User talk:Snowmanradio/Archive 6

House Martin
The source says has " has bred", which implies rarity, as does "there are records", sorry if that sounds like weasel words. You are welcome to reword, but "Some HMs stay in N and SA ." makes it sound like a regular occurrence, which I don't think is justified. Anyway, it's been promoted now, sorry that after all the work you put in you still didn't feel able to support the nomination, but thanks anyway, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As a contributor to the article, I did not think that it was appropriate for me to judge the article. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Poicephalus taxonomy
Unfortunately, it appears this is a case where a quote of mine fits: I wouldn't recommend making any taxonomic changes unless knowing they are based on solid published evidence, which unfortunately can be a bit difficult to judge for non-biologists and alike. Disregarding that the used common name, Un-cape Parrot, did give me a bit of a laugh (it would be easier to convince me about conure), there is a problem: The genetic evidence published so far is pretty far from being bulletproof - assuming we're dealing with the biological species concept anyway. This is also something several of the main references that argue for the split say clearly that they stray somewhat from (in fact, on more than one occasion they do the big "no-no" in taxonomy, and use the endangered status of P. robustus as an argument for splitting off the commoner northern taxa). So far they've shown a divergence of 1.2-1.5% in mtDNA between robustus and suahelicus/fuscicollis. Normally, you wouldn't even consider talking about species status unless finding a divergence of at least 1.8% in mtDNA (and even that is typically considered a value where claims of different species can be questioned unless supported by other data). When combined with comments such as that they've shown that suahelicus and fuscicollis are closer to each other than they are to robustus and therefore it is correct to treat them as separate species, any serious biologist should see flashing red lights. I'd bet genetic evidence could show that I'm closer to my uncle than I am to some random person I met on the street, but I certainly wouldn't claim that's an argument for treating us as different species! Of note that South African authorities (which are involved in this case), being the direct opposite of the main Australian authorties, commonly are very fast when it comes splitting - even when the published evidence is, let's just say, questionable (think Cape Gull and you get the idea). Still I do think this split into two biological species is likely to be "good", but the published evidence only just manage to tip the bucket in that direction when combining all the data on genetics, morphology, vocal data, ecology and biogeography. I've heard that better genetic data is on the way, but until any such has been published I presume it falls outside the material that can be used as a basis for articles on wiki. I'll be away for a period, but for now here a few references that deal with this case:

Rabo3 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Clancey, P.A. 1997. The Cape Parrot: an additional valid species. Honeyguide 43: 61–62.
 * Perrin, M. R. 2005. A review of the taxonomic status and biology of the Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus, with reference to the Brown-necked Parrot P. fuscicollis fuscicollis and the Grey-headed Parrot P. f. suahelicus. Ostritch. 76(3&4): 195–205.
 * Solms, L. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships of the three subspecies of the Cape Parrot, Poicephalus robustus. BSc Honours project, University of Pretoria.
 * Wirminghaus, J. O., C. T. Downs, C. T. Symes, & M. R. Perrin. 2002. Taxonomic relationships of the subspecies of the Cape Parrot Poicephalus robustus (Gmelin). Journal of Natural History 36(3): 361–378.
 * Super. It is more complicated that I thought, and I have made the Un-cape Parrot page much more speculative pending further data. Snowman (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruptured Duck
Snow, I think the actual article has now disappeared in the merger although the best place to see information appears to be Ted W. Lawson. This is a good question to bring up the WP:Aviation Group. Take it there and I will ride "shotgun." FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC).
 * ok, I have started a discussion in a new section on the page "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation". Snowman (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

User:BoxCrawler
The bot isn't malfunctioning it just doesn't account for random extra spaces, All such errors will be fixed next run. Thanks for letting me know! Adam McCormick (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the mean time it is very likely causing people extra work, it is a problem. It should have been tested against these sort of spaces. Snowman (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowman, The bot has been run over ten times and you're the first one to ever complain. It's already been stopped. There's blame to go around here but that's not the point. It's a minor problem and I am working to fix the issue and build-in a fix right now. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot was clearly causing problems, and I reported it (call that complaining if you want to). No one seemed to notice the message I left on the bot talk page. I do not know why others have not reported problems, but I guess that is probably due to expediency. I guess that you can fix and test it, but I am glad that it has been stopped until it is fit for purpose. Snowman (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have linked this discussion from the incidents page. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It just would have been nice to know that you reported it, or where you reported it. BoxCrawler runs for several days at a time and i can't be watching it every second. I'm sorry if the changes you noticed offended you, but of over 1100 edits today the two pages you list are the only disputed changes. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a notice at "User talk:BoxCrawler", where there is a notice that indicates that it should be blocked if it is malfunctioning or doing harm. I think that you were off line at that time, and you did not respond until 2 hrs later and that was after I had reported the problem to administrators who could block it. An administrator reviewed its edits and thought that it was unsatisfactory too. Perhaps, you should be pleased to have this problem raised when it became apparent earlier rather than later.  On the bright side, I hope to see the bot function better after the script is modified. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, an admin decided it wasn't a big issue. I stopped the bot and fixed it, and started it running again. I am glad you raised the issue but I think you overestimated the scope of the problem. The problem has been corrected and the bot has been set to correct the syntax that caused the issues. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The administrators discussion is at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive367. Snowman (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Criterion
Hi, thanks for your edits to this dab page; you might like to read WP:MOSDAB if you are interested in working on dab pages - there are lots of "rules" about how to do it. :) Abtract (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ruptured Duck (B-25) and Ruptured Duck (aircraft)
Hi, I was actually in the process of merging their history when I realized that the new page creation wasn't a cut & paste move at all. :( The new content of The Ruptured Duck (B-25) isn't a copy of what was at Ruptured Duck (aircraft) before the redirection, you see, thus the history of these two pages need to exist independently. I've undone my history merging and hopefully have fixed my mess. Sorry for any confusion caused. Regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I wasn't clear, no merge was performed here. I managed to move the histories back to the exact place they originally belonged to. :) Regards, --PeaceNT (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that that subpage exists. I'll see what can be done about it shortly. Best, --PeaceNT (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * History merged. :) Let me know if there is anything more that needs attention. Take care, --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Shocked - Maghie
Hi,

I would have preferred to have sent this to you as a private e-mail - but it seems you do accept e-mails. So, I have to ignore my need to be well mannered and respond to you publicly.

I must say that I am rather disappointed that an editor with your expertise would be so rude to a newcomer - totally disregarding the Wikipedia rules of 'Do not Bite the newcomer'. No one likes spammers including me - but surely you should check out your facts before accusing people. And you should also give them the chance to read their first mail and figure out how to navigate this system before threatening them.

I was not trying to promote my site or increase my rankings. I was trying to share information learned from years of real life observation on a topic that is not well known on many species of birds that wikipedia has very scanty information about. (information I myself was desperately searching for before I commenced my research.) I apologise for my error. I have deleted the remaining links and will leave the hole in the wikipedia information untouched. (I did not notice all the other external links being discussed in the article talk pages. It would also be a huge time consuming exercise for the editors and myselfto do that for nearly 36 species  and more on an on-going basis.)

It seems Wikipedia has still a long way to go in making genuine contributors welcome. I hope other users are treated with more politeness and consideration in the future.

Kind regards, Maghie (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Maghie


 * It seems to me that your only contributions to date are to add external links to your website from various bird pages; see WP:EL which is about the adding external links. You are welcome to improve the wiki and make constructive edits, but if you continuously add spam links you will be blocked. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anita Loos box
Thanks for cleaning up my mistakes I will do better. EraserGirl (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You did fine. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am actually rereading her all her autobiographies, so I won't JUST have the ONE reference book to cite. That's a problem with these dead women, no one writes about them much.  I had to temporarily abandon my rewrite of Elsa Maxwell, as the only books I could find about Elsa Maxwell were BY Elsa Maxwell and that is hardly an objective opinion. EraserGirl (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Peter Stephens" persondata
Hi. There are honestly no more details about Stephens than stand in the article today. Anything more goes WP:TRIVIA. Certainly nothing more than b. England, d. England. Sorry. Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

re: TW warnings
Fair point. I tend to just count the number of warnings and put in the next one (although, I confess to miscounting in this case). I hadn't noticed that his first warning was a "level 3". Lordjeff06 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I sometimes rapidly advance the warnings when the vand is blatant, often going straight to a 2nd level warning, which does not have the "welcome" text. Snowman (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is all well and appropriate, although I don't think any of the warnings had been made by you. All I'm saying is that, while I appreciated your comment, I didn't intentionally not escalate the warnings; I just didn't read so good. Lordjeff06 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did my part and I reported it, as he already had a final warning. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for your vigilance. Lordjeff06 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
Copyedit from my talk page: "Would this sort of time line be any use on any of the long complicated biographies you are working on; see the time line on "John Vanbrugh". Snowman (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)" Hi Snow (BTW, send me an email, I would like your opinion on a vexing problem I have come across in a series of tenditious edits.), as for the guide, it's not bad, they kinda goofed up a bit on the references but IMHO, nearly everyone in WickyWacky land does the sme. FWIW, I do appreciate your contributions. Bzuk (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC).
 * "tenditions" is not defined in this wiki, and it is not recognised by my spell checker in American language mode. There are some other phrases that may not translate very well from the American to the UK English. Can use use another word instead of "tenditious"? because I am not sure if it is a proper word or not. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the help on various articles on Coventry, and in particular Finham Park School. Is there any chance you can e-mail me? Breadsticks.rock (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like to join the wikiproject Coventry? Anyone can express an interest at: WikiProject_Council/Proposals, and I hope to get the project going soon. I have not ever used wiki email, but I generally use the talk pages for the discussion. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, I'll sign up. I was going to ask you; in what district do you live in? It's just, everytime I see a picture of a place that i live fairly near to, it seems so be you who's taken the photo. Maybe it's just a coincidence.. Breadsticks.rock (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You will see that one of my user boxes indicates that I live in England. Do you have any photographs to contribute? Snowman (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the district in Coventry. And no, I don't tend to take photographs that much (due to my rubbish 4MP camera, and the fact that you've already taken most of the ones i would. lol). Breadsticks.rock (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Confidential. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Film dabs
I'm not entirely comfortable with the way in which I recently dealt with the film wls that linked to the wrong pages, i.e. creating a piped link to an as yet unwritten film article. Is there a better, or accepted way of doing it like creating a dab page and then linking to the proposed film article? BTW, I've just seen this!!! --Red Su ns et    19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which wikilinks? Name the page or pages. Snowman (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Barbarian for example in "Film credits" on the Anita Loos page. --Red Su ns et    20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the red links that you made. Does there need to be a dab page called "film name"? is another question. If one needs to be made, then you could make one? I spent quite a long time making dabs for "The Mistake" to include "The Mistake (film)". The Barbarian just about needs a dab, but I would start with a more obvious one for your first one, unless you are interested in that particular dab. A dab page would be useful if you made the film article and wanted to show people where it was. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was mainly concerned that should someone create the particular film article, but not call it by precisely the same name as the piped link, then it wouldn't connect, but if what I've done is OK then I'll leave it at that. --Red Su ns et    20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean now, and I have thought that too sometimes. Sometimes I made a quick stub for the redlink. However, leave it to the editor that makes the new page; hopeful they will look at the obvious pages, and do a wiki-search too. There are some other suffixes on that page "Film name (not written yet)".  Snowman (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay Presson Allen
Finally finished my first draft of Jay Presson Allen, I am asking you and Red Sunset to be my guest to shred it. Beware I was smoking crack pretty heavily when I wrote it, so there may be small sections of gibberish mixed in. I can fix small things but if you think it needs extensive revision, I have to step away for a few days. I am going back to correct the citations on Anita Loos and add some more. I am still waiting for that damn Lenore Coffee autobiography to come in. EraserGirl (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I learn something new every day - I was aware of this short cut. . I try to incorporate your corrections retroactively.  EraserGirl (talk) 13:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, one issue you raised conversationally needs putting into context: please do not joke about smoking stuff, especially dangerous addictive stuff. I guess that it is your sense of humour and that you do not smoke stuff; nevertheless, if you are smoking crack, I would recommend that you should seek help from the appropriate professionals in your part of the world or ask your doctor to explain the health risks of this. I should add that smoking crack is illegal in UK where I live, and it is also likely to be illegal where you live (where ever that is).  I would never approve, encourage, or support smoking crack. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that kind of self deprecating exaggeration humor is very common in America. Obviously, someone who did such, couldn't DO this type of work. I guess the joke didn't travel well.  I am incorporating your formatting for citations into the Jay Presson Allen article, but I need clarification on its usage.  I am loathe to include books with scant information into the list of bibliographic items. Sometimes only one line of text was useful, and some of the footnotes are from other media.  Can you eyeball it and suggest corrections.  Thank you. EraserGirl (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps it is a joke that is better said rather than written down. We have self deprecating humour here too and some stand-up comedians specialise in it. I think I would have found your joke funnier if it was on the television, or in a play. Getting back on task; if one line of text was useful and the book was a worthy work. then I do not see why the ref should not be used. It would be essential to use the page number, range of page numbers (up to a range of about 10 pages), or chapter. This is because some people might like to check the facts quickly, and it is not easy to do that when you quote a whole 300 page book without the page numbers. There is ref formating specially designed for many types of media; books, journals, DVDs, radio, and so on. When in "edit page mode" there is a list of the templates the page uses at the bottom of the page, on clicking on the links you can see all the rules about the template. So you can see all the rules about the "cite book template" and so on. Red is very good at copy editing, grammar and spelling, so I will not attempt to do any of this unless it is really obvious or the automatic software spots a problem. I know what you mean about retuning to what you have written after a few days to spot mistakes. Without expecting you to concentrate on the page too much, could you watch the pages of your film related pages, because I might need to ask some factual questions about something I am not sure about by leaving a question on the relevant talk page (or here depending on what it is). Snowman (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read 8 different obituaries and the cause of her death has been withheld. The was a very private person, she rarely gave interviews I could only find three, and I still can't get a hold of a copy the one she did for the LA TIMES. EraserGirl (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder why? Privacy sounds like part of her character, and it might be the sort of thing to include, if there is a reference for that. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no direct reference to her maintaining her privacy, my conclusion is based on the lack of evidence to the contrary. Despite what the media portrays most American's prefer to be private people, and those such as Allen, wealthy New York elite are some of the most militantly private people. I am not really surprised that the COD is withheld, I am however surprised at people's interest in it; at eighty four, she could have died from anything at all, even the flu. Unless a death is somehow publicly relevant, like a murder or accident, I am not sure medically related deaths are any business of ours. Does that make me a bad biographer?  On the other hand I am fascinated that Frederica Sagor Maas is still alive at 107!  EraserGirl (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Peoples illnesses affect their lives, and knowing about their illness helps to understand them. Out of 1000 people that reach the age of 100 years, only one will become a supercentenarian, 110 years. Their is a wikipage on supercentenarian. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but I found no evidence that she suffered from a lifelong or prolonged illness, but then I didn't find much about her last few years at all. I will have to keep looking. EraserGirl (talk) 18:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Category
Can you clarify the usage of categories on films for me? I am having a disagreement with another editor. If a films is labeled say Category:American Silent Film ONLY it will not appear in the greater category of Silent Film. It will only appear in the sub set category. I do not view this as a redundancy and the other editor does. If I wanted to look at a LIST of Silent Films I would expect to see a list of ALL silent films. Not just Silent Films who have no other classification. If this were to be true, then the proper parent category would be Silent Films_Other. Excluding items from a larger set because they have further classification is illogical or so I learned in 4th grade. EraserGirl (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An article should not be in both a cat and sub-cat. When you view the Silent Films cat you also view the names of its sub-categories. It this way cats do not get huge and unmanageable. Categories are not lists and often the articles in the parent cat (or "Other") will be moved into a sub-cat eventually where there are enough pages. "Other" is "not-yet fully categorised" in many cases. There is a get-around; you could make a list on a page called "List of Silent Films" and you could list the whole lot there. Lists are encyclopaedic and the there are many on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. As I suspected Wikipedia is illogical on that point. Indeed when one looks at the 'category:Silent films, any films in a subcat should appear as well even if the list is unruly to the eye. And I won't be creating a new page called a 'List of' anything because having pages hard coded with information that is already indexed is inefficient. I just spent hours adding film information to a table on a page called Adventure films of 1930's all the while wondering what the category tags were for, when a simple page listing all items tagged as Category:adventure films-1930s would create a dynamic list that would always be current and eliminate the need for people to add list items by hand.  For something that is supposed to be dynamic, I keep finding places where wikipedia doesn't actually use automation to compensate for labor.    Please tell me where I can make the suggestion to allow for subcategorized and uncategorized to appear on the same page?  Thank you.EraserGirl (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Try "Wikipedia:Bugzilla" perhaps to suggest options to view categories to various sub-cat depths. Snowman (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, inconsistency is my particular hobgoblin. EraserGirl (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Filmography
This is what happens, you keep answering me, I keep asking your advice. I want to add a wikified filmography table to Helen Gibson, but it is large, I don't want it to overwhelm the article. Would the best way to do this be to add a new article? it seems extreme considering her obscurity. Is it possible to add a subpage to an article? Thanks. I am still learning how best to format the table for maximum efficiency. EraserGirl (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it the one mostly about The Hazards of Helen. Snowman (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have been experimenting in my own personal idaho. Do you think it's a bit over the top? EraserGirl (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It contains a lot of detail. If she was the first American stunt woman, the table would probably make a wikipage. But it must have references (or one reference that gives the hole list), because the deletionists might want to delete it. Anyway, do not be disappointed if some one says that it is not notable; you will have to justify the page, but I guess that happens to everyone who makes new pages from time to time. Do you want it to be one table or two tables with the episodes of "H of H" in a separate table? I think that it would be a linked page - sometimes called a daughter page. I guess that it is too long for the main article. I think "subpage" might be confused with a sub-directory and wiki articles are never in a sub-directory. Snowman (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I guess I will keep it to myself. No one else gives reference for filmographies and I have seen some very questionable listings on wikipedia. EraserGirl (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was wrong about filmographies needing references. What is good is that a lot of the films already have wikipages, which I did not put in the balance before. I guess that it would make a wikipage. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could condense all the Hazards of Helen's down to one entry and just make sure that the complete list is attached to the Hazards of Helen page. Without that, the list becomes a reasonable size. And really most of her appearances are well documented in the cowboy film and serial reference books - only a few come of of nowhere. I am having an argument with IMDB about adding High, Wide, and Handsome - she was uncredited, but I have a picture of her WITH the director Mamoulian ON SET and IN COSTUME and they are still giving me a hard time. It will be a while before I added it anyway, I am still learning the formatting for wikitables and I want to eliminate the year duplication, etc . . . Thanks tons. Red Sunset has been a taskmaster teaching me WP:citation formatting, I learned Turabian and Chicago, so I have to unlearn what I know. You know?  EraserGirl (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no set format for citations, and there are several different formating styles that are correct on the wiki, but it would be best to be consistent within an article. I use the cite template which I think most people use. Red uses scratch formating (without a template), but it is not used much except on some aircraft pages. I think that it is better to use the cite format. I think that the year would be useful to keep in the table for sorting - you could make it into a sortable table so that you click and then the table is sorted according the the column clicked - look for the special mark at the top of the table. Look at the one on the "Blood type" page and copy the "wikisort" bit. Perhaps, she was just watching, or turned up too late. Snowman (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Image error
I seem to be filling your archive, I could bother someone else if you like. 8) I made a typo when uploading an image, Image:Claraberenger.jpg are there other ways to rename the image, besides reloading it correctly and flagging the old one for deletion? Thanks. EraserGirl (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Image names can not be changed other than by uploading another. Snowman (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll fix it right after I finish posting the article. EraserGirl (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is sometimes a chance to change the name of an image by uploading it to wikicommons with a better name. This image in question is a fair use one which are not allowed on wikicommons. Take an interest in wiki commons, if you are going to upload any images that are your own work, such as photographs that you have taken yourself. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Paisley image
The original is already in the commons see Image:Ian Paisley.JPG, thanks -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  22:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, there is something wrong with the link on the cropped image page. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unsure it may be better to ask User:MaxM who originally uploaded the picture. -- Barryob  (Contribs)   (Talk)  22:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

user talk pages
Am I not allowed to delete things from my talk page? EraserGirl (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not know the wiki rules on this, but I guess that deletion from your talk page without an appropriate edit summary might be seen as deceptive. It is a wiki guideline to always write an edit summary. Perhaps, deleting comments about your errors and leaving good comments might also give the wrong impression. I think it is ok to delete vandalism or something that should not have been put there. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * well I did read all the introductory rules, and since there is NO actual deletion taking place. You can read the bot notices in the page history. This entire conversation is moot.  I wasn't deleting BAD warnings, I deleted an irrelevant one. The image with the typo is to be deleted, ergo bot comments telling me anything about it are irrelevant.  I just don't like very long pages and have been shunting things off to the archive, regardless of whether it makes me LOOK good. I appreciate everything you have tried to teach me, but I don't tell you what to do with your user page. EraserGirl (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a talk page. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Simon Rattle Infobox
Hello,

I really don't understand Opus33 user reverting and deleting (with ridiculous arguments) the infobox on Sir Simon's page. You have my support to restore it (BTW, I managed it to get his foto from the Pressestelle) --Wikinaut (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you add something like this on the talk page for the Simon Rattle article? Snowman (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I added this on Talk:Simon Rattle
 * @User:Opus33 and @ all
 * Strong support of restoring the infobox
 * Hello, I really don't understand Opus33 user reverting and deleting the infobox on Sir Simon's page. You all have my support to restore it. (BTW, I managed it to get his foto from the Pressestelle, do you want me to remove it now ? Certainly not.). The infobox is of value for visitors coming along and gives a first impression. If you don't like the infobox layout, then edit the template and add further information; the mere deletion after more than one year of presence of this box is something want I regard as aggressive deletion of unwanted material. In this case, the infobox was of value and should be restored a.s.a.p --Wikinaut (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight
NCurse work 00:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Eastriggs, Dumfriesshire
Thanks for your comment - and for the Barnstar, both much appreciated! I believe that the munitions factory was also known as Gaitlebridge but a Google search on Gaitlebridge turns up only two hits, which contribute little. I do know that there was a Post Office called Gaitlebridge, opened 1 April 1918 and closed 5 August 1919. But that information is from an unpublished postal history listing (and fairly peripheral) so I shan't be posting it on the Eastriggs page. It might, however, be useful as a lead if someone is searching local sources. NinetyCharacters (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A photograph of the now disused railway station would be good too. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Lilian's Lovebird image request
Check out the Lilian's Lovebird de:Erdbeerköpfchen at the German Wikipedia —a few other language wikis also use that ":commons:image:Beki2.jpg" same image — even though its description in commons reads "Agapornis fischeri". That probably doesn't help you much. Regards, El_C 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen that and it is on commons. I think it is a Fischer's Lovebird as the name of the image suggests. The two are similar but Lilian's Lovebird has a green rump and the Fischer's Lovebird a blue rump, which is not shown on the photo. Thanks anyway. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think it is? Snowman (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Semiautomation
I tried the Magnus Tool to create Harry Froboess. I have left exactly as it was output. I am still writing the article and will finish it soon. But I am not sure the tool does much that I couldn't hardcode. Perhaps I am using it wrong. EraserGirl (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now i have a problem someone slapped a speedy deletion on it, within 3 minutes of its creation. I haven't even finished entering data. Is this some form of vandalism?EraserGirl (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So much for that page. It was deleted within a few minutes of its creation. Seems impetuous, perhaps they get points for being the first to delete things before they are created. I recreated the article stub with the material I lost when it was flagged in the midst of my edit. I didn't find the Magnus tool very helpful, it is faster for me to type everything straight onto the screen. Thank you for suggesting it, please let me know of any other shortcuts that you come across. I am hoping no one deletes the page again, I would hate to have to recreate it again. EraserGirl (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you might find it more useful than that, but I was wrong over this point. You can still make the page again, but make sure you put references on it. Snowman (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Chess set
Image:Chess set 4o06.jpg Is this chess set a St. George set or a Calvert (Northern Upright) set? I've added it to Staunton chess set, but I'm not sure which it is. Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not known what its design is called, but I am sure that it is not a Staunton chess set. I have seen this design on a television program about Egypt, but that might be a red herring. The black pieces are heavier than the white ones - I think that the black ones are ivory and the white ones are perhaps box wood. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is certainly not a Staunton, but I was using it in the article on Staunton chess set in the section that is about the older styles. Ebony is heavier than boxwood, so ebony pieces are noticably heavier. Bubba73 (talk), 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the black pieces are ebony. Its current caption is "St George". Is that correct? Snowman (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, which is why I was asking. At first I thought it was a St. George, and I added that to the caption. However, I found this link and it looks like a cross between the two on the top.  Most of the pieces look more like the St. George, but the rook is more like the Calvert.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I also added it to Chess piece. Bubba73 (talk), 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I bought the set secondhand and I suspect that is it very old, perhaps Edwardian or Victorian. The pieces are very well made. Unfortunately, it did not have a box with it. I wonder what the original box would have been like, but I guess that the box had padding because the pieces are not bashed about. I have got some smaller and more modern non-Staunton sets too, which I will examine again more carefully soon. I am glad that you like the photo. The board in the photo is modern and handmade. Why have you called the set a reproduction? Snowman (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I said "reproduction" because it doesn't look like it is an origianal pre-1849 set. Maybe it should just say "St. George style". Is it an antique? Bubba73 (talk), 18:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no information on when or where it was made. Snowman (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks relatively new to me - the white wood looks darker after a few decades. But I've changed the captions. Bubba73 (talk), 18:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Photos of the style of sets used before Staunton sets would be nice, say 1700-1849. Bubba73 (talk), 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I found a possible source of photos. Some of the St. George sets have rooks like yours, so now I'm convinced that it is a St. George. Bubba73 (talk), 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of the antique white pieces on the website are still white-wood coloured. Sets similar to my old travel chess set are on the website too. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My feelings are that the photo set generally has more features in common with the "Northern Upright" ("Edinburgh Upright" not "Calvert") style than any other. If it is an old set it has seen little use judging by the crispness and patina of the pieces, but in this instance it's hard to use colour as an aid to dating the set since colour rendition will vary with the graphics settings of individual monitors/screens. On my laptop the edging of the board in particular has a strange pale-purple/grey hue to it, which makes me wonder whether the "white" pieces are similarly tinted and in reality are more deeply golden, thus indicating a greater age. How do the image colours on your screen compare with the set itself Snowman? --Red Su ns et    20:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The white pieces are darker than on my computer screen. They are a yellow-brown (almost golden) colour. The bottoms are not polished like the visible surfaces. The tops of one of the knights of each colour are removable for promoted pieces, which I did not think was a built-in design feature until I read the external websites that are linked above. The pieces are not weighted, and I am surprised how heavy they feel. The look antique to me, and I doubt if a reproduction would be made and polished so well. What wood to you think the white pieces are? Snowman (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well in that case the set could be older than it first appears, and seems of very high quality. There are numerous woods that would be suitable for "white" pieces, and this set could possibly be boxwood or ash, or less-likely cherry or beech looking at the grain patterns although they are quite dense and therefore relatively heavy. I suppose the type of wood used would depend on where (country or region) the set was made and the indigenous trees. If the "black" pieces are ebony then it's not surprising that they're heavy, it's the only wood that sinks in water! --Red Su ns et    21:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * May I ask how much it cost? An original antique one (before 1850) would be several hundred dollars, I think. For instance, ref198  is 540GBP, about US$1100. Bubba73 (talk), 03:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to see the prices, but I do not want to divulge its price tag. Anyway, I took a photo of another one and uploaded it at Image:Jaques (London) antique portable chess set -oblique.JPG. I plan to upload some other views of it after I have cropped the images. Snowman (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you buy it as an antique? Bubba73 (talk), 16:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The portable set shows a lot of ware and is obviously an antique. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rethink: I'm beginning to agree with the assertion that it is a St. George set, although there are elements of other styles. Do you have the white pawn that's missing in the portable chess set image? What material has been used to make the pieces?--Red Su ns et    18:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I bought the portable set with the white (probably ivory) porn missing, and I did ask about that when I bought it. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)