User talk:Snowmanradio/Archive 2

Medicine Collaboration of the Month
NCurs e work 13:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Award
Many thanks Snowman, and much appreciated. Red Sunset 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the Barnstar, Snowman. I really appreciate it. --Joelmills 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Medicine portal
Snowman, thanks for your nominations. It's nice to see someone takes an interest in the portal. Please review my comments on that page, I'll contact User:NCurse to have a look as well.

When I went to look at the portal, there was no featured picture... NCurse seems busy with Admin tasks, Hungarian wiki, the Medical genetics project... and I have to study. Maybe you'd like to join us on maintaining the Portal? It would be greatly appreciated, and it's not a lot of work, but it needs to be done to keep it featured!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, great idea. I often create a log for a month in advance, but now it's exam period for me and a helping hand is always welcome. :) I hope you join our "team" with Steven. If we'd work on the portal, there'd be just a few things to do. NCurs e work 18:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can I do a no-obligation trial for 2 or 3 weeks, and then reconsider?  I do not know what the tasks are. Snowman 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Coventry Images
Is this how I leave a message? Ah, I think it is.

Ok well I have various images (and if you need any specific images I can always go and take them.) I have a few of Upper Stoke, and I think some of Hillfields. I live in Finham, so any Finham pictures are not a problem. Let me know what you require.
 * I have left a message on your talk page. Snowman 13:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for your message. I will try my best to get some of these images. I get pictures of Finham Park School and Bishop Ullathorne for next week. I am about to upload some images you might want. -Neil


 * Hello, I have receieved a notification about the coventry farm image which I uploaded, and that it must be deleted ASAP, but I'm not sure how I delete this photo? I'd appreciate it if you could let me know how I do this. Cheers.    Neil

Message
Your recent edit to Category:Bird Health (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 15:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was trying to delete a Category, which I had just made in error with the wrong capitalisation. I have now listed it on the appropriate speedy category page, I hope. Snowman 15:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bird health
I would be glad to help out with some articles on bird health. There is already a Category:Bird diseases which you may want to have as a subcategory to Category:Bird health. There is also an article entitled egg bound which can be expanded to have more info on pet birds. I tend to refer sick birds except in the cases of beak overgrowth, mites, and simple injuries, but I'll have a go at improving existing articles and creating some new ones soon. --Joelmills 22:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ipswich Museum
Thanks for your attention to this article. Dr Steven Plunkett 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Will try, but my digital camera isn't up to much. Can't remember if the egg is still on show either, but will inspect when next in there, and try my best. Dr Steven Plunkett 16:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The egg must be a real treasure. Take good care of it!! Snowman 16:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Parrot
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks!TNTfan101 03:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It contained some useful parrot care information, some good parrot pictures as well as some adverts. I see what you mean. Snowman 08:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: St Nicholas' Church, Kenilworth photo
I uploaded Your enhanced image with the same name as the original, this way the image history remains intact and there is no need to change the license. Also the image links remain. If I had deleted the original image, You might have got someone in the future asking for this "original image" that You edited, having been deleted You will have no chance to show/prove this. Also while the original has errors it is still available in the image upload history for download, or re-enhacements, edits etc. I guess if You don't drastically edit an image it is better to upload the new version on top of the old one. Best, feydey 16:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, I know what to do now. Snowman 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image name needs changing
"Currently there is no easy way to rename an image — they will not "Move" to new titles in the ways that articles will." Read the relevant Image_use_policy. The Summary (in Image:DSCF3286.JPG) You gave is the best We can do. Other route is to upload the image again (with the correct info) and then have the old one deleted as a duplicate. Cheers, feydey 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That information is useful. Thanks. Snowman 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Coventry Farm and Baginton Castle
Ok thanks for your reply.

So this is what I shall do;

Re-upload the Coventry Farm picture, with the following information attached to it: Coventry Farm, Hillfields, Coventry, West Midlands Taken by Neil Reid in January 2003. Is that correct?

Then, I will re-upload the baginton castle photo with the folling information: Baginton Castle, Baginton, Coventry, West Midlands Taken by Neil Reid in May 2006. Is this also correct?

Cheers

Neil reid 11:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is correct, I think. You are learning the ropes. Rename the Baginton Castle photo prior to upload. Please check when you took the Baginton Castle photo, because the camera info on it indicates that the photo was taken in 2003. Have you seen the new Cov farm page? Snowman 17:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have found your own talk page, please indicate this by writing a reply on it. Snowman 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have checked it, the time on the camera was incorrect and this photo was taken last year. And yeah, I have seen the Coventry Farm page at Hillfields - Wikipedia right? Neil reid 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Stnicksken.JPG
Mr Snowman - I'm with you on the deletion of the original, overexposed snowscene! Tomtom08 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the snow picture. Your original has not been deleted from the wiki as it is kept as part of the file history of the image, but a digitally enhanced version is used on the page.  The wiki recommends fully descriptive image file names, incidentally. Snowman 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What links here noise
Some of your pages are causing too much "What links here" noise. It is standard wiki format not to use scientific names for species. Please explain why have you made pages with so many links. Snowman 16:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For my own reference. I consider it a bug of Mediawiki that links from userspace cannot be hidden. —Pengo talk · contribs 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"Rueppell's Warbler" on "List of British birds: passerines"
Not sure I would agree with you on "English spelling". Most bird books use "Rüppell's", which seems more appropriate to me...—GRM 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ü is not English. Try an internet search. Snowman 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And, so, we should use no accents or umlauts or other "extra-letter" markings in English usage...? Again, cannot agree (sorry!). In this case, especially since "Rüppell" is someone's name. (Yes, I know that "ue" is officially equivalent to "ü", but if I was to come to Wikipedia and look for this bird, I'd type "Rüppell's".) —GRM 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On an English keyboard it is not possible to type "Rüppell" with simple keystrokes. If you did use a rather complex method of putting a ü in the word, it would redirect to the right page, so there is no problem. All the scientific names do not have a "ü", but have a "ue", by way of an example. I have asked a German speaking person and he said that "ü" it is commonly translated to a "ue" to the English and even in Germany it is used when there is not a "ü" on the keyboard, so I think that it is a safe usage. You can put this to a consensus on a talk page if you want too. Snowman 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Relative importance of bird articles
Hi, as a birdlover I hate to think of any bird as of low importance :), but wondered how you go interpreting the scale. If all individual species are of at least mid-importance or higher, have you ranked any bird articles as of low importance? I guess the way I have seen it done on Wikiproject fungi and Banksia is that low importance=specialised area (I rated alot of aussie birds like that) so that there ends up being a spread of articles. cheers Cas Liber 12:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; there is no bird or animal species page of low importance, in my opinion. An article about "Changes in the diet of the Blackbird in Cornwall through different seasons" might be of low importance.  We are rating ornithology as a hole and not just the species pages.  In Chemistry I guess that all the chemical elements are of high importance - it is not necessary to rate between them. An article of the "History of mining of Potassium pyrites in Cornwall" might be lower importance. The bird species are the basics of ornithology as chemical elements are the basis of chemistry.  Do you see what I mean?  Snowman 13:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with all that - the only thing I was musing on was if you have a scale and virtually nothing is at one end as 'mid' is the starting point, makes the 'low' category a bit redundant really... Cas Liber 13:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The wiki does have guidelines on rating articles. There is plenty of scope for low importance articles in Ornithology, nevertheless, I feel that species pages are all at least mid importance. Snowman 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Flags
thanks for that - I got my idea from someone else's page originally too..Cas Liber 11:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1989 - 1990 - Memphis Belle
Oh, laddie - yer probably correct in the release date of 1990 - - - I just always tend to think of it as a 1989 production - at which time the last IGN Fortress, F-BEEA, was cracked up on take-off from RAF Binbrook, August 1989, writing her off. Owch! Another Fortress gone...

Sue me - I'm sentimental that way...

Sub* Mark Sublette 11:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 11:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

F-BEEA
She was the arctic camera ship for Dr. Strangelove Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb, you know... That is her shadow on the ice down below the B-52...

Mark Sublette 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regret, I do not understand these riddles. I speak UK English and I do not understand some American expressions.  Snowman 11:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki pages say that was a 1964 film. Snowman 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"in that guise"
Nice turn of phrase, son  - - - wish I'D thought of it!

You see neat clean word revisions like that on my copy - you GO RIGHT AHEAD! I like tight copy - an' YEW HAILPED! Thank yuh!

Mark Sublette 11:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 11:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was taken from the "Memphis Belle (B-17)" page. I thought that it was good too, but I do not known who wrote it originally.  Snowman 11:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do you know! I wrote it in the orginial Memphis Belle copy! It WAS my turn of phrase after all! Mark Sublette 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Aviculture
Have proposed such a project now at WikiProject Council/Proposals. We should be able to see what kind of response the idea gets there. You might want to indicate though on the relevant pages and maybe on the talk pages of relevant projects that the project is being proposed. Badbilltucker 16:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will try to kick start it until it has adequate momentum. Snowman 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Photgraphy help
can you plhelp me with some photographs which i need to fix User talk:Yousaf465
 * Such as? Snowman 17:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Highfield Road
Just wondered why you moved it "Highfield Road stadium". The naming guidelines state that articles should have the most recognisable name with minimum ambiguity. As the stadium is nearly always referred to as "Highfield Road" without the "stadium" it seems pointless to rename it - unless there are other Highfield Roads you wish to create articles about. However your reasons stated for the move did not elaborate on any, hence my query. Thanks. Qwghlm 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is the best clear and unambiguous name for the demolished stadium: Snowman 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Some bus routes in London also were linked to "Highfield Road" leading to confusion.
 * There is a redirect for "Highfield Road" (which probably needs changing to a disambiguation page, because of the London bus route pages) to "Highfield Road Stadium". When (or if) there is acceptance for the page move that you have questioned, I will probably work on the disambig page.
 * "Highfield Road Stadium" is probably better than "Highfield Road (stadium)".
 * Several pages referred contained the text "Highfield Road stadium", with "Highfield Road" linked only, so I think that "Highfield Road Stadium" is a reasonably common use when the stadium is refered too.
 * "Highfield Road" sometimes refers to a contract with the Football club and not the stadium, I think. (ie the player stayed at "Highfield Road" for two years).
 * Consistency with Coundon Road Stadium in Coventry, which is another demolished stadium.
 * Internet search found lots of different Highfield Roads.


 * I have changed it to "Highfield Road Stadium". Snowman 19:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whilst faffing around I noticed this, and have ended up here. Just wanted to say I really don't like it being re-named Highfield Road Stadium. Unlike the newer (generally sponsored) grounds, none of the older have stadium at the end. So to call it "Highfield Road Stadium" is a bit deceptive. If it has to be changed, I would suggest "Highfield Road (stadium)". It may look uglier, but it avoids the bus route links etc. and gives a better indication of the ground's name. HornetMike 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have changed it to "Highfield Road (stadium)" Snowman 20:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates in aircraft articles
The dating format that is presently adopted for historical articles is actually set up as a day, month and year format. The reason for this is to eliminate one of the commas that is invariably placed between the month and day. The other reason is that it is considered a more formal style whereas the conventional month, day and year is considered "conversational" or "popular" suitable for letter writing but not for researched articles. There is of course a great deal of debate about this and in at least two of my books, editors have insisted on one style or another and as you could guess, my "pop" history editor utilizes the "January 14, 1947" style while my British and "serious" editors have incororated the "14 January 1947" style into their style guide. The reason for using the formal approach is that this article is one of global importance and will be read by many serious researchers and students. In Canada and the UK, the "formal" historical dating format predominates while in the US, it is common to see the "popular" date format. I leave it to you to decide, but as I had seen articles such as the B-17 evolve, there were three different formats employed for dating and I had initially ratioanlized the article on the formal style which was reverted. I would prefer the formal, military and historical format mainly for the reasons stated above since I would want to see the article on the B-17 considered as a serious piece of research that uses the most widely adopted historical dating system (speaking from 33 years of experience as an author and librarian).IMHO Bzuk 17:08 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * see "talk:B-17 Flying Fortress" for discussion. Snowman 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)