User talk:Pcb21

Hi.

You recently self-blocked, apparently due to a wish to depart Wikipedia for a time.

Self-blocking is not permitted, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I have removed the block.

uc 13:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problem with your user page

Your user page /watchlist appears in many different categories (try looking at Category:Bats!) - I think you need some colons before your "C's" to stop this happening :) --VivaEmilyDavies 01:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Damn

Hi Pete,

I hope you come back at some point, I really valued your contributions.

Ben Brockert

You are missed

I saw a comment that "Pete" was gone and I thought "Crap. Not Pcb21?" Then I saw your user page and said "crap" once more. I hope your path converges with ours again soon. You are much respected and liked here by many, myself included. Best wishes always, and I hope to see you again soon, Jwrosenzweig 23:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Public Domain

The Guide to the CC dual-license page suggests that you release your contributions into the public domain. If this is true, could you use the appropriate templates on your user page so we can track the changes? ({{MultiLicensePD}}) (See: Licensing Templates). And you can use {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} for Creative Commons licenses 1.0 and 2.0 if you use that too. Thanks! -- Ram-Man 02:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

On a side note, welcome back. I think sometimes Wikipedians forget that one of the founding principles was that there "are no hard and fast rules". People have become less flexible and more grumpy about guidelines as rules lately. Recently I had a discussion about artificially limiting the speed of bot edits to an arbitrary number. The origin and/or reason behind the arbitrary value was not even discussed on this site but on the IRC. As crazy as these things are, there is often a good reason behind every rule, and I just learn to coast and try not to get in the way sometimes. That's why I work on adding new fish articles. Not many people working on those and they don't generate conflict (so far). Your self block made me laugh when you weren't allowed to do it. But I wouldn't leave unless I was really offended. Hope you stay if your work is good ;-) -- Ram-Man 01:04, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Narwhal_tusk.jpg

Hello Pcb21. You copied this photograph from the German Wikipedia. Please try to upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons, so they can be used by all Wikipedias. Thank you. -- [[User:Sciurus|Sciurus ><> - @]] 18:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) P.S.: Please excuse my English. I think I could say things more polite in German ...

You are welcome. Please feel free to discuss in english with me. So I may improve my english and you needn´t use an translations tool. Good luck for the extension of the article Narwhal. With kind regards -- soebe 12:02, 21. Nov 2004 (CET)

ACK

Hi Pcb21,

I just saw the stuff you´ve written at your userpage and I thought: WOW, That´s really what I am thinking about the way Wikipedia goes and fails (and I´m only working in the german one). Too many Meta and a lot less fun in writing. Sometimes it works if you start writing without watching the community and the metas and then its great again, but only then. Greetings from Berlin de:Benutzer:Necrophorus (who was author of some articles like de:Narwal, de:Weißwal and more stuff after looking at your work in here)

Fathers 4 Justice

I see you removed the NPOV from Fathers 4 Justice with the comment "No reason given on the talk page for those notices". I guess the section called "The neutrality of this article continues to be disputed." and the section called "The neutrality of this article is disputed." both escaped your notice? I have reinstated the NPOV and would ask you to extend the community the courtesy of not removing it again on such dubious grounds. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Chinese River Dolphin to do

Thanks for the note the other day. I'm enjoying dabbling among the dolphins. Just wondering about the To-do for Chinese River Dolphin. It might look "crap but only because many browsers can't display the chinese letters". So ... just wondering: remove Chinese characters?? or other work needed on article?? or maybe remove from To-do list?? regards Nurg 03:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I brought the subject up at Talk:Chinese River Dolphin. Feel free to dive in there. Pcb21| Pete 22:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Commercial sites

Your comments on Commercial sites is very welcome

[1]

It is foolish to label a site as worthless only because it is commercial.

Now if anyone wants to hammer on MicroSoft because they stifle creativity, then let the games begin! :)

London Congestion Charge, etc

Hi Pete

Re the photo caption business - Thanks. I am sure that you know who I am (I do try, but I am Not Endlessly Valiant, and am keeping a low-to-non-existent profile) :)

I see that you too have had some sort of crise over Wikipedia. I hope you end up with a solution that works well for you.

All the best

Gonegonegone 21:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:wi

Please, explain in detail, cause I think that if "There is no encyclopedia article for "Wi"." as the template states the article should be left as a red link which doesn't happen when the template is added to it. Maybe it needs a little rewording? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:50, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Book references

Thanks for you template on book references link. When the multi-licensing drive dies down I'll spend some time looking into that. The citation templates i've used are new and barely used, so coordinating should not be a problem. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 20:35, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

european and american options

Hi I noticed as part of your regularly scheduled grammar checking you changed a lot of "european"s to "European"s and "american" to "American"s in the vanilla option and option style articles. Those words are not meant in their geographical sense (they have a specialized meaning in finance) and it is correct not to capitalize them. Just letting you know why I reverted you. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 22:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wondered about these ones because they did not look like the geographical adjectives. However, none of my dictionaries (LDOCE, WordNet, OED) had the lowercase word, so I assumed it was all right to change them. I don't mind the revert if you feel it's better kept uncapitalised. However, you will likely need to revert it again the next time someone goes through uncapitalised occurrences of European and American. --Sam Hocevar 00:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Heya Pete,

Do you still have your scripts for updating that page? They're clamoring for updates, and your Python scripts were more evolved than my Perl scripts. If so, you can e-mail them to me or post them somewhere. If not, no worries, I'll just tweak on my old scripts.

Thanks, --Ben Brockert 00:43, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Cetology

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the kind words regarding my new article, cetology. It is far from complete, and would be nice to see others add to it. Possible topics to include are notable cetologists, history of cetology in Japan, and the Renaissance. I have also made redirects from cetologist and cetologists to point to the cetology article. Happy New Year!KJen74 06:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template:Cetacea_taxobox

Hi. In Template:Cetacea_taxobox, the wording for Family says "Family - test". What does "test" signify? RedWolf 04:13, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

"Moved from article page"

It appears you do not read talk pages before removing bias notices or cannot be bothered to comment there. As such, I have posted comments on the List of x movies pages here. 119 08:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The following template was added to the article. It is obvious metadata meant for editors so I am moving it here. Make of it what you will. [Pcb21]

The perspective and/or examples in this article do not represent a world-wide view. Please edit this page to improve its geographical balance .

No, this template is obviously meant for the article page: Any notice of bias belongs on the article because it qualifies the accuracy of the article to readers, and it refers the reader to the talk page, so obviously isn't meant to be posted on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes. 119 21:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, Pete. I've seen your work on the cetaceans and thought you deserved an award... so I gave you one! You have a barnstar near the bottom of your user page :) KJen74 20:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

taxoboxes

Pete - I'd like to run through your taxoboxes and update them. Some just don't "fit" right. I think it's your cetaceabox wrapper that makes the formatting too rigid. For instance, there are times when the genus should be a link, but with your wrapper it becomes a link in the binomial section as well. Also, the taxobox standard has shifted so that the genus isn't bolded (unles its the only article about the genus) but the species name carries the genus' initial. I'd fix other abnormalities as I find them, too. - UtherSRG 12:44, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Technical - Check for private bots

Hi, I thought you might know or know who to ask. Has anyone checked the logs for page scanning from problematic IP's? E.g. checked Gzornenplatz 's IP to see if he is using a private bot to scan pages that he wishes tightly monitor (edit war on).Daeron

featured articles

thanks for your response. just one other question, how did you find this info? --Larsie 23:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

featured articles

hey thanks for the heads up but if you look at the history of his pages not all of them were started by him. --Larsie 21:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• thanks again for the resopnse, and yes i realize your point and find it completely valid as the majority of the info was contributed by him. --Larsie 22:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Futures

[For instance, wouldn't better to have a substantial on (financial) risk in all its forms rather than the current non-article about risk in the futures market? Pcb21| Pete 00:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

Yes, full articles will be much better whenever we can get them written. I don’t even see the framework in which a serious article about futures can be written. Every time you try to use a word, someone lumps it together with stocks. If the current article included the risks we take as futures traders, this would not have arisen. Market risk is not the answer. Someone redirected futures risk there. It does not apply. The current story applies to fundamental type investments. Not futures. I would rather write about what futures are instead of having to explain what they are not. The uninformed look for what is similar. To trade futures we need to see what is different.

Look what happened here [2]

I apologize for butting in, but at the time I redirected Risk (Futures) it consisted of a single sentence which you wrote, "In futures trading Risk, is the probability of loss of trading capital." Maybe I didn't redirect it to the perfect page, but what choice do I have? You have created dozens of dictionary definition articles about general financial terms. You say that all these terms have different, specific meanings with respect to futures, but this isn't true. The concept of capital, for instance, is no different whether we're talking about stocks, futures, private equity, or anything else. Rhobite 04:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are right about Capital. My apology GT

How do you merge?

Position trader (futures)

Should be merged into comprehensive article also. GT

Champagne (beverage)

the french article fr:Vin de Champagne have a list of chamgagne producers--Ste281 16:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of Procter & Gamble brands

What you did with your "tidy" to this page was to remove the context of input to the page and therefore obscure its origin. I'm not going to get into an edit volley with you, but you effectively "hid" information, which is not a good thing to do. Courtland 19:07, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

By the way ... thanks for doing the tidy nonetheless; it's good to see people so quickly act on their desires to make Wikipedia better. Courtland 19:29, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

re:Stripping audio out of videos

See this. →Raul654 20:06, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

WikiReader

Hi Pete, I am constructing a Wikireader on Cetaceans at the german Wikipedia and it will be updated again in some days and there is a real chance to get it pressed and sold in the next weeks. I think, I will construct a version with the english articles too, so I started Wikipedia:WikiReader/Cetacea. It is great work you and the project on Cetaceans are doing here and I translated lots of dolphins to the german Wikipedia and use your maps there too. Greetings from Berlin, Achim Raschka 07:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello again, I will try to do it and I will show you the result, but I think I do not start this month because of the wriing contest in the german Wikipedia in March. Greetings -- Achim Raschka 09:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VFD

It is precisely because VFD is not about majority voting that I am opposed to spamming talk pages in the hope of getting votes. It politicizes the discussion and encourages people with opposing viewpoints to campaign for their side too, which seems antithetical to consensus-building to me. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 17:30, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:London-CC-map-large.png on Piccadilly Circus

Hi. I've recently put Piccadilly Circus up on WP:FAC where there appears to be some support, but there was a call for a map to show where Piccadilly Circus is. I am thinking of using the map Image:London-CC-map-large.png but I want to make sure that your understanding of the reply from Greater London Authority regarding the use of the map (as shown on Talk:London_Congestion_Charge) gives us permission to modify the map (i.e., crop it) in accordance with the GFDL. Is this correct? Hope to hear from you soon. JuntungWu 16:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image:London-CC-map-large.png on Piccadilly Circus

Hi. I've recently put Piccadilly Circus up on WP:FAC where there appears to be some support, but there was a call for a map to show where Piccadilly Circus is. I am thinking of using the map Image:London-CC-map-large.png but I want to make sure that your understanding of the reply from Greater London Authority regarding the use of the map (as shown on Talk:London_Congestion_Charge) gives us permission to modify the map (i.e., crop it) in accordance with the GFDL. Is this correct? Hope to hear from you soon. JuntungWu 16:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dirty Dancing on list

The problem I have, is not the number of people, but that it was a poll limited to 100 films, and they were all fairly recent studio films. So what does the poll mean? It means that when Brits are asked to pick from a very limited list, Dirty Dancing was on top. The poll does not claim that it is the British choice for "best romantic film ever". It was not a list of 100 Romantic films, so it doesn't belong in this category. I can't come up with a category where it does belong, so I removed it. -- Samuel Wantman 20:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

• VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
• VfD: Franklin High School
• VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
• VfD: Red Lake High School
• VfD: The Sage School
• VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

==Yield curve==

Hey. I opposed the promotion of Yield curve, an article you worked on, to featured status a while ago. Now, I know via User:Chrisfurio it is going to be re-submitted to FAC soon, and I plan to support it. However, I'm not sure the images you added have the quality they could have. If you could tell me where you got the data you used to generate them (I assume its not confidential) or maybe even send them to me per email, I think I could generate better graphics. Thank you! Phils 10:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User page

I'll put what I like on my userpage, as long as it's not a personal attack on someone, or grossly offensive. You can do the same too.

The characterization of all Wikipedians who want an inclusive Wikipedia as "devoid of common sense" based on the comments of a few users who haven't got the brains to write anything more than "I like them" is offensive.

Please learn to read:

Therefore hardcore inclusionists are devoid of common sense.

Is this clearer? Or do I have to change it so the word "hardcore" appears in 72pt bright red flashing text? Thank you for wasting my time on an unnecessary personal attack. Good day.

Chris 15:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. You'd be one of those people that complained about Brass Eye and Jerry Springer: The Opera without having seen them, aren't you? Right, explanation for the humour-impaired: Those at the most extreme end of the scale. There are those that will vote keep (or delete as appropriate) on everything except the obvious cases, but then there are those that will vote the same way on everything, including the obvious ones (voting delete on major current world leaders, or voting keep on patent nonsense). Now there are your hardcore *ists (not forgetting the hardcore mergists, whti a 1984-esque goal of getting the whole of Wikipedia down to a single article no less than 32k). Still following? Or did the modified cleanup notice at the top of my userpage not make it obvious that what you were reading was not intended to be taken entirely seriously? Perhaps I should put a big ;-) at the top? No, you'd probably miss that too. Chris 15:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you insist that I address this:

It is hardly surprising that many Wikipedians form a rational, logical position of wanting to keep these articles. Contrarily it is those who want to delete articles that often have a weaker philosophical idea of what they want Wikipedia to be ("This is an article about a school. Delete!").

Please explain how "This is a school. Keep." is a rational and logical position of wanting to keep this. I've yet to see a delete vote as you've mentioned. I've seen votes to the effect of "This school is exactly like every other school in the town/state/county/country/world, delete." Please explain why schools should be exempt to the rules that everything else has to meet? Chris 16:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A more inclusionist approach relying on the central tenets of being verfiable and factual is more consistent. Not to mention unmaintainable. I could put a page in WP for me, containing my date and place of birth, and a record of my studies - all of which are factual and verifiable. After all, anyone can request a copy of my birth certificate, exam results, university record, electoral register entry, etc. The reality of the matter is that Wikipedia can't take everything. I would go so far as to say that wiki is paper, in that someone still has to pay for it, someone has to maintain it, and when it has exceeded its usefulness, it has to be disposed of. Someone has to look after the articles, to make sure they're in a decent state, and to a high enough quality, not been vandalised, etc. If everything went in, that job becomes impossible. One thing I haven't seen anywhere, in amongst all the debates, is why schools should not be subject to the same rules as every other article. Any time someone asks that question, it is always, without fail, avoided. Sure, as soon as it's asked, people always provide a counter-argument or a counter-question, but that does not answer the question. So, probably in vain, I ask the question again, though I doubt that you'll answer it. Why should any given class of articles, in this case articles about schools, not have to meet the expectations that every other type of article has to meet? Chris 17:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, if "schools are not a special case", why are we arguing when they're up for deletion, and not in anything else? In some cases, you're voting "keep" on what can only be described as utter crap. One-line articles with no useful information, and nothing to prove that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. Perhaps you've lost sight of the fact that the point on VfD is to remove articles, and not subjects. The fact that something should have an article on Wikipedia is not a valid defence for crap, one-liners staying. IMO, they discourage expansion, rather than encouraging it. It seems to me that your opinion is that any material that isn't on WP:CSD has to stay.

Wikipedia statistics from Top 1000

I thought you might be able to help regarding Wikipedia user statistics. I would like to include in Wikipedia the percentage of edits done by the most active group in Wikipedia, however that may be best defined (100 per month being a "very active" designation on Wikipedia statistics). Please let me know if you can. If you do, the information would best be on a semipermanent page so it's verifiable later. 119 04:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. No, if that is what you mean I would have absultely no problem with it. Thanks for taking the initiative! :-) Danny 22:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thomas, 2nd Earl Of, Earl of Leicester, Earl of Derby Lancaster

What does this mean? "2nd Earl Of" what? Of Thomas? Is anybody ever going to search for this character string? RickK 00:33, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so this is an EB title? RickK 00:47, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Bad maps

Your help and common sense is needed. User:Kelisi, has been producing some maps and trying to replace the CIA maps for several Caribbean and South American countries. In my opinion these new maps (which have more detail than the CIA maps) are vastly inferior. They use garish colours, terrible decorative fonts, use a horribly large pixel size and are generally ugly and crowded, and look terribly amateurish and like they were produced on a Commodore 64 or something. Here is a list of maps he has produced . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Kelisi&hideminor=0&namespace=6. Perhaps the worst example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brazilmap.gif . Bizarrly these maps seems to have support from a few people who have been trying to push through their inclusion on several pages. Please see talk:Panama and talk:Honduras. Jooler 11:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deleted EB2004/29?

Congratulations to the team that knocked this off, of course (I'm able to give far too little effort to the cause). But why did you delete it? I wanted to take a quick run through the history, and I have this vague idea that having the original version available helps with verifiability. What's the harm in keeping it? (perhaps with a note on its original status) David Brooks 17:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I disagree with Sj's assessment, and would prefer if, at this stage, the lists would remain separate. Danny 21:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank, I wanted to congratulate you on that article, by the way. When I looked it up, I though "God, what the hell is there to write about that?" You certainly did an excellenet job! When it comes to generating content for Wikipedia, these lists are great. Thanks for that wonderful little Minch article. Danny 11:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, figures. You two are doing such great work on this. Ambi 14:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arundel

The numbering problem most probably arises because of the controverted idea that the holder of Arundel Castle is automatically Earl of Arundel. The individual in question, however, is referred to in many places as the 12th earl: see, for example, [3], [4], [5]. -- Emsworth 15:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TSG

No, I for one didn't notice that some nitwit appropriated a perfectly good page for his own vanity purposes. I didn't think of looking in the article's history page. And why not? Because it was on the Newpages list. I suppose I should have looked at the history -- after all, it's possible for somebody to create a worthwhile article and for a fool to arrive within minutes and mess it up. But what interests me is how it was on the Newpages list.

No need to reply; but if you'd like to, please do so here (I'll be watching) rather than on my page. Thanks. -- Hoary 15:30, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Nice whale news article

Whale fossil found in Egypt desert - thought you'd like to read this. - UtherSRG 11:04, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

BEEFSTEW

I have no objection either to thryrdulf's change or to your reversion of the same. But I think it's counterproductive to try to fine-tune BEEFSTEW. It's a blunt instrument. I am sure that different people will score the same article differently. When I devised it I deliberately did not try for legalistically-precise wording. Hey, I know what I mean by a "fact."

I would hate to see arguments about whether a particular article does or does not deserve point D or anything like that.

The main thing is the spirit, not the letter. BEEFSTEW is intended to be a very rough indication of whether the article has had some serious diligence behind it and a real intention to make it encyclopedic. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: Great Blunders in History (or whatever it's called now)

I see you are looking for sources for this article. A major source used is the show "Great Blunders in History" on the History Channel. (Which I would have linked but there doesn't seem to be an official page for it on the History Channel site.) That source is a good one because, if something appears on that show, it is qualifiably famous.

It is also worth checking out the Batman story linked at the bottom of the page. It doesn't really qualify as a "source", per se, but it's great for ideas. (And also pretty funny, too.) Incidentally, that story provided the inspiration for the page name. The page's original name is derived from the probable name of a book that Batman retrieves from the library during his study of "The Great Boners of all time".

Who said that history can't be fun and educational at the same time?

- Pioneer-12 22:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More on "Great Blunders in History" - There doesn't seem to be alot of information about this show online. (No IMDB entry, for instance.) Here is a listing which includes episodes of that show (not a primary source, but it proves that the show exits and gives proper episode titles): http://www.jerrycraw.com/Documentary_1.html

It's a start. Now to properly cite them as references.... The readers of the article will just have to be content with non-online references for now. I'll cite a couple books, too, when I get the time. - Pioneer-12 23:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Also...

"There seems to be a whole stack of "inherently POV" votes. Are people's memories really so short. We have solved exactly this problem several times before." Do you happen to know of any other instances in addition to the movie list one? I didn't see any on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents. Really, no one should want to delete the article now.... but some people seem to be ignorant of what NPOV means on Wikipedia. The more examples we can hit them with, the better. - Pioneer-12 23:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Hey, what do you think of the commentary I added to the Vfd page? I never thought I'd have to write an essay explaining why a page should not be deleted. - Pioneer-12 10:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

(Not sure if you ever read this. I posted it on my talk page and not here. Stupid talk pages! How crazy to have a conversation in two places at once. Anyway, here it is if you haven't read it.)

Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious once you read the NPOV policy. Maybe people don't read it? It seems ridiculous to claim something is "POV" without knowing the policy on such things. But then again, people are ridiculous. Maybe users should have to pass a "policy knowledge test" before they are allowed to vote on Vfd. That would at least make sure the voters are educated. (Hey, folks. Become a "licensed deleter" today!) I'll bet many people would take the quiz just so they achieve some sort of "rank" on Wikipedia. If we give them a badge graphic to put on their home pages then people will be falling over each other to take the test.

And, you're right; people do spend way too much time on Vfd. I want to scream "Stop wasting your time trying to delete this and go do something useful!" Of all the various ways to make Wikipedia better, deleting articles is not high on the priority list. Is the encyclopedia or reader really hurt by having a few obscure "unencyclopedic" articles floating around? Oh, look, I found some extra information on Wikipedia. How dare Wikipedia have too much information! - Pioneer-12 15:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam Clayton Powell

Thanks for your message. It's a long time since I wrote the article and I don't remember what sources I used, except that they were all online ones. I've never seen much point in referencing from one website to another. Adam 09:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cricket

Hi. You commented on the move of the portal to cricket. Having moved the whole affair back, I have made my own proposal. Could you come and comment, so that we can get consensus for the best version. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Falling Up (band)

If you Undelete an article as the result of a VfU vote, proper procedure is then to list it on VfD. RickK 22:11, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Whale song

I didnt know you wrote whale song when I nominated it, but it is an amazing article. Like you, I find it frustrating when people spend more time criticizing articles than making them even better. I hope you get FA for this one. Danny 23:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that the FA process is pretty dumb at the moment, that's why I normally stick to peer review where the criticism is normally constructive. If you need any of the recent papers on whale songs and can't get access, leave me a note and I'll see if my libray has electronic editions--nixie 07:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Sea mammals

I added the URL, there are more pics here [6], the text is pretty interesting too--nixie 11:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Polar bear

Why did you move Polar bear to Polar Bear? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:15, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I checked Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words before posting to your talk page and it confirmed what I thought: only proper nouns should have every word capitalized. But I didn't check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), where the debate on the capitilzation of names of species is mentioned. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Whale song

The article is a lot more comprehensive now. Great work--nixie 02:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE/AD/CE templates

An interesting technical challenge, but I think these are impractical. Are you seriously suggesting we re-code every date occurance just to support this? It seems premature to implement this at all. We're much better off asking the developers to implement a feature to do this automagically, just like date formats (d/m/y) are handled. I'd like to comment more, but Wikipedia talk:A proposal re BCE-CE Debate is currently protected from editing, for some reason. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Can you perhaps please keep this very low usage, perhaps restricted to one article as a demonstration to the developers? Frankly, it's a bad solution because it would require so much work to re-code the articles, and because there is a serious negative server impact when you use templates on more than a very small percentage of pages. This, in short, can never be our long-term solution. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Chin up, if needed

I noticed a couple of comments from you (one on the mailing list, one on a talk page somewhere) that suggested you were getting a bit downhearted/fed-up with the ongoing inclusion debate. I just wanted to say that I virtually always I agree with you on this issue, and that your arguments really are better than those of your "opponents", so keep it up!

Thanks. Actually I don't think your impression is correct. I not only agree that the arguments for school stubs are better, I think the arguments for extreme deletionism are very unlikely to prevail. Deletionism is in my perception a result of failure to realise that any collection of small stubs can be merged into a larger article without deleting anything. The solution for the deletionists is to become mergists. Continuing to make hopeless listings on VfD cannot succeed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Military history of Puerto Rico

Hi Pete, How are you doing? I read your comment on FAC and you are right. You made me think, as I am writting the amount of Puerto Rican casualties in Iraq may have changed. I therefore addressed the issue and changed the introductory sentence of that paragragh to a more comprehensive one. I hope that it meets your approval and that I can count on your support. Thank you again for bringing up that valid point. Take care Tony the Marine

Limitedgeographicscope on TfD

Template:Limitedgeographicscope is on TfD. I saw your name in the edit history so I figured you might want to know about it. — mark ✎ 10:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Removing attacks on VfD nominators' motives

Per Wikipedia guideline, I felt obligated to remove some of your comments re: RickK. In doing so, I attempted to preserve the meaning of your comment. I hope you understand. --Unfocused 17:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Pcb21 stub

Hi Pete - just saw your note about automatic stub sifting at W Talk:WikiProject Stub sorting, and it reminded me that I've been meaning to get in touch with you about {{Pcb21 stub test}}. Are you still using it? It turned up in a list of stubs that aren't in use while looking for stub templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria. It's the sort of template which is likely to be suggested for deletion at some point, so if you still want to hang on to it, it might be worth moving it to your user space. Grutness...wha? 11:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Unless Lir is in some kind of study abroad program... (: I'll go ahead and remove the note from Rick's page. Thanks for the reply. 172 12:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TeXnical issues

Hello. My editing of short rate model dealt with some issues concerning TeX that it is useful to be aware of. You wrote

${\sqrt {(}}r_{t}).\,$

I changed it to

${\sqrt {r_{t}}}.\,$

Also, notice how I adjusted the sizes of brackets and the vertical slash. Michael Hardy 02:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Rwandan Genocide

Hi. I'm thinking of removing the photo from the abovementioned template for style reasons; I thought I'd drop you a line since you've worked on the template. There are comments and a preview of the revision at Template talk:Rwandan Genocide. Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tailless Whip Scorpion

Actually, the second paragraph of Amblypygid mentions their aka. EB also supports the association [7]. I do appreciate your double-checking, though. -- Norvy (talk) 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Lovely, Pete, that cheered me up! Thank you very much! Bishonen | talk 12:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JRM

Pete, no, taking it on myself to say that Germ wasn't replying to you at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, of course—looks like he was too wrought-up at the Fredy character's post to format his reply ideally—well, you know what a perennial newbie he is, these technical things can be difficult! :P Please compare this message on my talk page, and the ensuing conversation here, and thanks again for your cool rebuttal! Bishonen | talk 09:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Q

Good plan. Meanwhile Danny and you have been on a hair-trigger pruning the index. There has been no time to enjoy the sight of the blue links! David Brooks 18:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) — btw I have to stop soon; my grandson will be arriving.

Congratulations on the final push! I think you did the lion's share of the last batch. I've just been doing a little tidying on the last few. David Brooks 00:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Split off Exploding whale from Beaching did I?

FYI, Beached whale was created on 12:02, 23 Jul 2004 and Exploding whale was created on 14:19, 20 Jun 2004, which might make it a little hard for me to "split off material". HTH. HAND. - Ta bu shi da yu

I am not bloody well lying! Sheesh! I had only just come in to this site and decided to write a new article on an Internet meme. If you don't like the article: fine. Take it to VfD. I never expected it to succeed in the way it did, I just wrote the damn thing. Don't accuse me of lying, because I'm not. To be frank, however, I don't really care whether you think the exploding whale article is a joke or not. When I wrote it, I never encouraged others to write more exploding animal articles. I only recreated the list because: a) there are now several articles about exploding animals and b) this was never taken to VfD correctly in the first place.

I find your comments most discouraging, especially when I can most definitely say that I've never actually ever really read through the sperm whale article, at least more than skim through it. Contrary to popular belief, whales really aren't my thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess I owe you an apology for thinking that you were calling my article crap, when in fact you were talking about that list. However, I can most definitely state that I did not make the article from your own article. As I say, I was a newbie to the site (having just migrated from Kuro5hin) and decided I'd give article writing a whirl. I knew about the exploding whale from years ago, having found it an interesting and amusing thing to have happened. I created it from scratch and did not split it from any previous Wikipedia material. You can see the exploding whale article as my initial "test" of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RickK

Pcb21, I notice you've suggested on his talk page that RickK ask that he be deadminned. I know you mean well, but I have a suspicion that if he were to come back, he might read that the wrong way. Ambi 14:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I also like to say that your user page is quite an interesting read :)  Grue  07:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anyone else get a lot of whitespace in Antarctic krill article?

Maybe I have a high screen res, but I am seeing a lot of blank space between sections in this article. Presumably it is there to stop pictures overlapping. Is there anything we can do about this? Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 09:55 (UTC)

Hallo Pete! you could use a larger font, or make the window a little smaller or use the mono block skin - we were asked to put in longer captions - I sent the article out to some more krill experts in Norway, California, Germany and Australia and will eventually add more text. By the way: I like your contributions especially about the whales very much! Best regards Uwe Kils June 29, 2005 11:56 (UTC)

---

Hi Pete. Nice to see you still around and still contributing.

In answer to your question, no, not really. My days as a major contributor here are over, I'm afraid. I've not been around much for quite a while because I'm deeply committed to several (too many!) other projects these days. And I've been around a fair bit of late for that exact same reason! Sometimes I start feeling claustrophibic after I've been working on one or another of my major projects for too many hours, and hit the burn-out zone.

So I flip over here and just do easy stuff that doesn't really require any brainpower: correct typos, move things to more suitable titles, flip through Recent changes, revert spammers, correct case errors in both directions ("the humpback whale is a Baleen Whale" - grrr!), add italics to scientific names, block and/or warn anonymous IP vandals, stuff like that. I've even been known to correct spelling sometimes — which is sort of scary when you look at my track record. All small jobs that take just a few seconds each. This counts as a holiday from writing big stuff, and let's me feel that I'm achieving some small thing. After a half-hour or so of short-attention-span therapy, I'm ready to return to "proper" work. I can't remember the last time I made a "proper" contribution here - i.e., a new article written from scratch, or a serious rewrite. Maybe one day. Best Tannin 30 June 2005 11:33 (UTC)

you mean you weren't personally responsible? :) Tannin

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 30 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)

User: Heil Hitler

Hey, thanks for the talk page revert. I appreciate it. -Seth Mahoney July 4, 2005 18:49 (UTC)

I'll tack on my kudos as well. Arcuras July 5, 2005 01:07 (UTC)

CSD Proposal 3-B

You voted or commented on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-A or both. I have proposed a revised version, at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C. This version is intended to address objections made by many of those oppsoed to 3-A or 3-B. The revised propsal refers explicitly and directly to the criteria at WP:MUSIC. If you have not already done so, please examine the revised proposal and vote on it also. Thank you. DES 6 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

British county names (again)

A year or so ago you kindly helped out with developing a policy on this. It's all going pear-shaped and I, for one, would be grateful if you'd take another look. I've raised an RfC or you can go straight to the Project's talk page. Thanks. Chris Jefferies 7 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

Hi Pete,

This topic has become a hot potato all over again. There's been constant discussion and argument for weeks. We've now reached a critical point and are having a straw poll on a particular issue to see if we can make some progress that way; if this fails we may need to go to official mediation.

Would you be willing to take a look at the straw poll and consider voting? It was posted on the policy talk page on 22nd August 2005. Many thanks Chris Jefferies 23:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

U

Hi pete, you appear to have linked Urena to a non-existent article, just thought i'd let you know in case you didnt realise. thanks Bluemoose 9 July 2005 09:22 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, just not all of it! :-) It is sad indeed that we have to protect the main page from vandalism using the clumsy "admin-edit-only" tool, but there a lot of idiots out there who like to vandalize, the main page is a popular target and we only have so many ways to fight them. I hope you understand and find it acceptable. Pcb21| Pete 8 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)

Of course I understand the why of it. Unfortunately tho, it means the main page will sometimes carry poorly written stuff that can only be edited by people who write poorly. OK, I know I need to explain that particular comment by saying that I don't suggest everyone who can edit the main page writes poorly. Obviously, most don't, but sometimes there is verbosity, repetition and even sophomoric writing that good editors sometimes don't fix because they may be engrossed in their own bailiwicks. So sloppy stuff is posted, and isn't improved. Then along come people like me who could improve it, but voila, we can't elect to do what we are specifically here for -- to contribute to and improve Wikipedia. Moriori July 9, 2005 08:01 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to become an admin. The bigger that body of people is, the less chance poor work will end up on the Main Page. How long have you been around? Pcb21| Pete 9 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)

I guess I have been around a while, but as Moriori only since October 2003. I would like to become an admin, but I'm not into the chat/e-mail/etc circuit. All I want to do is contribute to Wikipedia and help make it better. Would I qualify? Moriori 08:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Further to that Pcb, I have been nominated by Grutness and would welcome your support at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moriori. Cheers. Moriori 22:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Templates in articles

I know you have long been involved in trying to keep the number of templates in articles to a minimum. The issue has arisen again as some feel the COTW and AID templates should be moved from the talk pages to the article namespace. There is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#COTW_and_AID_templates. Any comments you might have would be appreciated. - SimonP 01:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

British and Irish current events

I note you voted keep in the above page's VfD, and I was wondering if you'd consider helping to keep it updated. Thanks for your time, Steve block 21:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

VFU

I've reworded the suffrage criterion for the undeletion policy. Could you please copyedit and/or tell me what you think? Yours, Radiant_>|< 09:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

EB project - links to nonexistent articles

Sorry about that. I often create redirects just before I write the actual article, usually due to deciding on a different capitalization scheme than the EB project page listed. This morning, I created such a redirect, but forgot to save the accompanying article. I've put something there now, even if it isn't very much. --Joel7687 12:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

List of Wikipedians...

Bear in mind that you are dealing with -Ril-, who believes that people should only edit topics they don't know too much about [8]. Guettarda 21:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I havem't been here long enough to remember Lir, although I have taken a look at Liropedia. When -Ril- first showed up someone said no, that he didn't look like the same person. Whomever it is though, trouble seems to follow him (for example, the Melissadobler RFAr) and he definitely gets on my nerves :) Guettarda 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another London Wikimeet

Heya Pete,

We're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there...

James F. (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wi

This is somewhat unreliable, as upper-to-lower case redirects aren't always created on Wiktionary. Traffic island is one example.

Template:Wi would work more reliably if it was changed to use the Search function, which isn't case sensitive. Change - [[Wiktionary:{{PAGENAME}}|refer to the Wiktionary entry]] - to - [[Wiktionary:Special:Search/{{PAGENAME}}|refer to the Wiktionary entry]] - and it will work on Traffic island. -- Netoholic @ 14:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

James Bulger NPOV proposals

Hi

As per our discussion on the talk page for that article, could you take a look at the following and let me know your thoughts? I propose that I create a draft for review based on the suggested amendments below.

Intro

• I'd like to suggest that the intro paragraphs are trimmed down and much of the material from here about sentencing moved into a section further down in the article ("Sentencing", following the section about the Trial). The sentencing issues thrown up by the murder are important, but are only one aspect of this event. I think the first paragraph should contain merely a summary of the reasons why this crime was "notable" (I wish I could find a more appropriate word than that, though).

• The issue around the juxtaposition of the compensation/rehabilitation amounts has been partly fixed by the last editor. I think there is still scope for mentioning disquiet about this disparity; the Wikicopout "Some people feel.." springs to mind, but open to suggestions.

• "immense public outpouring of shock, outrage, and grief" - is this wording a bit over-the-top perhaps?
  • ( If I may add to the discussion: shock and outrage are fine, however, I find it hard to greive for someone I don't know personally. Obviously, I am saddened by the death, but outright greif is OTT in my opinion. --Colin Angus Mackay 12:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC) )

• "the public felt that the sentence was too lenient" - should be preceded by "a large section of"

• is there strong documentary evidence that the trauma of James's death was the factor which caused the breakup of the Bulger's marriage? If not, I think that sentence needs rewording. Also see section below about "impact on people involved".

The murder

• Suggest splitting this section into two - one dealing with the abduction & murder of James, and one dealing with the press reaction (which could also include stuff about the public reaction, and therefore be expanded)

The trial

• Make this another "bare facts" section, and move the stuff about sentencing into the new sentencing section

Proposed causes

• Some of the stuff in here relates not directly to proposed causes but to follow-on fallout from the case. I suggest that we have a new major section entitled "Impacts of the Bulger case" with two subsections a) "impact on the families" where we talk about stuff such as the attacks by the public on Thompson & Venables' mothers and b) "long-term impacts on British society/legal system" (though better titles are invited) include stuff such as this (and the material about Home Secretary losing powers to set sentences) in there

Appeal and release

• I think the article would benefit from more details about the rehabilitation work done with Thompson & Venables.

--SP-KP 18:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Counties again

The issue of the counties policy has recently come up again (yawn), and I though you might like to take part in the debate going on Here. You input would be much appreciated. G-Man 19:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Taxoboxes

If you don't know the authority for a species, you can use {{Taxobox section binomial simple}}. This allows articles without an authority to be found and fixed. Also, don't forget to italicise genera and species! Gdr 14:22:49, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey! Thanks for showing me Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles! That's a great place to go for article ideas. I just created one from the 1911 Encyclopedia, Offertory. Dismas 00:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Ambition

Thanks for the heads up on Talk:Ambition :) kmccoy (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Public domain sources

I had no idea that Wikipedia:Public domain resources existed. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Just a thought - it might be useful to point to it from the missing encyclopedia articles project. I've used several public domain sources that I found to fill in missing articles, but didn't know this resource page existed. Thanks. --Wyatts 21:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Keep policies short

The substance of the proposed tag, shortened and edited for a specifically guideline page, is IMO the minmum a proposed guideline page can get by with. I am in general opposed to taking policy/guideline proposal pages to VfD, but a page that fails to make clear its proposed status can and should be VfD'd. Please allow my edits to [[Wikipedia:Keep policies short to stand, or change them is some way at least as prominent and clear. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Tanganyika/Tanzania

My bad on the Ruvuma River article. Actually one of the sources I am using is the map of Southern Africa that came in the November 1962 issue of National Geographic as it has the largest scale of any map of the area that I have access to, tho I do cross check with newer souces considering all the name changes. I don't know why that one got by me. Caerwine 14:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Necromys

I've reverted your edit on Akodontini. Yes, Necromys is a separate genus. It's actually a senior synonym of Bolomys, based on some kind of fossil from Argentina. Bolomys now only incudes the type species, because it would be paraphyletic otherwise. In any case, I would advise you not to use Duff & Lawson too much. They're sometimes not really up-to-date — new species are discovered with great speed! — and they're for some reason using the old, very old genus-level classification of McKenna & Bell. I've also written articles on some sigmodontine genera on the Dutch Wikipedia (nl:Categorie:Cricetidae). Do you make interwikis? Ucucha|... 19:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of VfD?

I was surprised and confused by your removal of the VfD tag on Gestir. I've never before heard of an instance where removal of a good faith VfD was considered OK. I thought about putting the VfD back, and I was previewing the page with it restored, when I was further surprised to find that Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Gestir was gone, with no trace of ever having existed. At this point, I was willing to believe your glib explanation in the edit summary, that there was a good reason the VfD wasn't valid.

However, since then, I've learned that your explanation wasn't actually true. Also since then, I discovered you had used a special delete command to remove the vfd. Don't you think it's inappropriate to use your sysop functions to further your side of a content dispute? Especially since you were the article's creator, shouldn't you think twice before removing a valid VfD tag? I understand that you don't like VfDs and don't consider them valid, but surely interfering with a legitimate VfD is not the way to prove your point. Friday (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

Just saw your timeline here. It looks really good and I would definitely support its appearance on the main page. Agentsoo 12:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

New Wikiproject Las Vegas

I have noted your interest in Las Vegas, Nevada and surrounding area. I extend the offer to join us on the Wikiproject Las Vegas. …Guy M… ^(soapbox) 13:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nuttall copies

Was your comment directed at Wackymacs, or are there other people just copying Nuttall entries? I was working through L with supplemental research, and he just overtook with copy/paste and a few links. I followed along behind him yesterday and expanded some of the more egregious results, but not all.

I agree with one suggestion; if we don't abandon Nuttall we should allow a summary removal of dicdefs - although it would be better if we required an entry in Wiktionary before doing that.

I also notice people copying 1911 articles with no attempt to copyedit, complete with the OCR errors. Problem is, the errors could be copyright of the online sources. This (1911 and Nuttall copying) is going to happen more and more as the newcomers outnumber us more careful old-timers. David Brooks 15:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see your suggestion - where was it? Another problem I see with the Nuttall project (which your solution would exacerbate) is that it creates a blue link in those cases where the topic is also in 1911, reducing the chance we would incorporate the richer, although still archaic, material. Anyway, I think the cat is out of the bag - the drop in quality of Nuttall-derived articles is inevitable, unless you want to join me in after-the-fact article QA. That was almost all of my contributions yesterday. David Brooks 16:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

And another thing - there are spelling errors aplenty in the Nuttall titles, and people who bulk-copy without research just replicate the error. Yesterday I moved two pages and changed another into a redir, just among the last batch of L's to be copied. Whine, whine, it's a good job I get paid so well for this :-) David Brooks 17:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

James Bulger edits

Hi - I just thought I'd get in touch again to ask if you had any views on the proposed changes to the article. If you're happy with them, I'll copy the suggestions to the article's talk page and see what response we get - SP-KP 18:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Bottom of the pyramid

While I don't think there was any mistake in the VfD — I don't see it as the responsibility of VfD to determine whether the topic is potentially encyclopedic when the article fails miserably at presenting the topic — I appreciate your taking the time to draft a new version. It looks like a good start to work from. --Michael Snow 20:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

More unnecessary deletion

As we share a position on deletionism, I thought you might like to know that Aposthia is now up for VfD. Apparently medical conditions are no longer sufficiently notable for us here at Wikipedia. Soo 01:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Second tagline poll - please follow this link

(This is already announced on Pump and Rfc but I'm adding it here because you contributed to the talk page discussion.) Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 05:28, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Merging general topics

I noticed in the discussion of Missing encylopedic articles you supported the merging of the existing General list and the proposed "Hot List" Please show your support at the poll. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles#Support

got your message

got message in my talk ,Pete, re Jimbo's "other" page.

No problemo - just thought it wouldn't hurt to post several places for more exposure.

--GordonWattsDotCom 10:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Table mountain.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Table mountain.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Now on Commons RedWolf 06:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

January 1, 2005, et al.

I would suggest that you not do this...each date does not need its own separate page. (Would you like to create June 17, 1374?) The problem is, the number of dates is infinite, and a user would be better served going to January 2005 or January 1. Ral315 W_S 18:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What a peculiar argument. 2005 is hardly the same as 1374. I strongly disagree that separate dates are not useful. Fortunately with my way organizing data, you can still look at January 2005 and get exactly what you prefer, but I get what I prefer too. Pcb21| Pete 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)