moon rocks intro
Hi Rmh. I note you reverted my edit to the Moon rocks article intro, without comment. I left a note about it on Talk:Moon rocks a couple of days ago and receiving no reaction, inserted my version which is demonstrably far less verbose and to the point. Also you have reverted to a version which inconsistently uses "lbs." for pound but "kg" for kilogram. I would like to revert to my version, but if you have a serious objection, let's discuss it. Cheers Moriori 22:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wasn't intentional. Somehow I edited the first version of the article - not the current version. I went through and restored all the previous changes that were lost. Rmhermen 20:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * No probs. Cheers. Moriori 21:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Capital Punishment Issue
I would like to request with respect that you please stop reverting my additions to the Capital Punishment article. I feel that we have been here before and it is becoming a problem, as you seem unwilling to properly discuss your changes. I feel it is fair to add further detail, cite sources or generally put your opinion across whilst maintaining a balanced article. But to simply delete any addition outside of the against section that undermines a pro-Capital Punishment position is extremely problematic. In the future I would ask that you involve others in such changes by democratically discussing the issue on the talk page. I would also ask that if you feel the information is misplaced or should be part of the arguments against section why not move it or elaborate from your sources. Just because a fact or survey may undermine a given argument does not make it POV, in my opinion you should simply offer other sources, if they exist, giving greater depth for the reader. Please see Talk:Capital_punishment - Solar 14:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

United States casualties of war
Operation Enduring Freedom could be a subcategory of the War on Terrorism, since you say it is Afghanistan & the Philippines only. What do you think? Copperchair 19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The reported statistics that we repeat are the statistics for Afghainstan and the Phillipines only. Are there any casualties from elsewhere? Except in Iraq which some consider to be part of the War on Terrorism and which adds to the confusion of using that title. Rmhermen 20:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sonia Lee Kahn
Hi there, I am very new to Wikipedia and I am trying to do my best to make a few contributions without any problems. I see the newest page I created was tagged with possible copyright violation. I have made additions to Philippe Kahn, added Fullpower and Sonia Lee Kahn. I would just like to have these pages not challenged and available. I have done a lot of research, put in time and effort and even gotten permission from them directly. They have been pivotal in the world of wireless, are well known here on the central coast (california) and I believe there are many others out there interested in their contributions, especially in the world of technology. I welcome any help in how I can structure these pages or others so that I won't run into this problem. Thank you Athena :) 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)  BTW, it would be helpful if you could provide details as to why what I did is considered a copyright violation. Thank you
 * Unless you have written the material yourself or have received permission to release the material under the GFDL license, it is a copyright violation. If you rewrite it in your own words and preferrable use multiple sources, you will be fine. Rmhermen 22:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

How would I post that I have this permission? Thank you. Athena :) 22:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Also, what would I need to do to post something that can't be edited?
 * Second question first -- nothing, the core principle of the Wiki is that any user can edit any article. First question, if you have permission to use something under the GFDL, not just permission to recopy it, you could mention that fact on the talk page -along with a way of contacting the copyright owner to make it easier to verify. However, simply because you have permission to copy something does not mean that it would make a good encyclopedia article. Also you have to get permission from each site/person whose material you want to reuse. All in all, since the facts are not copyrightable, only the exact words, it is usually much easier to simply write your own article about the subject. This also makes it easier to write a NPOV article, more neutral than any press release/official biography is ever likely to be. Rmhermen 23:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

So now how do I get these three pages changed from copyright violations? It took me forever to get it removed for fullpower the first time. If I post the email permission rcvd on the talk page will this keep it from happening again? The most important thing is that I get all three pages removed/changed from copyright violations which I do not fully understand and would really appreciate your help. I tried to follow all of the steps the first time with fullpower to no avail. Eventually it was just deleted and I got to re-add it. I certainly don't want to keep enduring this battle and would rather contribute the information for the benefit of others. Thank you Athena :) 23:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Fullpower article in particular contains large blocks of text unaltered from a text owned (copyrighted) by RCR Wireless News. You would need their permission to release this under the GFDL and perhaps the author, Mike Dano's permission as well, depending on the legal contracts between those two parties. By the way, Fullpower cannot give you permission to use this material. As I have said before it is much easier to just write something yourself, using multiple sources. Having found the original deletion debate, do you think you have addressed the objections there? I don't see it. Rmhermen 23:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Blacks (capitalization)
Greetings. Why do you capitalize "Blacks" (as in the Sabha article)? Just curious. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't know. It just seemed right with Arab capitalized next to it. Now I not sure. Rmhermen 01:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

James Island
I come from german wikipedia. My question is: you has insert in the article James Island (The Gambia) the first name of St. Elizabeth Island. I fond nothing in the web and nothing other literature. But i found the Name Jakob Island from Courland's Duke, Jakob Kettler. Before the name is Isla de Andrea or St. Andrew's Island from the Portuguese. What is your source for St. Elizabeth Island? --Atamari 00:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that St. Andrews Island  is correct which is how I named it two other times writing that day in other articles. Not sure how St. Elizabeth slipped in. Rmhermen 01:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Lavash note removal
May I ask why you removed the comparison of lavash thickness to cotton fabric from the lavash article? Do you believe the comparison to be incorrect, inappropriate, misleading, or perhaps, not in keeping with good prose? Just wanted to know your reasoning before I either revert the edit or write a better description of its thickness. Thanks. --Aram&#1379;&#1400;&#1410;&#1407;&#1377;&#1398;&#1379;a|  21:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cotton shirts come in a variety of thickness - weights as they are called - so such a comparison is not very meaningful. I have had lavash in America was thinner than the cotton shirt I am currently wearing. It was virtually identical to tortillas so perhaps that is the best comparison. Rmhermen 01:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought that might have been the reason, I agree. Nonetheless, a comparison with something other than a tortilla may be in order, since the tortillas I've seen (though I haven't seen many) are thicker than geniune Armenian lavash (Persian/Arabic versions are thinner still). I wish I had taken a picture of it the last time I ate it. I'll try to think of a better comparison then, any suggestions are welcome. --Aram&#1379;&#1400;&#1410;&#1407;&#1377;&#1398;&#1379;a|  19:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

William of Orange
Please visit Talk:William of Orange 217.140.193.123 11:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Table namespace
Hi! I'm leaving this message because you're one of the people who supported (in full or in part) the Table namespace proposal. I've entered a feature request for the first part of this proposal, under Bug 2194. It would help draw some attention if you could enter a Bugzilla vote for it.

This particular feature request only covers three specific things: Any other changes like the dedicated table editor will be brought up at a later date (since this would need to be implemented first, anyway). If you have any comments or concerns you could leave a message on Bugzilla or on the proposal page. — Omegatron 01:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Set up the software to recognize a distinct Table: namespace
 * 2) Allow inserting tables into articles using the same markup as images:
 * 3) *Simple:
 * 4) *Advanced:
 * 5) All such tables will get an Edit this table (or [ edit ] ?) link associated with them, equivalent to the page that is brought up when you click on an image.

Glacier National Park
I like your edit to the native american section of Glacier National Park. I'm not Indian but am well versed in issues regarding them, especially in the northern Rockies region. My edit was kind of political sounding and yours is better. The truth is that the Blackfeet were not allowed into the parklands due to treaties they didn't understand and with the establishment of a mission at St. Ignesius in the west and at Browning in the east, they became dependent on the more easily accessed food supplies of a permanent settlement...wards of the state essentially. Impoverished, they agreed to sign over their rights to the area that then became Glacier. They were actually paid well compared to many tribal groups of that era.--MONGO 17:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Beauvoir/Biloxi/Jeff Davis library OK?
Hi would you please give some sources for the following change apparently made by you (?) to the Beauvoir/Biloxi article?:

PLEASE NOTE*** Early reports stated that Beauvoir had been destroyed. We know now that Beauvoir is still standing, but was severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina. At this writing, it is not known if the structure is salvageable, but reports have confirmed that many artifacts are intact. According to the most recent reports, 65% of the house remains standing on its foundations. The porches, columns, doors and windows are gone, and there is major damage to the front part of the roof.***

-- I am on a bunch of library & book-collector & Southern Stuff etc. lists, and the reported news of Beauvoir's "complete destruction" is echoing around there now, upsetting lots of people. I have posted the above note to them, with a Wikipedia reference, but it would really help if I could assure them more: are you in Biloxi & did you see this yourself? if not how & where did you get the info?

There is particular concern for the collections: any way of verifying that they are ok? Is the roof of the structure ok, for instance? Any way of getting a curator's or librarian's statement or of contacting them?

Much appreciate any verification or other info you can offer. Hope I'm right that it was your addition.

Jack Kessler, kessler@well.com (please respond to my email address if you can, altho I'll check back here too.)
 * I did not write that. It was added by an anonymous user yesterday. I suspect it is mostly a matter of emphasis. Early reports refer to "virtually demolished" and "reduced to a frame". Rmhermen 03:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Found this on the American Library Association's site, quoting the Clarion Ledger on August 31:" Beauvoir, located in Biloxi, was “virtually demolished.” George Malvaney reported that he visited Beauvoir on the evening of August 31. He said the bottom floor of the house was gone, the upstairs badly damaged, but that many artifacts were intact. He said artifacts have been temporarily secured. On September 1, Greg Biggs reported from Larry McCluney that approximately 65% of the main house still stands, although the porch, windows, doors, columns, and front porch are gone. The first floor of the library is gone, but Davis’s papers had been moved upstairs and survived. The small home where Davis resided survived. Other buildings, such as the gift shop, are gone." Rmhermen 03:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Native Americans
I have responded to you at Talk:Native Americans. You sounded a bit upset, and I hope that you understand that no one is trying to force a re-definition of any terms, only disambiguation. -Harmil 18:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Penda foes.GIF
Thanks for uploading Image:Penda foes.GIF. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use  .)  If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. --Secretlondon 18:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Warm glass
Why was this deleted, please? from the part I can read under deelted edits, it doesn't seem to fit any of the WP:CSD. I found it on new page patrol, so it must have been a pretty quick deletion. DES (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Applying IUCN designations
As a little project I have been creating stubs for red links I found on the list currently called "List of U.S. National Parks Service parks." I had my own template of sorts, that I have been using, however, I may start to utilize the Protected Area Table that you helped develop. The thing is, I have no background in applying the IUCN categories. I have my own ideas about which ones to use, but if you have a few minutes, I would like your opinion on how to categorize various kinds of sites. Thanks. &#151; Eoghanacht  talk 14:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do use the format developed at the Wikiproject. It says time since others won't have to go back and change each one. The UN database will give you most of the IUCN categories. Rock Creek in this case is a category V park. Rmhermen 19:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

For sites that do not have a category in the IUCN database, I am just going to take my best guess based on the description of each and state something like I did at: Roosevelt Campobello International Park. (That article is my first attempt at the table, and if you have any comments, let me know now before I start revising several of my stubs.) Generally I think all historic areas would fall under cat. III.

Also, under its talk page, I have a proposal to move the page (yet again, although other moves were not by me) List of U.S. National Parks Service parks. &#151; Eoghanacht  talk 15:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I responded at the List about the page move. Roosevelt Campobello looks good. I like the "appears to conform" line in the table. As I recall the original designation were only applied to areas over 3,000 hectares although they now are being used for smaller areas so information may become available in the future. Rmhermen 14:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

2 Items: To see both of these in action, go to Ford's Theatre and click on edit for the code. Thanks for your help. I think I am on my way now. (FYI, I am going to place several comments on the park list talk page.) &#151; Eoghanacht  talk 15:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * After I placed the HTML table on a site, someone converted it to something he called "wikimark". I may revise the sample Protected Area Table to this format.
 * I had a slight change of heart about the "appears to ...": I need to somehow indicate to future users why I picked a certain header color, but I somehow I don't think I should give my opinion in the table.  Instead I will place IUCN guess-designation in a non-displaying comment within the table.  That way future editors can read the information, but it does not appear in the normal article.

FYI, I placed some suggestions for modifications to the Protected Areas Table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected Areas/General. &#151; Eoghanacht  talk 15:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Kelly's Island
You originally created this as a redirect to Kelleys Island, Ohio; I have replaced it with a stub article now. I thought it'd be appropriate to inform you of it. Mindmatrix 00:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

SS Cap Arcona
FALSE

Drowning in Numbers Letter by Steve Parsons, July 2002

In a review of Antony Beevor's 'Berlin: The Downfall' (June SR), mention is made of 'the greatest maritime disaster of all time', the sinking of the Goya by a Russian submarime with the consequent drowning of 7,000 refugees.

However, a disaster of even greater magnitude took place on 3 May 1945, when the RAF bombed and machine-gunned the German luxury liner, Cap Arcona, in the Baltic in the bay of Lubeck, south of the Danish island of Lolland. On this occasion 7,700 died, and what makes the incident even more grotesque was the fact that the victims were concentration camp prisoners.

At the close of the war a determined effort was made by the Nazis to kill the surviving concentration camp inmates by commanding them on forced marches away from the advancing Russians--the infamous death marches. Ten thousand prisoners from Neuengamme, a camp in the vicinity of Hamburg, ended up in Lubeck, where they were then ordered aboard the ship Cap Arcona, and fully expected to meet their deaths by being sunk by the Germans. Sighting British planes they were overjoyed, believing they would now be saved. Of course the British airmen did not know the ship was full of prisoners. Yet their fate has been allowed to disappear from the general historical consciousness, and instead it is the Russians who are given the responsibility for the world's 'greatest maritime disaster'.

Steve Parsons
 * See response at Talk:List of wars and disasters by death toll Rmhermen 14:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Denmark

LocMaps
I see you notated that Location Maps had been uploaded for a number of national parks that didn't have infoboxes yet...I went and did them on my own but could you link me to where the upload page is where the originals were put? Thanks.--MONGO 18:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Each image was uploaded as Image:LocMap Park Name.png Rmhermen 13:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Michigan
I know you sometimes edit articles on Michigan-related items. You might be interested in the new wikiproject, WikiProject Michigan. Cheers. older&ne;wiser 20:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

We've voting on the title of the article Provisional designation of asteroids
... at Talk:Provisional designation of asteroids. Given that you participated in this discussion, previously, you may wish to vote. Thanks! -- hike395 02:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

2005 North India earthquake 8 Oct
2005 North India earthquake --pradeepsomani

Bible history updating
In response to your Bible history comment, I was hoping no one would notice the work-in-progress of the Bible translation articles I've been contributing to. It started as a reorg of Bible translations (where I'm importing most of my data from; see its history page) and has turned into a makover of several articles! I'm currently working on updating History of the English Bible, moving incorrectly placed info from the History of the English Bible section.

If you don't mind waiting another day or two to let me finish working out the article, it would probably make things much less confusing. If you'd like to collaborate more or disagree with anything, you might want to try a speedier form of communication! I'm rockofvictory on AIM or e-mail me using the toolbox link in standard left column of my User page. --J. J. 17:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

IMAX
Please start a discussion before removing something. Close-mindedness is not good for wiki

Zilwaukee Bridge
Hello, just wanted to let you know about the recent edits we were both performing on the Zilwaukee Bridge article. I had removed the statement regarding the congestion caused by the old bridge because when I first read it, the sentence seemed to imply the old structure was causing congestion on the river itself, which was not the case. After contemplating your reversion on that, I figured you were likely referring to congestion on I-75, so I reworded the sentence to get that point across. It's a bit wordy as it stands, but I wanted to remove any potential confusion.

Also, I noticed you reverted the clarifications to the external links I added. While I did not re-add the clarification to the second link, I did put one back for the first one. I did this to reduce any confusion that the report mentioned in the link was actually hosted or placed online by the Michigan Department of Transportation. While it was MDOT who originally issued the report, the transcription of the text, digitization of the photos and creation of the online site was done completely independently and is hosted on a private website. I hope you agree with these changes for the reasons I've stated above. If not, I wouldn't mind discussing it with you! Thanks! CBessert 03:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I must say I'm rather disappointed that you felt the need to quickly revert my edit from a few minutes earlier before I could complete the reasons why I made those edits here on your discussion page. I am also disappointed you made no effort to discuss this with me or even explain why you keep reverting this! I will not revert your reversion for the time being in the hopes we can discuss this, based on my explanation from just a few minutes ago. CBessert 03:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I had no idea for long ago you edited that page. It just came up on my watchlist and I checked that you had half-reverted my changes with no explanation. That, of course, was before you left your message here. We do not usually add qualifiers although you have some good points. I was under the impression that you are trying to prejudice the link by saying that it is not official as though there is a reason to believe that that group maliciously altered the document. Rmhermen 03:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I also understand not wanting to add too many qualifiers -- I agree with that -- but I wanted to make sure that people understood this was a transcription of an official report being hosted on a site other than MDOT's. While disclaimers have been placed on each of the report pages on the site, I still believe it is of benefit to those perusing Wikipedia to be as clear as possible. Here's my solution to the link issue: Re-title it with the report's actual title, then qualify. Unless you have other ideas, I will change the listing to "'The Zilwaukee Bridge: From the Beginning' (1987 official MDOT report, from MichiganHighways.org)" with the portion in single quotes (the actual title) being the linked portion. I will hold off for a bit in case you have any suggestions or other thoughts. Thanks. CBessert 04:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

snowclone
Hi:

I used wikipedia just a couple of days ago to help describe to a friend the prase "all your base are belong to us".

I saw the term "snowclone" and then tried describing THAT to a different friend. I don't think I did a very good job of it though and I would like to forward the information on because it made sense READING it but I apparently do not explain it very well.

Imagine my surprise when I realized that the entry had been deleted!

I was hoping you could re-post the explanation or forward me your info. I think this is a great site and your entries are very imforamtive and articulate!

Thanks so much for your help! Rachel (Minneapolis, MN)
 * Sorry. I have been gone a few days. I had to go back past 8,000 other deletions in the past five days. That article consisted of: "You are a snowclone circa. 1985" which is neither an encyclopedia article or even a dictionary definition. It was the fourth time an article at that title was deleted by four different admins. Rmhermen 01:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

82nd Airborne
There is a discusion of this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I'm with you, but apparently, the Army and US government standard is actually 82d (which I find ugly and unread-able). Your comments would be welcome there, of course. --Habap 18:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.army.mil/cmh/lineage/branches/div/082abd.htm This is the official lineage website for the 82d Airborne. Unfortunately, the 82d Airborne Division website does not use the official name for thier division, but never the less that is how they present themselves. As for a wiki version, I am of the opinion that the official name should be used, just like you would list President John Kennedy as John not Jack as his family called him. My two cents. EagleWSO 14 Dec 2005