User talk:T. Anthony/Archive 8

The Boomer archive. Friendly until it shoots you. (I'm kidding, don't freak out. See Archive 8 2 for why.)--T. Anthony (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Back again
I'm addicted. I do despise the place and favor it being boycotted. I guess I'll stay for a bit until it dies, and I hope it will die. (cheery huh)--T. Anthony 06:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking I'll make this period of being back brief as I really don't have anything left I want to do here. I'm considering getting the guts to join Citizendium, which strikes me as a much better idea than this place. However I'm a private person who has been published, as in a webzine, under the rubric "Thomas R." Hence I'm hesitant to go to a place where using "Thomas R" might be no more acceptable than the pseud I use here. We'll see though.--T. Anthony 01:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! Glad to see you're back, even if it is for a short time and with a rather pessimistic outlook. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This place is fun at times, which is part of why I keep coming back. I just don't like its basic principles, the way its demographics skew things, or the way its ran. Anything that covers Stan Smith (American Dad!) more thoroughly than indicted former Director of Central Intelligence Richard Helms seems to have kind of a weird focus. Although it's more than just that or I wouldn't keep leaving. Still I was in High-Q and then College Bowl from the age of 15-28 so this sort of does feel the same itch that learning odd facts for a competition did.--T. Anthony 17:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I know ... I find it a fun hobby as long as I don't take things too seriously. I'm also drawn by the ability to read about such a wide range of topics, from a town in Chile to a school in Edinburgh to an Austrlian actress (three clicks of "Random page"). It is dangerously addictive, though. As for misplaced focus, I suppose that's one of the quirks of a strictly volunteer project. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic music
Your reference, 'From Sacred Song to Ritual Music: Twentieth-Century Understandings of Roman Catholic Worship Music', may be part of the reason why the current category is wrong. Maybe it should be Category:Roman Catholic worship music, if that is the focus of the article. That's a name that means something and is rather specific. However this still does not address the differences in Christian music types. Are there any that are really meaningful? Vegaswikian 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That was only one of the references. There are differences, more in the past then currently perhaps but they still exist. Internationally speaking Catholic music is much more influenced by the music of Romance language nations than most Orthodox or Protestant music. It is quite similar to Anglican music, particularly in this age, but Catholic music's subject matter can be noticeably different. Before Vatican II, which is what a performer category would mostly deal with, the difference with Anglicans was greater due to rules of Pope Pius X and use of Latin. I was going to create the performers category next week, but maybe I won't.--T. Anthony 05:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

SF writers
I'm trying to stick to the rule I had last time that I won't add much or anything to the information of Wikipedia as a whole. Instead I decided to only start articles on topics that are in other language Wikipedias already. Hence I worked some on clearing out red-links at Seiun Award winning authors. (Only when there was a Japanese article already) I would rather people not use Wikipedia when they do a Google search, but if it's already in other language Wikipedias they may anyway. A weak justification, but ehh.--T. Anthony 05:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why I may or may not stay
I have to concede Wikipedia seems likely to last a good long time. The Pew study of Wikipedia users and the overall lifespan of the project means it's likely going to be something like e-bay, By that I mean an Internet phenomenon I'm also critical of, but which isn't going anywhere. Therefore I may have to resign myself to it. It might be best to try to be part of the system to improve it than keep hoping for its destruction.

On the other hand I quit doing e-bay and never would do it again. The concepts behind Wikipedia seem ludicrously naive or foolish to me. Plus the demographics are always going to be skewed because of economic and cultural factors. Coverage of religion, Africans or African Americans, older peoples' concerns, and so forth I think never will be good. So being part of something that I think is dumb and harmful still feels wrong/hypocritical of me. Even if the intent is betterment.

I don't know. I'm turning 30 in 2 weeks. I think I'll decide by then.--T. Anthony 05:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kurdistan
Hi, since you had been replying to my comments with an open mind, I'd like to discuss this issue with you. Since December I had been trying to initiate a discussion on the matter. All my attempts failed because all discussion was being ignored. The mediation case failed for the same reason. Here is my rationale which I have originally poseted on the ANB/I:
 * If there is a verifiable and reliable source disputing this or any of the following assessments, I'd be happy to take it.
 * As per: WP:V "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." Kurdistan does not claim to be a country nor does anyone (including Kurdish people themselves) claim Kurdistan to be a country. So I do believe declaring Kurdistan not to be a country in any sense is anything controversial. There are people who wish for an independent Kurdistan, fortunately/unfortunately Kurdistan currently lacks the basic merits even for a defacto country. This may change in the future and we can categorize accordingly. But right now there is no grounds to make such a claim and it would be WP:OR and would also violate WP:NOT.
 * Kurdistan lacks defined borders. Google image search spits out some examples of inconsistent maps. Even among neutral sources such as dictionaries there is a serious disagreement among the basic area of Kurdistan. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) defines it as "a mountain and plateau region in SE Turkey, NW Iran, and N Iraq: inhabited largely by Kurds" while American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "An extensive plateau region of southwest Asia. Since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, it has been divided among southeast Turkey, northeast Iraq, and northwest Iran, with smaller sections in Syria and Armenia." on the other hand WordNet defines it as "an extensive geographical region in the Middle East to the south of the Caucasus". Webster says "The borders of Kurdistan are hard to define, as none of the states in question acknowledge Kurdistan as a demographical or geographical region."
 * As per: WP:CAT #8 states that "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." "Kurdistan" is a controversial term as per examples: (incident #1 (Pentagon apology), (Rumsfeld considers it unfortunate)) (incident #2 (Amsterdam University apology) - (turkish)). Putting a "Kurdistan" category on random cities, provinces, lakes, rivers, mountains, and etc appears as an endorsement of Kurdistan's borders and also implies Kurdistan a country status.
 * Ignoring the guideline all together (and treating Kurdistan as a geographic region) cities are almost never categorized by geographic regions. Geographic regions are hard to define and often overlap each other. York is not categorized as being a part of Europe but a part of United Kingdom. Political borders are comparatively very easy to define and do not easily change. Practically every city article on Wikipedia is categorized by political borders (country/state/province/etc). I oppose any kind of "geographic" categorization of cities as per the rationale behind WP:OC and WP:DNWAUC (an essay of mine).

I'd like to discuss if my thinking/approach is flawed.

-- Cat chi? 08:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. However 1 and 2 seems to involve whether it's country. In my case I find this is irrelevant as many things are categorized by ethnicity or region at Wikipedia. Still if pressed I'd say I don't think it is a country or more accurately I'd say it's not a country per se but a term for regions. For example there is Iraqi Kurdistan, without their being one unified Kurdistan as of this posting. Three is something I am not unconcerned about and I think maybe a new discussion is warranted. However this would seem to call for a rename rather than a deletion. I'm not opposed to merging Category:History of Kurdistan to Category:History of the Kurds now that I think on it, but you seemed to indicate it was a rename proposal which kind of confused me. Plus even if we do "communities by region" rarely that does not mean it is never done at all. It can be done in certain cases where it's historically or culturally interesting/useful to do so. Placing York in Europe is not very useful as Europe is an entire continent. However placing Katra in Category:Jammu has a certain utility. Your opposition to this seems to be supported by an essay you wrote, if I understand you, which if so is not the best way to go about it. You'd be best to start working up some kind of discussion on the matter of "X by ethnic region" and hold off on CfDs until you make progress there. Granted all that might sound frustrating and too much work, but what you're doing doesn't seem to be working well. Even to me it oftens ends up looking like you're going after Kurdish categories and then making your point against "stuff by general region" as an afterthought. I think you should really focus solely on the generalized issue you have against geographic/ethnic region stuff to avoid looking like you have some kind of overly specific Kurdish issue/concern.

This place can be very frustrating. I've left several times and plan to leave again. Even though I don't agree with what you're trying to do I hope you do succeed at making your case better so it can be judged more on merit.--T. Anthony 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did make nominations relevant to the Great Lakes for instance and I was still accused there: Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 23.
 * I am not opposed to ethnic categorization. If a city or place is relevant to an ethnicity it can be categorized accordingly. Mount Olympus is tagged with "Category:Greek mythology" for instance. Note that the categorization is made based on why it is relevant (mythology in the case of Mt. Olympus) and not because it happened to be in the neighborhood. What I dislike is tagging of mountains, rivers, and cities simply because people live on/around/in these places.
 * -- Cat chi? 09:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well another matter is that people may just honestly disagree with the idea of not categorizing by geographic region. I'm not sure I see the problem myself as long as it's not some large region like "the Western Hemiphere" or "The New World" or Eurasia or what have you. Still on the day you put that up you did put up three Kurdish categories in separate CfDs. I'd be tempted to stay clear of the whole Kurdish thing for awhile. Then again I'm kind of cowardly.--T. Anthony 09:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why the number of noms per day matters. -- Cat chi? 09:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it ends up taking more space on the page. So for the April 23rd deletion page there's all this room taken up by your Kurdish deletions. Not sure how you could have avoided that, maybe space it out by day. Anyway this is interesting, but I have other things I'm doing. Talk to you later.--T. Anthony 09:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Former Jews etc.
Hello T., regarding your reply to me at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19 I do not confuse Judaism with "being Jewish" and I am not sure why you think that. It seems quite simple to me that if one states one no longer believes at all in a religion then you have renounced it whether or not others still say you are Jewish. I agree that Former adherants to Judaism is a much better name - perhaps also we could have Jewish atheists? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That might be a case where I accidentally put a response to someone else at you. I meant that for User:Poetlister who said you can't renounce Judaism. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Oddly a part of me is uncertain any of the "former" categories are necessary, but it's been decided they are so I guess a "former Judaism" deal can be done.--T. Anthony 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bye gang
Hopefully this time I'll stay gone. I was only staying this long trying to resolve something, but I gave up on that. Bye everyone!--T. Anthony 17:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave in fast, but do intend to be gone.--T. Anthony 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bahh
Once again I do poorly at leaving. Anyway I've tried to leave several times and once did so for like two months.

Basically I think the whole idea of Wikipedia is kind of ridiculous. In some respects its similar to the Infinite monkey theorem. I'm not saying people here are monkeys or that it's all random, but basically it strikes me as similar in valuing quantities. Also the culture of it, and other factors, makes it largely by/for men under 30. I'd say it also gives teenage boys an importance not seen in the rest of society and that has a bad tendency to make it lean toward juvenile material or subjects.

An argument against that states that quality is valued and the youth bias doesn't keep anyone from writing more academic or serious articles. On the first I'd say quality might be valued as an ideal, but that doesn't mean quality actually improves with time. Or that the standard of what "quality" even is entirely related to how the rest of the world sees facts, good writing, etc. On the second I'd say the youth culture probably does discourage people who write in a more serious or mature vein. A place where people regularly use catch-phrases from anime at you regardless of subject is essentially an unfriendly and confusing environment for those who aren't young and nerdy. Also articles on African, older-generation, etc matters too often get "notability" warnings because they are obscure topics for 19 year old middle-class boys.

There are other matters, but I have to go and eat. Hopefully that's it.--T. Anthony 01:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For any Wikigroaners lurking guess which of the three is the longest article


 * Isabella I of Castile - Queen Isabella of Columbus and antisemitism fame.
 * Elizabeth of Russia - Significant Russian leader.
 * Padmé Amidala - Young Queen of Naboo in the Star Wars Universe.


 * Yup Amidala. It might be reasonable though to say "hey length does not mean quality or effort." However Amidala is also the only one of the three to be in Featured articles and has had the most edits of the three. It also older than Isabella's or Elizabeth's.--T. Anthony 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jazz categories
Hey thanks for the encouragement, and for using the new categories in articles. It was nice to hear. (Mind meal 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC))


 * You're welcome. I still intend to be gone here soon, but as jazz was what I became most active in it's good to see interest and effort like that. Well that and there are some jazz genres I like more than others so it's nice to be able to know what's what. I think finding musicians new to me has been the most, maybe only, rewarding thing about Wikipedia for me.--T. Anthony 22:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again T. Anthony! I think you should stick around instead of leave myself, as your contributions are very useful. I also wanted to direct your attention back to Category:Jazz musicians by genre, because I have just added a slew of new sub-genres to the main genres. Please let me know what you think, as I feel this will become very useful over time. (Mind meal 05:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Neat. Although I'm a bit confused about when to differentiate West Coast jazz from Cool jazz. Or do I even need too? As for leaving that's pretty much decided. Besides some irritation I am also way behind on things in real life. Although knowing me I probably won't manage to stay away.--T. Anthony 05:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, all West Coast jazz musicians can also go in the cool jazz musicians category; though all cool jazz musicians are not West Coast jazz musicians. I'm glad you won't stay away, as Wikipedia is still in "her" infancy and I see it potentially becoming the #1 source for information on the web. Incidentally, you beat me to the Irvin Mayfield specification of Afro-Cuban jazz, so no problem at all. That was to be one of my first edits! Anyway, thank you for the positive feedback, as it makes one's Wikipedia experience that much more enjoyable.(Mind meal 05:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC))


 * You're welcome. Maybe I'll "only post on the weekends", I don't know. We'll see.--T. Anthony 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Real
Hi T. I did not mean to be snippy. Adding "The Real" was actually a tongue-in-cheek reference to The Real Ghostbusters, which had to add "The Real" to its title in response to a totally unrelated cartoon of the same name. But thanks for being a peace maker. Nick Graves 01:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Wow I haven't thought of The Real Ghostbusters in years. That takes me back.--T. Anthony 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your removed comments...
...while restoring what was removed by Bus stop on the list of notable Christians. I didn't mean to imply anything by not restoring them. Anynobody 05:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. I was being half-flippant/half-jokey because I'm not certain I care that much. I don't even know why I'm still here.--T. Anthony 05:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a large number of reasons I can think of for you to say that (inconsistent application of policies, user behavior, etc.), "What's your boggle?" Anynobody 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep up that categorizing!
Right on! You are a major help in all of this. Sorry the genres keep expanding and thus requiring occasional backtracking. I just want to make sure we get it right! And in case you would like a great resource for categorizing these musicians, search their name at http://www.allmusic.com and it will tell you each genre they perform(ed) in. Thanks again.(Mind meal 10:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC))


 * You're welcome. I got into doing jazz articles after getting frustrated with fights on articles on religion or history. I generally had a good time on them and still do for the most part. I'm not sure that's enough to keep me here, but anyway thanks again.--T. Anthony 11:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum
I am now unblocked and did some editing to rectify an error partly caused by me. I moved the religious pictures here in case I want to delete the userpage. I'm hoping that's all folks.--T. Anthony 10:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Christian thinkers in science
List of Christian thinkers in science, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Christian thinkers in science satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of Christian thinkers in science and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of List of Christian thinkers in science during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. User:Krator (t c) 15:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It apparently went nowhere. I'm hoping to be inactive, but I looked at the article as I've not been involved in it for a time. It's mostly still devoted to people where the intersection is notable or significant.--T. Anthony 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Still some of your objections did perhaps deserve greater response. I would be willing to cut out everything before the "Ratio Studiorum to French Revolution" as the clergy or monastic orders dominated European science before the seventeenth century so the relationship would always be close then. However others who worked on the list like it largely for its information on Medieval scientists so I don't feel I should do anything there. I will see about returning the links that said members of the National Academy of Sciences are generally not theistic at all.--T. Anthony 08:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Christophe Schweizer
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Christophe Schweizer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Docg 13:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just saw it on a list and started it. I don't know if it's notable, but at the same time I don't know it's not so I'm uncertain on endorsing. So however it turns out I'm likely to be uninvolved, but thanks for the warning anyway.--T. Anthony 13:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Czechoslovak apartheid
I'm sorry to see you have stepped on the mine of the Israelo-Palestinian wikiwar... I did the same this summer, when "allegations of French apartheid" (now merged into Social situation in the French suburbs) was AfDed a few days after its creation on Bastille Day... As I have some knowledge about France, I naïvely thought I could contribute to the discussion; well, it didn't take long to discover that this article wasn't really about France.

Here's what I would do if I were you:

1. copy your preferred version of the article to a user subpage of yours, with a userpage tag

2. request deletion per

3. Integrate the material in other articles per the suggestions in AfD; though personally, I would create an Segregation of Roma in Slovakia and the Czech Republic article; I think the subject is notable enough to merit its own article, and continue from there. Check out Segregation in Northern Ireland and its history. It started as one in the "allegation of X apartheid", but then it was renamed, and has become a rather good article in my opinion,and I don't think it could have become that under its original name. If you wish, I can think of helping out in editing it, though I don't know that much about the discrimination of roma, but isn't that the point of wikipedia, learning stuff you didn't knew:)?--victor falk (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I might. To be honest I have often quit this place and intended to be done with it. Not for things like this, more other problems and issues in my life. It's embarrassing I'm still here so I might not do anything.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Definetely things like that, and those are the worst ones. I saw about the boycott campaign, I'll have to check it out later. Well, there's no such thing as perfection, ain't it? I also feel "wikifatigue" at times. Though, I haven't wrote on wikipedia as long as you have, so I'm curious what you feel about the flaws, have they improved, gotten worse, or do they stay the same?--victor falk 00:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On anything political or religion involved I see little or no improvement from when I started in 2005. Granted I'm speaking overall. There are individual articles on those topics that have improved, but from what I've seen this is balanced by articles that have worsened. History articles are also very uneven. The thing Wikipedia is best at, and that somewhat justifies its existence, is elements of pop-culture that academic encyclopedias rarely touch. You don't get quality stuff on Gremlins 2: The New Batch or Troy McClure in most any reference work. (Whether getting quality stuff on that matters is a different issue.) Still even from a pop-culture standpoint there's a pretty heavy bias to action or sci-fi films of the last 25 years. The non-featured article on High Noon is maybe half the length of the featured article on 300 (film). However "High Noon" would, normally, be agreed to be a more significant film and in Hebrew Wikipedia it's a featured article. Even the article on the very famous Citizen Kane is shorter and less noted than the article on 300 or V for Vendetta. Wikipedia also has some of the most extensive information on sexual subcultures and youth cultures out there. Still on balance I feel the harm it does on things that matter makes it a net-negative. This wouldn't be as bad except Google searches seem to preference it. I guess that's better than them preferencing political blogs or gossip rags, but in some ways it's more a lateral move--T. Anthony (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Lists of Roman Catholics
Please don't blank content on wikipedia; if you don't think these are encyclopedic, please nominate them for deletion at afd. Carlossuarez46 20:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's not it at all. I think I argued to save that at one time. I just figured the category served it well enough and it'd be better not go through a harrowing AfD about it instead. After I did I thought of undoing it though so thanks.--T. Anthony (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

SineBot
In case you didn't know: If you place on a page, edits there will never be signed by the bot. --Oxymoron83 11:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Kooky
I created the article on William Bayliss, which relates to today's featured article. I'm a cog in a machine I claim to despise despite myself.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

NOP/National Revival of Poland
Hi ! Please read my response to your comment, I'll be happy if u will write something more about this whole situation and what do you think about this, I'm highly against liberals,democrats and socialists etc. but I don't wanna make English version of the article to be a "propaganda site" because that is not a point of Wikipedia.

Greetings my friend,

--Greetings &#91;&#91;User:Krzyzowiec&#124;Krzyzowiec&#93;&#93; (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I probably shouldn't have gotten involved as I don't know Polish politics well. I just like to categorize at times. I think they did sound anti-Zionist from the description, but I'll let you guys work it out. I will read your response though.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, our debate in the topic is still fresh so look for the new comments from me ;). I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

--Greetings &#91;&#91;User:Krzyzowiec&#124;Krzyzowiec&#93;&#93; (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good luck with everything etc.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

See you later!
I intended to be permanently gone, but alas this place is weirdly addicting. Still what with Christmas and all I'll take a seasonal break as I've done before. I took out the crossed-out blue deals from the lists because of that.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I may have jumped the gun as I'm not able to go anywhere for a few days. Still I don't intend to be real active and will quit soon. Honest.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for including the photo of Sultan Ibrahim Njoya to the article I posted only yesterday. I really appreciate your contributions, both to the article and to this topic. Good luck in all your future endeavors. Tonymartin (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. His is a fascinating story that I had trouble researching when I was younger. The National Geographic Society I think told me they'd never heard of him. Although I'm critical of Wikipedia I'm glad the Net has allowed for resources on people like him to be easier to find.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a bit to it, thanks for creating it.--T. Anthony (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)