User talk:Tannin/040224

- There is nothing I like better.


 * User_talk:Tannin/030301
 * User_talk:Tannin/030407
 * User_talk:Tannin/030430
 * User_talk:Tannin/030516
 * User_talk:Tannin/030606
 * User_talk:Tannin/030715
 * User_talk:Tannin/030923

Thanks for the kind words! Fuzheado

Thanks for you-know-what. I've also joined that other group - you'll get to see what I went through in my efforts to contact you on your Red Hill address. Arno 06:46, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Taxobox

Tannin, thanks for adding that nicely formatted box to the llama article. The box really makes it easier to read the article; it doesn't "break up" the layout but actually improves it. --Uncle Ed 13:15, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response on the vandalism. I appreciate it! Guppy 14:22, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Attribution info

Tannin, Your image Image:HumpbackWhaleLeaping.jpg was recently deleted on the French Wikipedia because there seems to be a belief it is not in the public domain. I checked your image page and you state that it comes from the NOAA government web site. On that site it states that some photos are copyright by non-government employees. I can't find the particul*****age that you uploaded. Did you check to see if it was made by a government employee? If so, could you mark that on the image description page as that will clarify for everyone if it is fair use of public domain. Thanks. Alex756 03:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Many of the images on that government page are not government property, they are made by individual photographers, it states that in the copyright notice. So it appears that unless you can determine that the photo is one of the few on that site that was made by a US government employee then it is not a public domain photo. Do you want to remove it or try to qualify its use as fair use? Alex756 17:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * This has wider relevance. At the moment the WikiProject Cetaceans page is recommending NOAA as a source of usable photos. If this is not the case, then that recommendation needs to be reverted soon (nb it would be a great loss, but if it has to be....) There a couple of other whale pages where NOAA photos are used. If needed I will do an audit. Pete 21:12, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The fish articles by 80.225.73.197 all seem legit - there really is a catfish genus Satan and so forth. I'd hazard a guess that the nonsense articles were exuberant newbie-ness, and that the person is done with that and now trying to add real content; the latest edits show much better wiki style than the earlier ones. Stan 16:17, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've added a list of species to parrot (family), so that I could do a stub on Rose-ringed Parakeet. Do with it as you as you will in terms of changing format etc. I'm a little worried that African Grey Parrot isn't in the list, maybe it's officially called something else now? Jim

have a good holiday, look forward to some more brilliant pics. Jim

--

Great to see you back after your protest against software. I could have done with your help a bit earlier this year. It still amuses me enormously to read your comment 'Tidied up Australia a bit'. I did not realise that Australia had also got in a bad way environmentally. O well they paved paradise and put up a parking lot!Norwikian 11:15, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

Coots
Hi. Could you look at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Questcedonc.jpg please? I'm fairly sure it's a coot. But then your coot picture Image:Coot-231.jpg doesn't have as much of the white shield, which has me a bit baffled. -- Tarquin 10:52, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Welcome, we've missed you! Adrian Pingstone 09:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hope you had a really good break, and look forward to seeing the pics. Sorry about the Rugby (not really). My current project is still writing species accounts, with the aim of eventually completing British birds before moving on. Big iron is similarly whacking out the Canadian species. Jim

I'm impressed by the first pics, Red Goshawk really is red! Doing the British birds is of course helped by the fact that many species of ducks, gulls and waders etc are common to Europe and N. America, and many common Am species have occurred here as rarities, so Big iron and I are to some extent helping each other out. Jim

Welcome, Tannin, great to see you back at the place. I am looking forward to see your photos. (And if you wonder who I am: last time you were here my user name was Cordyph.) -- Baldhur 08:20, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Mammal pictures would be great, since I am just doing articles about carnivores on the German 'pedia. If you don't know the species of a certain mammal, I would be glad to try helping to identify it. -- Baldhur 08:56, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I will give it a start right now: Your picture uploaded to Agouti is a Mara, not an agouti. Never mind, I can fix it tonight (actually I am supposed to work right now). -- Baldhur 10:17, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Done. I just devoted time to look at all the photos you uploaded this morning (or afternoon from your point of view, I think). Really amazing pictures, congratulations for that. Must have been two special months. I hope, return into civilisation is not too hard. -- Baldhur 19:20, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Welcome back!
My goodness those are some great photos! It looks like you had some fun on your WikiVacation. :) --mav 08:47, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I know nothing about sitellas, but that's never stopped me writing an article before. Jim
 * My book says the subspecies of chrysoptera are sometimes treated as full species, but I'm a long way from home here. What does HANZAB say? Jim

Pigsonthewing has been very clever, now that he has made undercarriage a link in the Concorde caption it won't be removed. You have to admire such cunning! I'll look for an undercarriage pic to add to the stub. Adrian Pingstone 16:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

forest-falcons

yep, I'm afraid they're out of my range, too. Maybe we could recruit A. Whittaker to Wikipedia, he must have a picture of his new species. seglea 08:00, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Lemon-bellied Flycatcher pic on the bird page, a wonderful photograph. Adrian Pingstone 09:19, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

thanks for the zebra answer. Xah P0lyglut 09:58, 2003 Nov 30 (UTC)

This "undercarriage" nonsense has to stop - it is destroying the page history. Please add your voice to a straw poll I set up at Talk:Concorde. --mav 22:19, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for Concorde support

Tony, many thanks for your support on the Concorde undercarriage caption vote. Because I took the pic and wrote the initial caption, I felt particularly annoyed by the addition that Pigsonthewing made. Lets hope this is the end! Thanks again from Adrian. Adrian Pingstone 08:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Tony ! Thanks for the iridology to-Theresa reversal - to the wrong version, but anyway : ) Looks like known history: zealots and sicarii creating objective trends by raising the "voting"  - to - "convincing"  ratio thresholds : ) Sincerely, irismeister 14:20, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC) 12764 total pages edited during the free speech Wiki period : ) Critic of Purée Reason : no attempt to discuss rationally that I can detect Needs reason, yeah... Very badly needed... I can see your point : ) So why not let us attempt to talk, then, like in not protecting  the page ? : )Also, I removed the "page is disputed" header. I'm not sure if this last was a good thing to do or not, and would welcome advice. I'll consider restoring it if requested. Tannin 14:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC) By all means, please! It's really a mess right now, so the header is perhaps mandatory. Our friend Theresa has a known track record of vandalizing it repeatedly. Perhaps "cut and protect " is what she can  do. Sincerely, irismeister 14:52, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC) 12764 total number of pages edited during the three months free speech Wiki period : )

Hi again, Tony ! The above needs some tidying up, methinks - we lost the formatting information in the cleaning process. Sincerely, irismeister 15:45, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC) 12747 total number of pages edited during the (three months) free speech Wiki period, period . Will start losing time in writing articles again, only after "ignarrogants " will stop cutting them without reading them... : )

Plural/Singular for animal taxa
Hi Tony, do you have an opinion about this plural names issue? Can you point us to a guideline? Thanks, -- Baldhur 10:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe the better place for this discussion is Talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. I already moved Baldhur's comments there. andy 10:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Emu
Hi Tannin, could you kindly have a look at de:Diskussion:Emus. That picture was on the page about Emus. I thought it to be a Rhea, but others told me, that it could be a very young Emu. I think you are the best person to ask. If you like, you may answer directly on that page. Thanks a lot, and sorry for asking such an easy question - there are not many Emus running wild in Europe ;-) -- Baldhur 12:32, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, Tannin; I now took the photo from the English wikipedia for the article. That fits much better IMO. -- Baldhur 12:52, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thank you once more. The pictures are great. I think I will have the close-up portrait for some days on my user page, since it is very close to my facial expression after two hours of river naming disputes. I understand, that your pix 2+3 show a juvenile Emu, am I correct? (I was asked by user Franz Xaver to make this sure.)
 * By the way, I have another quiz photo, but it is about a mammal species. You once told me about your beautifully illustrated mammal book, perhaps you can help out. The photo is here: Talk:Fennec; in this case I am pretty sure, that the photo was a misattribution. -- Baldhur 19:45, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mountain ash
Hi Tannin. I was looking at various articles on Eucalypts and found yours on Mountain ash. Around here (Oregon) "mountain ash" is a Sorbus and I really question whether the article on Eucalyptus regnans should be the default. I found several pages in the "what links here" page which referred to Sorbus species instead. Rowan, so far as I know, only refers to the European Sorbus, at least it is never used here. Perhaps your article could be moved to either the scientific name (where it came from, I know!) or to Mountain ash (eucalyptus). Then the "mountain ash" page could be changed to a disambiguation page. What do you think? I am new to Wikipedia, and the more I see of the edit wars that go on, the more reluctant I am to make a change of that magnitude without consultation. Regards. WormRunner 05:24, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the move, and created a disambiguation page. Now we just need a Sorbus and Fraxinus texensis page... WormRunner 08:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Champagne socialist
Ok, you want them there, you can have 'em there :).. don't really understand though why those terms in particular deserve to stand out rather than being "hidden" in the third paragraph of a short article, but I won't fiddle anymore Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:17, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello Tannin! You changed the Wright brothers text. I tried to make it more neutral. I.e. I life in Germany. Here it is said, that Karl Jatho was the first one, because he flew four months before the Wright brothers. He may not be very known in the world. But you cannot say the Wright brothers are "generally" credited with the first flight. Maybe in some countries, maybe in most of the countries, but not "generally". Since Wikipedia wants to be an "neutral source", it should be mentioned, that there are doubts in case of the first flight. 82.82.125.203 13:44, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi 82.82. Indeed there are doubts: this is why it is correct to say "generally credited with" or "usually credited with" or (most accurate of all) "nearly always credited with" - but these are, in the overall scheme of things, very minor doubts. Perhaps many people in Germany belive that Jatho was first, but where else in the world is that belief held? (Ans: nowhere to speak of.) There are perhaps a half-dozen other aviation pioneers (besides the Wright Brothers) who are, from time to time, put forward as the "first", nearly always by citizens of the country concerned (here in Australia, for example, there are people (or at least used to be people) who try to argue that Sir Laurence Hargrave of NSW was "first".

It is usually considered that "flight" involves a demonstration of two things: (a) being airborne for a sustained period, and (b) having the aircraft under control. It is this combination that nearly all judges believe was first achieved by the Wright Brothers - not, by the way, particularly as a result of any especial and brilliant invention, but largely in consequence of a great deal of painstaking, step-by-step development over a period of many years. Their construction of a suitable engine also must be taken into account: that was a great step forward, and if we are to mention a third name in the context of "first peope to build a practical aeroplane", then it really ought to be Charlie Taylor. Best -- Tannin


 * The statement by 82.82, that in Germany Jatho is generally believed to be the first one, is not true. I've never heard about him before, and the Wright brothers are generally credited here as in any other part of the world. So that should not be considered a valid argument. -- Baldhur 15:08, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--- Welcome back too!

Although I you never left, I was also fairly tied up for a couple of months, and only popping in every few days to make some comments on talk pages or make some minor edits. I'm back now, though, coming back to the series of US history. 172 11:02, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seals
I'm confused by eared seal. True seal is a redirect to this page, but it does not explain what true seals are (and in fact links to itself).&mdash;Eloquence 14:07, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Initial-stress-derived noun
I'm surprised that something like this of obvious genuine scholarly interest would be treated as if it were a silly article, or as if it were merely a list of words. The recent comment that such articles would be especially useful to people learning English as a second language is a very strong reccomendation just by itself. (You are now the only person who voted for deletion but has not yet rescinded that vote.) Michael Hardy 01:49, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Minor
Whoops! Yup. You're right. Sorry 'bout that. - UtherSRG 23:22, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could you take a look at recent history of Political economy? Stirling Newberry made massive changes I just reverted. Although you and I have had our differences regarding this article, I'd value your views on his changes. Slrubenstein

Thank you for the encouragement. I'm kind of jealous of the volume of Aussie birds, but I do appreciate our own good birds like the Rock Wren. Jim and you have put a good framework in place for Bird. Big Iron 00:02 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

hi Tony, I've replaced your image at passerine with a different one, bee-eaters aren't passerines. This is only a stopgap, so feel free to put in a different image if you prefer. Jim


 * I invented the marsupial whale, so I know what it's like. I've put the bee-eater in near passerine. Jim.

Yeti
So... when can we call the vote on Talk:Yeti finished? I wish you'd placed some more structure on the vote (such as valid voters, time period)... I'm afraid that anything done now will just continue to shake the hornets nest of sock puppets. Oh well. I'll keep on making sure Wikipedia is the best place it can be. :) - UtherSRG 14:40, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) &#x2299;

Please weigh in one last time. LK has changed the way you made the count. - UtherSRG 13:34, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Tannin - I saw your quiet little message in LK's ear, and his reply to it. Just put him out of his misery and ban him already. *grins* - UtherSRG 04:14, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

De-admin vote
In case you hadn't noticed it, an anonymous user has listed you at requests for de-adminship. Just thought you should know. Angela. 03:29, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of people are suggesting he is a banned user, but I'm not convinced personally. He doesn't remind me of any of the users that he has been accused of being. Anyway, the IP address that added you to WP:RFA was a different to the one Jack was using on IRC, but it was an AOL address, so it could have been him in theory. I agree he has caused problems, but that doesn't mean he has to had a previous identity. If his issues are primarily ones of not understanding the NPOV policy, I have hopes that his behaviour could be changed. After all, people once suggested Ed Poor be banned for POV issues, but he managed to change. Just my opinion. Anyway, don't worry about the RFA listing. I'm sure it'll disappear in a day or so. Angela. 17:27, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Coots again
Hi from Adrian! I’ve just noticed something odd about Eurasian Coot. Surely your pic is not a Coot! I’ve checked 5 bird books and Google Image Search and they all show the white beak and the white piece extending up over the head. I have a medium-quality coot pic I can replace it with or perhaps you want to replace it yourself (or perhaps I’m wrong!). Adrian Pingstone 16:38, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * If this is still the same pic (as of 3 Feb), yes it is a Eurasian Coot; the absence of the 'white piece extending up over the head' indicates that it is an immature; the white shield only reaches full size when it is about a year old. - MPF 15:03, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ITIS
I agree about ITIS's oddness on birds - and I don't think they are much more reliable on other taxa that I know about, either - which is one of the reasons why I always put a reference to them in if I use them. The additional 2 stilt species seem to check out round the net, though.

The plant people seem to use them a lot, so maybe they are better for them... anyway, the reference crops up so often in Wiki that I created a page about them. I think now that I was maybe too kind - you might want to have a look at it and edit it towards scepticism, though probably your exact phrasing to me about them might be judged POV. seglea 08:49, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added a note of caution to the ITIS page. This exchange suggests to me that a useful page would be a List of taxonomic reference sources, with links - which would also encourage us to write articles about the most important ones (as we already have on Fishbase for example).  If I start one going, could you add the bird sources, perhaps?  Without being too POV, we could probably indicate which are more reliable - for example there are some that are very good for particular regions but useless on a world basis.  seglea 17:56, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: Ernest King
Thanks for the encouragement! It's always nice to feel the wikilove :) &rarr;Raul654 08:58, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Next
Hi Tony, no probs with sparrows etc. Now all the British birds are done, I'm writing articles now mainly on birds I've seen elsewhere, but I've started from the head of the list, so it will be a long time before I get to Cordon-bleu or Senegal Fire-finch (especially as we are off to Sri Lanka for a couple of weeks soon). I liked Masked Lapwing, I'll have to get into photography one of these days...so much to do...Jim

Bird names & hyphens
Hi Tannin - I guess the main one is to avoid the linguistic barbarism of a capital letter immediately following a hyphen. This barbarism appears to be something introduced by [Clements], and is (regrettably!) followed by the [AOU], but as far as I can tell, no-one else of any repute. For nearly all of them, HBW retains the hyphen, but decapitalises the letter after it, while MacKinnon & Phillipps (Field Guide to the Birds of China; a very authoritative book) always does the reverse, retaining the capital but replacing the hyphen with a space. Personally, I think both give some problems; 'Golden-dove' looks/sounds much worse than Green Dove, but conversely Tit Warbler is open to confusion, while Tit-warbler is less so. So therefore my two-prong approach. Sorry, I don't have HANZAB, so don't know what it does. PS, in case you'd not guessed, I'm Michael Frankis at Bird Forum - MPF 15:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kites and rodents
Hi Tannin - thanks for correcting the Black-shouldered Kite; I'm still kicking myself for not knowing that there were native Australian rodents. And I had heard of hopping mice, too, just not put two and two together. I think an article on them would be a very good idea.

Going back to kites, I uncovered a really nasty mess on the nomenclature within Elanus, which I hope I have clarified (though I would bet that when the molecular people look at it it will all go back in the melting pot again). But I also discovered an equal shambles on where the genus as a whole fits in, which you no doubt know about - I may try to write an article on the genus later this week, while I can still find the references.

seglea 17:14, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tannin, Thanks for the note -- but of course there is no need for an apology. Still, even if you aren't inclined to working on the PE article, I believe your opinion about the structure or direction the article should take would be valuable. Perhaps sometime you will feel up to making some points on the talk page. In any event, thanks for looking at it and getting back to me, Slrubenstein

Binomial name
Hi. I noticed you removed the author from the example organism taxobox. Is this a policy thing for birds? The standard on the tree of life page is to have the author there and this is standard in my experience for species in general. WormRunner 09:15, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Requests for comment/Homegrown images - UtherSRG 16:24, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Caching
Thanks for the explanation on caching on the village pump. You're right... it now shows up correctly, I guess I was just too impatient. As it was the first time I've tried to replace an image I wasn't sure if it'd worked. Cheers, fabiform | talk 23:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC).

Yeah, as you know, I like taxoboxes lean and mean too, so you are not alone, although I suppose its a matter of style. Incidentally, I'm off to Sri Lanka for a couple of weeks from Thursday. I'm looking forward to it, but it won't help me get my to-do lists done!

Hi, Tannin! Please revert the iridology page to a decent form, or at the very least de-freeze it. I highly appreciate your contributions, although a little bit less your censorship : ) Sincerely, irismeister 10:43, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

Thanks for removing irismeister's rant on my talk page. I'd have done it myself. I apologised because although what I said may very well be true, I really do believe that the best way to encorage new people to join the project is to be nice. I shudder to think what a newbie might think if they read some talk pages. Anyway, if in the future i make a formal complaint about him,(or someone else does) 'tis better If the rest of us try to act whiter than white. theresa knott 10:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * perhaps it's a good practice to read basic training you keep calling rant  before you censor it : ) irismeister 11:21, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

Actually it's Mr Natural health who is under arbitration. Irismeister is a completely separate user. Fabiform considered breifly requesting mediation but thought better of it.theresa knott 10:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * perhaps Theresa is only afraid of revealing her knowledge/habits/character in the process : )irismeister 11:21, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

You have seen irismeister's contributions to Requests for comment/Irismeister right? I don't see any attitude change. Apparently we are babies, naive and dangerous (*sigh*). I know the page can't be protected indefinetly, but irismeister hasn't even gone quiet yet, let alone shown an inclination for contributing sensibly. Cheers, fabiform | talk 11:10, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * ignorance is extremely dangerous, offensive and no excuse that's for sure :) irismeister 11:21, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

My feeling at present is that unprotecting it would simply return us to the edit war. Therefore it's much against the quality of the article, I must agree that your feeling is probably correct : ) Sincerely, irismeister 11:21, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)

Splendid or Superb?
Hi. In yr new article on the Superb fairy-wren it says "Splendid Fairy-wren" at one point. I assume this is a slip of the fingers, and you meant to continue with the Superb name... but knowing Jack Diddly about birds I thought I'd leave it and ask you. Ensiform 03:40, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Drongo
Tony - Please check out the comments I made on Jim's talk page about the Drongo listings. There's a conflict with using the tribal -ini ending for subfamilies on one of the pages which I think is an artifact of the elevation of the Corvidae subfamily Dicrurinae to family Dicruridae. Am I right? - UtherSRG 14:47, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poll notification
Jack (now known as Sam Spade) created a poll at Talk:Atheism/Godvrs.god poll on the capital G issue in atheism, so I figured I should drop a note about it to all the major participants in the editing on that article since Jan 11. I just went through the edit history clicking names that looked prominent, so if you aren't interested in the issue feel free to ignore it. Bryan 05:26, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

... and "thank you" for spending all afternoon cleaning up all the physicists, admirals and gay actors who linked to an Australian politician!Cutler 16:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good re-write for innings. Do you think that the use of "inning" really has two exceptions? I think they are both from baseball and American's rarely if ever use the word except in that context. (I have lived in the USA for 25 years and can't recall that usage but probably wouldn't anyway) Also you created a link for limited overs cricket, obviously this is technically different from one-day cricket but they pretty much overlap - are you going to write limited overs cricket and update one-day to refer to it? I could but you started it 8-) --Bob Palin 20:15, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi tannin, I see you're footering around unprotecting pages... do you think the random pages wik and anthony were warring on can now be unblocked since they are both banned at the mo (as far as I know) - eg WWJD, Antinomy, One thousand seven hundred twenty-nine. Cheers, fabiform | talk 12:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC).


 * Thanks, yeah. There's no rush, it's just I've been dying to revert WWJD all day.  ;)  fabiform | talk 12:38, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Favor to ask
Hi, I just listed Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Requests for page protection. Can you protect it for me? I am involved hence I can't myself. TIA Viajero 14:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zviad Gamsakhurdia edit war
Tannin, thanks for reverting the Zviad Gamsakhurdia article. You'll have seen from the edit history and the talk page that the paragraph to which Levzur objects has already been discussed in detail and rewritten on several occasions. It appears that he simply doesn't want it to appear in any form (I assume because of his own strong POV on the topic). Frankly, I'm at my wit's end - what can we do about this? -- ChrisO 14:12, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It's been reverted yet again by Levzur. I really don't see any alternative to protecting this article permanently - he's shown an absolute unwillingness to compromise or even discuss it other than constantly asserting that he's right (which is no basis for a discussion). Could you possibly do the necessary or ask another sysop to do it? -- ChrisO 01:30, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Protected page
4 hours! Wow - and thank you. That page desperately needed sorting out. Angela. 01:42, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * . I've left some comments for you on the relevant talk page. -- ChrisO 01:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

K. E. Czernin
Dear Sir,

I just read your tabels about gases, used in WW1, which are very informative. I´m especially interested in the tabel "Estimated Production of Gases (by type)" which I would like to quote in an article, I´m writing. But I need the source! Could you say me or your name and who you are or/and the source, from where you have the figures of this table.

Sincerely, yours K. E. Czernin

My internet adres is: kecz@utanet.at

Introduced Species
Tanin, I came to the same conclusion as you did. You should read my comment from awhile back about the page List of introduced species at Talk:List of introduced species - Marshman 17:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Deleting discussion
Hi, Tannin. I tried to delete some discussion at Talk:Giant sequoia. I was basing this deletion on point #10 in Wikiquette (delete closed discussion), and also I don't like having Google index all of the discussion, since it really isn't relevant. I got agreement from Arpingstone to delete: I did so. You reverted the deletion, because it seems you thought the discussion was relevant to other articles.

Actually, I find your point to be an even stronger force for deletion. I still believe that photos of specimens in their own native habitat are the best (and I make a value judgement that they tend to be more attractive and aesthetic). I conceded the point, because I didn't want to waste a lot of time arguing over one photo. I've closed the discussion after not arguing very hard, but now my feeble arguments (and conceding the argument) may be used as precedent that photographs from multiple continents are more important than native habitat photos. That makes me regret not being more insistent.

An analogy that strangely comes to mind is the Geneva Conventions. It is in a country's best interest to obey the GC on POWs, because then members of the opposing armies may be more likely to surrender. If the GC is ignored, then people may be more likely to fight to the finish. Analogously, if disagreements cannot be deleted and will be used for precedent, I can see that people would not feel free to drop arguments.

I'd like to go ahead and delete the discussion. If you have a compromise proposal, I would be willing to listen. Thanks! -- hike395 05:47, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your thoughtful reply! I would be happy to participate in a discussion about what makes good Wikipedia illustrations. I'm willing to keep the specific discussion undeleted until you've started the generic discussion elsewhere.


 * Later --- given that the discussion has been laid out below, I went back and summarized Talk:Giant sequoia in 2 sentences. If you need to get more discussion, we can look back in history. OK? -- hike395


 * Your response reminds me of another point, which was in the back of my mind when I was discussing with Adrian. Written contributions and image contributions to WP are very different. If you write a paragraph, it perhaps only takes a minute. If there is some aspect of the paragraph I don't like, I can easily change a few words, keeping the overall meaning and intention.


 * If you travel to (say) Christmas Island to take a photo of a bird, you've gone to a lot of effort to take that photo, perhaps hours or days. You then upload the photo. If I don't like some aspect of the photo, there isn't much I can do to edit it, just perhaps deleting it or turning it into a link. And you've got so much time invested in that one photo, you would be justifiably be angry that someone removed it.


 * To summarize: illustrations are a lot less plastic than text. This could lead to harsher editing conflicts. I'm not sure what to do about that, other than remind people that any content in WP can be ruthlessly edited, or perhaps to not upload images that they are emotionally attached to? I don't know. --- hike395 14:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Picture choice
Hi Tony, can I just clarify my thoughts on the habitat v zoo debate (to put it crudely) for WP photos.

I can only see one requirement for a WP pic and this is it: Does it give the reader in any country of the world a good view of that object. It seems to me to be just that simple. I do not believe there are any other considerations necessary. It is not relevant whether the pic is from a zoo five miles from your house or was arduously acquired by lying still for two hours in 110 degrees of heat in a desert, in the objects habitat, while ants ate your private parts. The reader knows nothing, and (in my view) cares nothing of your hardships or expenditure in acquiring the pic. Indeed, unless he/she clicks on the pic they will never know where it came from.

Yes, we have emotional background to each pic but I can’t see the relevance of that to the choice of pic in an article. If someone comes along with a better pic (meaning the subject is seen yet more clearly) then I could not object to my arduously-taken original pic being moved elsewhere in the article or deleted or put into some other article where it fits. The replacement pic might be from a zoo or wildfowl reserve or wildlife park where photography is easy. For example I don't own a telephoto (I only have the usual three times zoom on my Olympus digital camera) so I can't do photography in the wild (or as wild as England gets!).

Of course, it’s great if there are two pics in the article, one in its habitat and maybe one taken elsewhere but for the purposes of this chat I’m assuming the article has only one pic.

You can imagine then, how puzzled I am by Hike395’s feelings (see Talk:Giant sequoia) that only a USA pic of a giant Sequoia would be satisfactory on the article. I am not able to connect to his feelings but I believe he is simply very proud that his state has these incredible trees and doesn’t want to see a pic from elsewhere. Perhaps he can explain further. Incidentally, I also put on the pic of the car at the base of a tree so I do not only use UK-originated pics. Best Wishes, Adrian Pingstone 18:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, well.. Looks like we're re-opening the debate. Just for the record, I agreed to keep Adrian's shot in the article and I'll stick by that. Should we move this back to Talk:Giant sequoia?


 * I do want to point out that Adrian incorrectly attributed nationalistic motives to me. Nowhere in my comments did I talk about country of origin. I was talking about in/out of biological context. I would be equally unhappy with a photo of a Giant Sequoia in a arboretum in San Francisco, California. If I had a choice between a Snow leopard photo from Nepal and one taken in a zoo in San Francisco, I would choose the Nepal shot.


 * Also, I do care about making a good encyclopedia. Part of making a good encyclopedia, in my opinion, is including attractive, aesthetic, appropriate photographs of plants and animals. Part of the aesthetics is showing the plant or animal natively, in its biological context. Especially if the context is really spectacular (as is the case of the Giant sequoia, or the Snow leopard). If a plant or animal is ubiquitous (say, a rat or an elm), then this criterion should be weighted much less.


 * Obviously, biological context should not be the only criterion for a shot. A clear view should also be another criterion. But, I don't think that clear view should be the only criterion (as Adrian seems to be proposing, above). I would also oppose any sense of required continental or national "balance" in the selection of photos.


 * --- hike395 23:26, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I apologise for totally misrepresenting you on nationalistic motives.


 * I do indeed see picture quality and clarity as the only considerations. In saying you would prefer a Nepalese Snow Leopard over a zoo Snow Leopard you are using your own knowledge of that pictures source. However, the reader is very unlikely to care about the source and it's unlikely they'll click on the pic and ever know the source. The reader is the subject of our attention and the reader is whom we serve so serve them the best pic, wherever it may be from. Assuming the zoo pic is the best view of the animal, that's the one to use. If they're equally good, then of course the native one should be used.


 * I know we're not going to agree on this topic but, to sum up, I am trying to express to you that the emotional and source information the photo carries with it (which is known to you but not to the reader) is not, in my opinion, a part of the reason to choose a photo!
 * Adrian Pingstone 11:30, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Tony, sorry to hijack your TalkPage for this discussion but it seemed best to keep it all in one place so that it can then be moved away easily.
 * Adrian Pingstone 11:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello again (after my long absence)! I need another admin to protect Problems of land distribution in Zimbabwe from this nutcase vandal. An IP ban wouldn't do any good, since it seems to be a shifting account. My comments in support of the idea of having such an entry disqualify me from doing so. BTW, you can accept the nomination of Congo Free State at the featured articles nomination page. 172 13:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing things under control at the Zimbabwe article. The page seems pretty quiet now. BTW, good job salvaging the content! I'm surprised by how well you were able to turn that shrill polemic into a halfway decent stub. 172 00:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Galah
Hey, Tannin, someone's put up a stub on the Galah. There was almost nothing there so I have added a bit, but it's not my continent and the article is still very stubby. Also there seem to be two theories about what genus it is in. Could you provide some more authoritative input perhaps? seglea 23:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey tannin. I was just wondering why you took the primate project links off of slender loris and loridae. --Mishac 09:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

168
Hi, you voted on the issue of whether 168... should be desysoped. Following this, he was temporarily desysopped. Please participate in the new vote as to whether that temporary desysopping should now be reversed until the committees can deal with it properly. Thank you. Angela. 00:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Zviad Gamsakhurdia RfC
Hi Tannin - when you have a moment, could you please leave a comment at Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia? You reverted Levzur's removal of a paragraph - he deleted it again (after reverts by others as well). -- ChrisO 08:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-- I noticed your summary comments on mass murder. User:VeryVerily unilaterally deletes large chunks of text without explaining his actions on a consistent basis. As User:HectorRodriguez's ideological foil, he proclaims his right to remove any content posted by Hector, an "anti-American vandal," without defending his actions on the talk page (see, e.g., Talk:Saddam Hussein). Although Hector lacks an understanding of NPOV policies, he isn't a "hard-banned" user on "auto-revert," meaning that VV outright admits his disregard for policy guidelines. VV arbitrarily removes large chunks of text whenever his intuition senses an "anti-American bias." When a user acts on a hunch, he/she instead is supposed to put up a neutrality dispute banner. Afterwards, non-partisans can chime in and start discussing content matters. On Manuel Noriega, e.g., his expertise on Panama is suspect - to put it mildly. Can he himself vouch for the inaccuracy of the content? I doubt it. Among other pages, I've been forced to protect Mass murder, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, and Panama. As you see on mass murder, he choses to attack my motivations on the pages of like-minded users (see the page history of User talk:RickK) and refuses to change his tactics. His decision to ignore you merely exemplifies a steady pattern of behavior. 172 13:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * A transparently dishonest summary. It remains to be seen whether in Tannin you will find a fellow traveller. -- VV 21:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi from HD (aka "blast from the past")
Hey there, Tony!

I've just bumped into your nick on "Khe Sanh" rev. history... Maaan, if this ain't "long time no see", then I don't know what is!

Nice to see you around Wikipedia, mate.

How's SR/SF doing? Do you still hang around? How's your business?

Anyho... Take care.

HellDiver.


 * Helldiver! Great to see you! Yup, all remains as before. I rarely see SR these days (once a month, maybe), but pop into SF nearly every day, and continue&#8212;alas&#8212;to earn a living in-between times. Stick around - this place is cool. Tony