User talk:Stan Shebs/archive 6

"Philately by county" Category
You have authored most of the articles concerend, so I want to make sure you see the message I posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Philately_by_country. Thanks for any input you may have!

Mediation help
Before going higher in the steps, Milnea Tudoreanu seems intent on deleting "Occurences of the word "Ochlocracy" from the article Ochlocracy. I have taken two examples from the OED and found other historical examples on the way it has been used.  Tudoreanu deletes the lot of them.  I think it would be NPOV if he found his own references of the word and added them also but he deletes them all.  This is not right.  He doesn't seem to acknowledge history but wants to change history to suit himself.  I quoted from Mr. Muller, a very famous classical scholar of ancient Greece.  Do you not think that this man is quite capable of knowing what the word means.  I also quoted from Eric von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who uses the same term in the same way as Mr. Muller does 100 years later.  Isn't that being pretty good evidence of the meaning of the term?  I need help here to resolve this issue. I really do believe that Mr. Tudoreanu is not being honest in his edits and is playing games.WHEELER 18:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ship class vs lead ship
Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I was attempting to action the request posted on WP:RM to move the page, but, as the request recognised, the lead paragraph needed changing around somewhat as a result. On reading further, I realised that most of it should be at ship class, but some should sensible stay at lead class anyway. I moved the page, but cut and pasted the relevant bit back to lead ship. It should be pretty clear if you look at the page history. Hope that helps. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I did add the WP:RM request to Talk:Ship class and my edit comments were meant to make it clear what I was doing. I guess I was not clear enough.  Sorry. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Strange possible vandal
Hi Stan,

You are the first admin I spotted on the recent changes list. I just noticed a strange addition to Talk:Cooperative. It is not obviously vandalism, but looks like politically motivated spam. The odd characteristics are; This makes me wonder whether there is some kind of stealth bot at work. Are similar texts appearing in other talk pages?
 * It is the first and only edit of anon user 67.41.203.189
 * Somewhat unusual to do this to an empty talk page, rather than a new article.
 * The text is not particularly relevant to the article.
 * No obvious reason to choose the cooperative article, but the text does include the word 'coop'.

I would revert the edit, but it is the first item on the talk page, so the best I could do would be to blank it. --

Talk:Kwidzyn
i answered on the talk page ...Sicherlich 16:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * to make your on view on the topic please read as well User talk:Jimbo Wales if you want to answer me direct please do so on my German discussion page ...Sicherlich 16:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Invite
Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW, a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Hi Stan - I thought the Category:Plant families was something of a 'holding' system, only until they were sorted into a better hierarchical category system. I'll leave that one then. - MPF 16:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks; yep, my misunderstanding, I thought you'd meant both were holding cats. I've been adding several APG order categories (e.g. Category:Cornales) as I reckon that's the best way to go. The Trees category is one I'm mostly removing things from, as 'tree' is such a nebulous concept it isn't very useful for categorising - almost every genus which contains trees, also contains shrubs. It might be worth setting up a Category:Woody plants though, as that is a better deifined group (tho' there's genera with herbs and woody plants in together, too, e.g. Potentilla). - MPF 17:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HMS Jupiter
Thanks for moving HMS Jupiter (1895) for me - I knew there was something I'd forgotten to correct when I wrote the article... (my own fault for starting it before having all the details to hand, I suppose). Shimgray 18:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ephesus library-650px.jpg
Just to let you know that your image Ephesus library-650px.jpg will be shown in Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, under GFDL.

Regards, Ejrrjs 00:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deck (ship)
There is a question for you on Talk:Deck (ship) - Amgine 16:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Email sent
You've got a new message in your mailbox... ;-) Boraczek 18:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI: Temp injunction in Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily
1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

3) Shorne and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with the Cold War or communism whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorized to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

--mav 21:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Stan
Hi Stan, thanks for the nice note. (please try to ignore my aggravated tone, I feel really needled right now, and any aggravation this note evidences is certainly not directed at you... I'm very busy fixing my water heater, and really don't have the time to be certain of tact. I'm sorry for any abruptness)   I'm not all that new, here though, (I edited anonymously for 4 months before I created an account in August) I think I have a grip on what is civil and what isn't, and it seems uncivil the way User:Jinian has responded to me. Don't let my freshly archived talk page fool you. see User talk:Pedant/2004-11-19 for other interactions I've had, some profitable and some not, and see if I look like I wade in and start throwing my weight around or not. Ask Angela Beesley if she has me sized up as a troublemaker. Look at my contributions and see how many fights between other wikipedians I have averted. I can point you at several. Look at how much time I spend on Talk: pages on controversial articles, attempting to meld a consensus out of other folks disputes.

I'm quite proud of my work here, and my community behaviour, up until User:Jinian got after me. Look at my additions to Submarine and other contributions I've made that have gone untouched, because they are well written and accurate and edited into the appropriate spot... My biggest gripe is innaccuracy, I don't think it should be tolerated on wikipedia. I don't think it is a good idea to use USS Lady Washington to disambiguate every ship named Lady Washington, when there have never been any ships named USS Lady Washington. I think the accepted disambig page would be Lady Washington (disambiguation), or am I incorrect?

As I told User:Jinian, the categories I've added do not change the status quo, and I'm not telling people to scrap the whole ship categorization system, but it seems to me to be wrong to have multiple disambiguation pages for one topic, all saying substantially the same thing.

as for your comment "It would work better to spend your time asking people why things are the way they are first, and fixing existing articles rather than leaving them with mistakes, and creating new articles that duplicate much content" look again, and see which article has been copied from which. I wrote most of the articles in the category 'Nautilus' and contributed to others. I'm not touching USS Nautilus again until this is resolved, as it is fundamentally flawed, and I need to know what the consensus on the categories User:Jinian has proposed deleting before I could comfortably work on the article.

I also welcome your ideas and am pleased to have another person interested in naval things, but I would appreciate if you read through all the talk on CfD, my talk page and User:Jinian's before you prejudge my behavior. I really need to get back to fixing my water heater, if I am going to bathe any time soon, so I will be offline mostly until then... that should allow the community time to accept the idea of several new useful categories that don't in any way damage the wkipedia, and allow some increased functionality. It will also give you time to really get to know me, by reading some of my conversations with others and reading some of my contributions... and I would be very pleased if you do so. Thanks for the nice note. It's good to meet you. Please don't let the last 24 hours be the only thing you know me by. Pedant 03:42, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

your advice on multiple accts.
Thanks, that seems straightforward and simple. Thanks for the help. Pedant 07:34, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

would you take a look?
this link covers all I can find on naming conventions for ships, is there something I'm not finding, or some other interpretation of this? I thought I had researched the way this was supposed to be before I started, and this reference seems to agree with what I've done, and the problems I have with the misnamed articles. The category thing, well I still think that useful categories that do no harm are in sum worthwhile additions. I'm puzzled as to what the perceived harm in having these categories is.Pedant 17:43, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
 * I don't want to make any waves, but it seemed to me before I got involved in ships and subs that the convention was clear from the project page, it just seems that the convention seems to me to be ignored. I think that the switch to USS was around 1900-1910, don't count on it though, and I am sure that it wasn't a retroactive change.

forgive this long response

 * My preference, and it seems to be the convention, officially that the name is used followed by the hull number, if any, or, in this order (for military vessels) Shipsname (x) where X is the hull number/launch date/commissioning date : USS Nautilus (SP-559) (if there is an accurate legitimate prefix, which is almost always the case if there is a hull number, very few exceptions)

if no prefix it is omitted Nautilus, but for clarity: launch date/commissioning date follows as: Nautilus (1800) which is about as far as people go...


 * what bugs me is listing ships in an article with a misleading name like USS Nautilus where most of the ships never were prefixed with 'USS' as I think that is a misunderstanding of the policy. Rather than that, since the policy does state not to use a "made up" prefix, I think Nautilus or Nautilus (disambiguation) is the preferred way, wikipedia-wide,


 * but worse still, taking an article that is not a disambiguation article and redirecting it (as was done to Ships named Nautilus (which was a naval history article and not a disambiguation) redirecting it to USS Nautilus (an article which I find to be flawed at it's premise), as it
 * 1) isn't about 'all ships named Nautilus', but just about some of the ships named Nautilus, most of which were not "USS Nautilus's" and
 * 2) worse still, masquerades as a disambiguation page for all ships named Nautilus but doesn't contain as many ships as Ships named Nautilus and
 * 3) is American-centric, therefore not POV neutral... in some minds that might be the worst part of it.


 * I think that in cases like this, a "microcategory" such as Category:Ships named Nautilus as well as a generic Ships named Nautilus page which can serve, accurately, to be a container for hyperlinks to ALL articles about Ships named Nautilus, as well as providing a history of the usage of the name, whch as LtCdr Slauson said, is a long history, which precedes the US and includes more than just the US's naval ships.


 * I think that the person I was arguing with yesterday doesn't understand the point, since in response to my thorough explanation of the purpose of the categories, he was saying things like how would that work for USS Lady Washington, 'that there only was ever one of' (which no ship ever has been called as far as I can ascertain/and Lady Washington is a fairly common ships name, just not with a USS prefix) "but I can list thousands of ships names that were only used once" (which I doubt, naming a ship is like naming a dog, the great names keep coming around again) missing the point that the categories like l'Entreprise-Enterprize-Enterprise/Valiant/Reliant/Nautilus/Constellation/North Star/ etc. are not about singleton ships names but only intended for ubiquitous names.


 * You know these people better than I. As a dilletante, I edit pretty broadly and haven't got acquainted deeply with any other editors, except as we run across each other on mutually edited articles. You probably know who has a good grip on the naming conventions as discussed on the project page and who one could have fruitful discussions with, etc.  I don't know, and I haven't had a chance to pick who I speak with, anyway.  I expected there to be some stir created by adding a new category, but I never expected to have it taken as a shot across anyone's bow, and certainly didn't expect the ctegories to be deleted before they could even be populated.


 * I have a lot of info on naval customs and traditions, and some experience with submarines, most of which I can't share, as I was in the Sub service, (I can say that the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) and I are intimate friends, though) but I'm not and don't really intend to be one of the core editors of the Ships Project. I do have a great fondness for the SS Wikipedia, and a devotion to both her mission and her crew, though, and I hate to see traditions get established for condoning inaccuracies.  I will do whatever I can to stifle that sort of thing, and I don't consider it to be mutiny but to be a defense of the vessel against mutineers.


 * I continue to welcome your advice.


 * I just can't afford, for health reasons, to get embroiled in fights, I don't mind rational arguments, but arguments only work where there is communication, and that person I was arguing with before is obviously not healthy for me, and I won't even use his user name because I feel he is 'sorta stalker-esque' and unstable and confrontational. Rude too, which I won't allow from my friends.  In an online community where everything you say can be googled for years to come, what one says is pretty important.


 * I have a film shoot tomorrow, and the homeschool kids will be here Tuesday, so I may not be online much until Wednesday. I think I've probably said enough about ships and their names and related topics for a while anyway, my "real" work here has been the Clown/Circus/Circus skills/Juggling/Performance art constellation, and correcting inaccuracies in law articles, and helping bring consensus to article about religion.  And I'd like to get back to work on Taper-friendly bands and then there is a 2 inch thick stack of NASA articles that User:Alkivar sent me to be scanned into wikisource, and also my work on the maori wikipedia which I started but never finished as I don't speak maori, the simple english wikipedia, Wikijunior project, the CSB project... then there is Das Kapital, a transcription of which I am laboriously cross-checking for accurate transcription and translation for wikisource.  Plus I have businesses to attend to, children I am helping to educate, and a classic car I am rebuilding, so if my contributions in one area are not welcomed, I have plenty of plenties to work on instead, where my efforts will actually bear fruit.


 * I'm not giving up, but my work on the Ships project is going to rely in great measure on what happens without me in the next 2-3 days. I think I said enough on CfD that if my point is valid, people will be convinced, so I'm just going to wait and see.  sorry, this was supposed to be a quick thank you note, but as usual I've said too many words and used up the time I could have spent editing this into a smaller package.  Please forgive my horrendous grammar and overuse of your time.  Pedant 03:39, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

misc
by 'flawed at its premise' I mean the project page specifically says not to make up a prefix. It also specifically says that all ships with the same name go in one disambiguation page. The premise of the page is that it is the one and only place to disambiguate the name Nautilus.

USS Nautilus violates both of those consensed guidelines, so it is only tradition or custom that the creator of that article was following, not consensus of the group participants if I read correctly. I still have not seen any text on the Ships Project pages that says otherwise.

It seems to me that articles should follow the project guidelines, or the general wikipedia guidelines, which would be to have a page at Nautilus (disambiguation). And also to preserve Neutrality of POV, which can't be done if every ship in the world is intentionally referred to as USS Shipsname. Just as it wouldn't be appropriate to call the US aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk by the name HMS Kitty Hawk.

Remember, I never set out to work on USS Nautilus, or to create a replacement article for it. The article USS Nautilus was thrown in my face as being a suitable replacement for the naval history article Ships named Nautilus. It simply isn't that at all. It just happened to function as a disambiguation page, and to do it more thoroughly. I don't think it can remotely be considered to be a bad thing to write a comprehensive article containing information not found in USS Nautilus and which it would be inappropriate to put there.

How can I fix the page to be a good disambiguation page when it is titled wrongly, calls ships by names they never had, and doesn't include all ships? Whatever I do to that article, I will be seen as making sweeping changes that affect everything. I did however, include USS Nautilus in the category of Ships named Nautilus, and linked it to the article, Ships named Nautilus, and linked to both pages from each ship named Nautilus, so that anyone looking for it can find it with one click from any Nautilus article.

As for the new categories, I'm not sure how the new categories affect hundreds of pages and thousands of links, it seems they only affect pages in their subcategories to me, and the effect is only to make a two click traversal from one Nautilus to another. Tell me how this is wrong, you seem to know something I don't.

I certainly am 'signed up for' fixing anything I affect, I'm not going to create extra work for someone to do. I just feel that the reader is the one who uses the wikipedia, not the editors, and that the main focus of the Wikipedia project is to make an encyclopedia that is accurate and usable. Nobody reacted this way to Category:Wading Birds or Category:Juggling. I have to run, talk to you in a couple days.Pedant 16:33, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

re:Deadsy
I didn't add the page, just tried to clean it up a bit while tracing the work of a vandal. It was the only article that the person had done that wasn't clearly vandalism, so I cleaned it up just out of compulsiveness. Both the Deadsy and Elijah Blue Allman articles probably deserve to be nuked, but I'm not going to nominate them. If I spent my time nominating all the fancruft and substandard articles I discovered on the Wikipedia for the VfD, I'd have no time left to writing articles and doing more important stuff. gK [[User talk:GK|&iquest;?]] 07:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne et al.
Did you know I'm in arbitration for reverting these guys? Just wondering. They look poised to ban me for 2 1/2 months over it. Shocking, to me anyway. Very Verily 09:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't exactly think Shorne planned it this way. And I knew too little of the ArbCom and their odd focus to choose a strategy.  Only reverting, alas, served adequately in the past, when no action was ever taken against RC/Hanpuk/etc., despite the mountain of evidence. Very Verily  22:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stamp Images
Hello Stan, well, I was just looking at random pages the other day and a stamp page turned up, and there was a red-link that I could turn blue. So I fished out my old albums that haven't been opened in over 40 years. They are old-technology ones with stamp hinges and I didn't really want to disturb them so just scanned them from the page.

I shall add a few more when I have some time (I'll be busy for a few days) but don't really want to add too many or I shall get my wrist slapped - I'm sure some administrater will say "Wikipedia is NOT an online stamp album!".

I shall see which ones have any relevence. Cheers Jeff Knaggs 22:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Postage stamp images
Greetings. Have you investigated the copyright issues associated with scanning postage stamps? You have images marked GFDL, but I suspect you've not always gotten permission from the issuing postal service. Many countries' stamps are copyrighted, and the vast majority of issues are still under copyright. (I notice, in particular, French issues for the Levant, which are copyright the French Republic and not in the public domain yet.) &#8212;Tkinias 05:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not interested in supporting ridiculous copyright restrictions (I'm a free software guy), but I don't think we ought to expose Wikipedia to unnecessary liability. Photographing a postage stamp is AFAICT no different from photographing (or photocopying, or scanning) the page of a book. It's not an issue I'd want to fight over by any means; I just thought I ought to make you aware of the potential violations. (I'm not going to mark the images copyviol or anything... I really like them, in fact; I'm just edgy about the legality.) &#8212;Tkinias 06:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It would be very interesting to know if stamps magazines have a clear permission to publish all the international stamps what they use in their magazines? However it is clear that the stamps older than N years (N=60?) are free (worldwide?) and US stamps are explicitely in public domain up to year 1978 (look U.S. postage stamps). Stamps would make great public domain pictures to any Wikipedia article. It would be great to get them to http://commons.wikimedia.org to be used in any language. Another thing what I have been thinking is if anybody would be interested in doing a Wikipedia-like stamp catalog (I am) where a new freeware numbering (if needed at all) would be developed (according EU law, numbering scheme can be copyrighted) and all the small text in the stamp would be indexed with Unicode (I assume that it can not be copyrighted). So, it is possible to find any stamp. But no pictures of most stamps. If you are interested, comment to my discussion page. --Etu 01:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Under U.S. law, the magic year is 1923, so foreign stamps copyrighted before 1923 are in the public domain, but from 1923 on are still in copyright. Since my philatelic interests are almost exclusively pre-1945, most of my collection is public domain&#8212;but it is also primarily definitives, as the vast bulk of pictorials come in the postwar era.  &#8212;Tkinias 01:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Stamps can fall under different rules, because they are fiscal instruments, like money. There used to be a rule, for instance, that US stamps could not be reproduced in publications, and so Brookman only shows fragments of stamps and essays (kind of comical actually). My impression of present-day rules is that it's a sort of fair use, very liberally interpreted - sell coffee mugs using the stamp's design, they're on your case, but make and post all the scans of the physical stamps you want. It's hard to find many concrete statements, almost a "don't ask, don't tell, don't rock the boat" situation. Stan 05:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

USS Lincoln
I found and placed a picture in the "Mission Accomplished" section with the banner. Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 06:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good work
Your comment on the endorsements page (WRT Shorne and Jamesf) - it cracked me up :) &rarr;Raul654 19:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)  23:45, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Did you know has been updated
And your article Postage due is now on the Main Page. Enjoy! [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Palladius
Thanks for correcting my howler on Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus Palladius. --mervyn 11:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of Gabon-related topics
Thank you so much for putting this together. This sort of thing is really handy for those of us who'd like to work on improving our coverage of the developing world, but don't really know where to start. Ambi 13:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikistamp
OK, consider Wikistamp noticed ;) I think a separate wiki is a much more appealing project.  How easy would it be to get your database wikified?  What do you have entered?  (And, good lord, how long have you spent on this?!)  What is the platform for the software?

I've never heard of the World Postal Issue Database &#8212; Google returns only one hit, your meta:Wikistamp page. What is (was) it? &#8212;Tkinias 06:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Will comment further on meta:Talk:Wikistamp. &#8212;Tkinias 06:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Transwiki of Topsail
I apologize. I had run a script to transwiki Topsail, but had been careless enough not to have looked at the page beforehand. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 07:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
See talk:Erich S. Gruen for details. -leigh (&#966;&#952;&#8057;&#947;&#947;&#959;&#962;) 20:33, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright
Hi! I wrote to El C the following:


 * Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Oubangui-Chari.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Edwinstearns 21:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He wrote back:


 * Sorry, I am currently abstaining from all article contributions. I moved your comment here, and in that connection, you may wish to consult with Stan Shebs on this – I am quite confident with his expertise on this front. El_C

Can you help with this issue? Thank you, Edwinstearns 22:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I found the improbable source; see Image talk:Oubangui-Chari.jpg. Stan 17:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Simon Goodrich
Stan, the bit about the value of Goodrich's papers in fact come from one of the earlier printed sources I mentioned in my Wikipedia piece,from which I wrote the ODNB and the BDCE articles. The more recent project is a consultancy I am doing for English Heritage, which has involved having all 78 volumes of his journals photocopied, plus a number of his miscellaneous papers and drawings. There are well over a dozen travel diaries starting in 1799 and ending in 1830 for instance, describing engineering manufactories. Apwoolrich 07:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Stan, I have been thinking about what you wrote, and feel I ought to modify my comment a little. It was a statement made in a discussion after a lecture to a learned society! Really we need to be able to place proper footnotes in an article to do this kind of thing, of course. Just last night I was reading a new book on the history of the British Steam Navy to find a snippit that his papers were first offered to them after his death but rejected. They were later given to the ancester of the present Science Museum, London.I can cite proper reference for both statements, but neither are in a peer-reviewed journal! Ho Hum! Apwoolrich 19:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ephemera?
Newspapers are ephemera just like sports cards? Ouch (sez this newspaper reporter)! - DavidWBrooks 19:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tucson, Arizona
The talk pages or other sources indicate you have in the past participated in discussions regarding whether to put a Native American name translation in the introductory sentence of articles on Arizona cities. We are currently having a vote on this issue at Talk:Tucson, Arizona. Please come by and weigh in. Thanks. --Gary D 00:39, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppets
Stan, I've just happened to go to the user page of an anon, and found the funniest picture. It's this:



Said image is being used as part of a template to indicate that the anon user may be a sockpuppet of another user. I really think that I'm going to think about using that in the future when I suspect that someone is a sockpuppet.David Newton 18:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tucson, Arizona and more
Hi. I saw that you voted on the RFC regarding Tucson, Arizona, and I thought you might be interested in commenting on a broader application of the formatting to other city articles. The discussion (for now) is at Talk: Tucson, Arizona (It might get moved to WikiProject Cities, if there's interest in doing so.) Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copywrite Violation
I've got a problem: the Zeratul aritcile is copied word for word from Blizzard's website, and I have no idea what to do about it. Could you help out please?
 * Thanks a bunch. I apreciate it.

Stamps
Thanks for clearing that up. I presumed it was once part of some series of articles which had been since merged into one article. Cheers. CryptoDerk 00:09, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)