User talk:BillC/Archive1

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ragib 2 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Copyright

Hey, thanks for catching the potential copyright problem at this page. Nice work! --HappyCamper 23:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you're interested, you can check out Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The instructions there are much simpler to follow than votes for deletion, if you've ever tried processing VFDs. On the very odd occasion when I first started, I've encountered other users complaining about these things being handled incorrectly by me, but I sort of shrug it off and think there's a first for everything and try to learn from it. At times I find it really enjoyable to combat copyright problems and vandalism of sorts on Wikipedia, and it only takes practise to do it well. If you want to dabble in this sort of stuff just make sure along the way you don't get burned out, and you'll do fine :) Thanks for those links - I'll process them right away! --HappyCamper 00:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

gothic vs. gothic revival

thanks for pointing out the important difference re. Charles O'hea page Eric A. Warbuton

Hey there!

Hi BillC - I remembered a while ago you helped out with some copyright issues here on Wikipedia. I am now an administrator, and I just wanted to let you know if that if you ever need me for something, I'll try my best to help out - always feel free to leave a message on my talk page. See you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 13:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Crowns and rebels

Only articles about individuals are covered under CSDA7. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin

I have nominated you for adminship. Go there to accept if you feel like it. --Wonderfool t(c) 16:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Guestbook

My first guestbook signature on Wikipedia - what a neat idea! Plus, it rhymes too! :-) --HappyCamper 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominic Preston

I've now deleted its talk page. Usually, the talk page is deleted as well, unless there are reasons that it should be kept; here are no real reasons to do so. Thanks. Enochlau 22:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Enduro

Thanks for your comments and pointers on the enduro page I updated, I have now removed the stub tags. Slowly finding my way around! Kcordina 10:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the transformer

Thanks for the new picture at transformer. Could you do one for leakage inductance that shows that not all the flux links both windings? --Wtshymanski 18:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Very nice illustration for leakage inductance, thanks! I have some drawing tools, maybe over the Christmas break I'll get a chance to do an equivalent schematic. --Wtshymanski 18:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Demkina article

I agree that it would be useful to get rid of the disputes and opinionated rambling in the article. Doing this, however, does not necessarilly require getting rid of detail. It should be quite possible to have extensive encyclopedic detail about a topic without having POV pushing occur, it just requires some restraint placed on those who want to push a POV. In this case, this should probably be done by gaining a consensus among the other editors. I also think that the article replacement needs to have sufficient detail within it to warrant a full replacement of the original article. It should probably even have a summary description of the points regarding the experiment which were subject to critical debate, I just think this should be written by someone who can write it in a neutral way which simply describes the areas disputed, rather than tries to persuade that opinions are correct. FRJohn 20:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The statistical analysis is essential, because most people have no intuition for the statistical likelihood or unlikelihood of getting a result. Many people have intuitions that place "half right" as the typical value, so they think someone would get 3 or 4 right just by guessing. But this is quite wrong, as shown by the math, where the actual expectation value is 1 correct. It is important to specify this as part of any meaningful description of that test design. After all, the goal here is to write an informative encyclopedia entry which can help readers make their own decisions, rather than to placate the agendas of people involved with a situation. As such, the reader needs to be given the knowledge necessary to make those decisions. I believe this includes a detail of how likely each result is, as well as a description of the major points of criticism regarding the experimental setup. Then the readers are equipped with the necessary information to make their own informed decisions about how to interpret the events, rather than being fed an answer. FRJohn 20:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

One group of people think the test is valid, one group of people think the test is invalid, and of course, an additional much larger group do not know if it is valid. If the test is valid, the statistical analysis tells exactly how to interpret it. If the test is invalid, or dubious, then it is invalid or dubious. Since the test WAS performed, the proper approach is to explain how to interpret the results if you assume it is valid, and to explain what the major criticisms are which question its validity. The statistical analysis is fact because that IS how you interpret such a test if it is valid. The problem is, the article has been focusing on a banter back and forth between whether or not she has an ability, and reads like a playground argument. So the solution is simply to equip the reader with the available information, and then not try to interpret whether or not Natasha Demkina has any ability. This requires editors who are determined to demonstrate to the world that Natasha Demkina does or does not have any ability, to either change their editing habits, or refrain from editing the article. Unfortunately, there will not be a resolution until one of those two occurs, and I'm afraid that you and I will not be able to hammer out a lasting solution until something is changed with the combating editors. The article will simply expand with time and each side will keep trying to prove their point to the world. Wikipedia does not work well when this occurs. I don't believe that removing all relevant information will provide a solution. FRJohn 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am about at (or have passed) that point myself. My mistake was offering a comprehensive NPOV rewrite, which I've generally had good success at in the past. Askolnick is not familiar with WP or perhaps even with a general purpose encyclopedia; he is more familiar with scientific journals, such as those he writes for and has edited for. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

SVG version??

I have seen the picture Image:Single-phase_transformer.png: it is very nice. In the comment, you say you created it with Inkscape, so why didn't you upload the SVG version?? as far as I know, Inkscape is meant to be used mainly for creating SVG images. Alessio Damato 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Weeze

Hello BillC,

Thanks very much for the message. All the copyright and related information to Weeze is okay for use in wikipedia, because I work in the Town Hall in Weeze in Germany and am responsible for the PR-stuff, whether on the internet or other media. I have personally translated all the german texts into english and am also responsible for the photos which I placed on the weeze-wikipedia-website. In the rush to get the information placed on the site, I made the mistake of not always logging on! Sorry. The German and English websites (which I also linked) - to include information on Weeze's twin-town Watton has also been cleared for use by me because it is also on the Weeze website - were my doing and as such I would be grateful if you would release them for public viewing again. Thanks very much. Khalid Rashid 12:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Bill, Thanks for the response and the information. Once again I would like you to know that I am responsible for the content of the information provided on the Municipality of Weeze website and as such have my employer's approval for the use of the contents contained on this site. However, I will take your advice and try to improve upon copyright and tone issues. The text on the twin-town of Watton will also be improved. So give me a couple of days to sort things out. This was my first venture into wikipedia and I am more than willing to learn as to how to use wikipedia. And sensible advice from some one with experience in wikipedia is more than welcome. Therefore thanks for the tips. 194.77.253.245 07:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bundi

Hi, Actually I have neither added not removed any information on the Bundi page -- only composed it to read better. Many of my page-changes appear more major than they actually are, because I also get rid of white space and repositon images: this gives the impression of largescale paragraph erasures/additions, which in fact has not been attempted. ImpuMozhi 14:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry but I have very little experience with images. I ventured to upload some images a few days ago, to embellish some film-star pages with, on the premise that film-star images can be disseminated without fuss; I was however mistaken, and the images the images were soon erased. So I am no good at this, sorry. ImpuMozhi 18:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

SVG does it better :-)

The SVG format is harder to create but it works much better: PNG is a bitmap, with a limited definition, while SVG draws pictures using vectors. It has a higher quality and it needs a very small space.

Make this test. Put the following code wherever you want (in the Wikipedia:Sandbox, for example):

[[Image:Single-phase_transformer.png|1000px]] [[Image:Single-phase_transformer.svg|1000px]]

check how the SVG version looks better :-) Just find a way to fix the subscripts and to remove the empty white space at the bottom, and we'll use it on the Transformer page. If you can't, I'll try to do it when I have some time.

By the way: it is a very good picture: did you make it from scratch, drawing anything without any help?? Until now, I used Inkscape just for minor changes in already-made pictures... Alessio Damato 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The subscripts look alright. Why did you change the flux symbol?? it was absolutely perfect before. It was exactly like a $\Phi$ while now it looks like an empty set... Alessio Damato 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you that much. SVG is a new format, and its support within software is increasing, but it is still far from being stable and consistent. I have several programs supporting SVG, but they have different outputs one from the other. Moreover Wikipedia has its own engine, so you can't be sure of the output as long as you don't upload it.

Here is what I can suggest you to do. If you create an SVG image, make it consistent, with its own structure. For example, the idea of putting the subscripts manually won't work very good because the rendering engine (whichever you are using) doesn't know you want to make a subscript, so it will behave differently from what you expect. I don't know if SVG provides a way to write subscripts. When I had to write one, I just used Ns instead of N_s. I know, it is not exactly the same thing but it works. Moreover I can't add Greek letters to any SVG, that is why I have been quite surprised to see a proper $\Phi$ in your first graph. But then I realised you couldn't see it properly, so I think it is a problem within Wikipedia.

About now, just publish the SVG version of the PNG you updated, then we'll be waiting for the Wikipedia engine to be improved. Report on the PNG page that there is an SVG version, too, and vice versa, maybe somebody else will note the problems and will find a way to fix them. Alessio Damato 15:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

the picture in Transformer is absolutely great, congratulation! I have to start using Inkscape as well. How did you sort out all the problems you got?? what about that matter of the arrows? and the greek Phi? Alessio Damato 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

the very last thing: I noticed you proposed the image as a featured one. As you have seen I supported it but: why did you make the current pointing outside the transformer? I think it is widely accepted to make it pointing inside. Moreover, why did you uploaded it and candidated it here in en.wiki, wasn't it better to make it in commons.wikimedia?? Alessio Damato 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

about the arrow: it does not matter that much, as long as it is consistent with any mathematical formula within the document. There isn't any mathematical model for the Transformer in its page, but I might add it as soon as I have some free time. As you say in the featured images page, conventionally, in a 'two-port network' as is shown here, current is defined as positive for flows into the device; that is absolutely right. Since the encyclopedia has to be consistent, I think it is better to use the same conventions for all the two-port networks. Aesthetically the picture is not affected at all. About commons, since the second colored version looks better I suggest: upload the final version overwriting Image:Transformer3d_col.svg, remove (or request it) Image:Transformer3d_col3.svg because it will be just a copy, finally upload it in commons with the name Image:Transformer3d_col.svg, using the same description. The wiki-engine will take care of the fact that the two images have the same name. It will create no problem at all. Bye :-) Alessio Damato 18:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Transformer

Be bold Bill. Just do your thing on transformer. We could do with some action!--Light current 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

THanks Bill. I think your diagram looks pretty cool now- and we can read the legend. Well done!--Light current 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Transformer as FAC?

I don't think this article is ready for featured status. Who decides these things? --Wtshymanski 18:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Flux_leakage.png

I really like this diagram but i was jus wondering if its possible to increase the text size for the labelling of the currents? Theyre a bit small when the image is produced at normal size like in leakage inductance. THanks for reading.--Light current 20:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How about now? --BillC 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Luton flashover

I have started a section on substation design and protection, and I would value your input on something. It is the Luton flashover and related matters.

The Luton flashover was interesting becuase what happened was that an arc from a HT conductor to earth occured. This short then caused circuit breakers to open becuase of the overcurrent. Too many protection devices were activated and then everything went to pot. The defense against such an overreaction in the event of such a fault which I was told about was that a substation has all 'earthed' metal work isolated from earth except for one cable which passes through a current transformer. If current is detected in the earth cable then the location of the fault is clear to the protection electronics. Hence with good design of the protection systems it is possible to open fewer circuit breakers then it would be otherwise. The problem is that I do not have the references to back up this design concept which I was told about some years ago by a substation expert.Cadmium 21:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What I do know about the Luton flashover is that it occured at a very large substation/switching station in Luton ( you can see it from the M1). The event started as a phase to earth arc/short. I do not know much more about the event, I do not know the date on which it occured. But I imagine that it was pre 1970s.Cadmium 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I do not think that the section was too UK centric. I have seen that some of the other parts of the world do things differently. eg I saw at a Czech substation that sheep can be used as a means of controlling the grass in one part of the compound (or somewhere to graze them) but I imagine that while the Czechs use different voltages for transmission lines (and different grass control) the basics of how the system works will be the same.Cadmium 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bill, Thanks for your input on the subject of power outages. I have heard of quite a few cases of big outages which have started with small foul ups which then snowball into a big outage. Would you feel OK about improving the Power outage page to explain more about the physics of how power grids can fail in this Cascade-based way.Cadmium 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Animated GIF

This looks broken to me.

This looks fine to me.

Hi Bill!

To begin I would say that on my system, Image:3-phase flow.gif runs pretty nicely - it doesn't seem jerky or anything to me. I'm not on a fancy system (Athlon XP 1500+ w/512Mb XP/FF)

I put together that animation by making a solid model in Autocad, animating it in 3d studio max, exporting it as (if I remember correctly) an uncompressed AVI (functionally identical to a series of bitmap frames, just all in one file), then opening it in Jasc's Animation Shop (makers of Paint Shop Pro), which I used to compress it into an animated GIF.

Certainly, Animation Shop did some optimisation on it (mapping identical unchanged pixels to transparent, reducing number of colours) which might lead to better performance... as I say, though, I don't see a problem with your current animation. I could take a shot at recompressing yours for you if you're sure there's something wrong with it.

I wasn't sure whether the optimisation got lost anyway if/when the software resizes our images so I decided to have a look at what happens. Looking at the images to the right, I see mine broken and yours fine. Perhaps my map-identical-pixels-to-transparent causes the brokenness in my image - that would also fit with yours not having the same problems.

Incidentally I recently broke my installation of Jasc software so I've been trying Photoshop/ImageReady. I wasn't aware ImageReady did animated GIFs. I have investigated and it seems to do all the optimisations I used except for 'map identical pixels to transparent'. I would guess, then, that that is the optimisation making the difference between the two animations.

Cheers! Mike1024 (t/c) 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mark Williams

Info from www.markwilliams.org.uk

Autotransformer

The variable transformer picture in the transformer article is actually a Superior Electric Powerstat rather than a General Radio or Instrument Services and Equipment Variac. Variac is certainly used extremely widely as a generic term, but is it ok to use it in the caption of the picture? -C J Cowie 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The General Radio trademark was cancelled in 2002. In 2004, Instrument Service Equipment Inc. submitted a new application to the US Patent and Trademark Office and is apparently about to be granted the trademark. In the practical sense, it must be fair to say that variac is a generic term. In the legal sense, that is apparently not the case. There might be an interesting story behind this, but I already feel foolish for looking this up. I would not be inclined to revise anything beyond the caption unless someone complains. -C J Cowie 02:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Live fire exercise

Actually, I rather like the edits to the page. And about the {globalize} tag, I always try to see things from the other persons perspective. If we can not admit out short falls and blind spots here than all we do is create the proper atmosphere for an edit war, and an edit war serves no real purpose. As they say, "Pride goes before the fall". TomStar81 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Piedras grandes

Yes help would be appreciated on the mopping up, please - and if you would, add your voice to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Contributions_needing_attention - Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You may find WP:VAND more helpful for the test templates. Don't forget to use subst. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tap changer

BillC thanks for doing such a great job on the merge and the diagram. THe article has now got everything in it that I originally intended. I've added the actual tap changing sequence detail from the diagram that I was a bit hazy on before. --Light current 17:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OOh yes thats superb Bill. Only comment is can you make it operate a bit more slowly so we can follow the action?. Then it would be great to put in the article I think. Animated encyclopedias - how modern!--Light current 21:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Biil, that is absolutely superb now! Really informative. I wish more people wuold put as much into graphics as you do. Well done& congratulations!!--Light current 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Aussie flag template

Thanks for the heads up, I will go and try to double check it. I suspected that a couple of mistakes might have crept through as I did all the maths involved in my head. --Martyman-(talk) 09:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a pretty obvious mistake. I obviously just copied text from Alpha Cruxis and didn't update it to the new values, Oops. I will try to get a new version up tonight, thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 10:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Keratoconus Page

Hi Bill, I see some more improvements have been made to the page. It is really starting to take shape. I am very new to Wikipedia, so I'm still a little hesitant to contribute untill I understand the process fully. In saying that I did add a link to KCGLOBAL.ORG (Now I see that I should have discussed this first, sorry) I just felt that it has more international coverage and that it contains a wealth of data. This information covers both the standard and unconventional approuches to treatment. If you feel that there is already enough representation of public action groups then I'll gladly remove the link. Also, I'm gathering some information regarding Mini A.R.K that may be able to be used to give readers a little more insight to the procedure. I do not want to turn the article into a selling platform for the technique but I do feel, as do many others, that it is a valid operation that warrants inclusion. So the trick I guess is to provide the data in a raw non judgemental format and then allow readers to decide for themselves. In much the same way as corneal graft or the use of contact lenses are. --Hari 08:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Hey, Bill. Thanks for your note. I just left a couple suggestions on the peer review page. Great work! AED 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. Thought you might be interested in learning that Contact lens is the current Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive collaboration in the event you want to add some info specific to keratoconus. AED 00:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest note. Unfortunately, I also do not have easy access to the publications that would help expand the history section. Keep up the excellent work. Due to your efforts, Keratoconus is the best ophthalmology article I've seen in Wiki! -AED 09:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking at the section when you posted. Looks good! -AED 21:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. You've uncovered lots of good information. -AED 05:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I just saw the update on my watchlist and I was going to send you my congratulations. Congratulations!-AED 06:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Intacsonfinger2.jpg

Thanks for the heads up. I checked the licensing before linking to the picture but didn't realize the need for a separate rationale for each article. In reviewing the info at Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale, I noticed that each usage of a fair use image should also have a comment in the article itself pointing to the rationale at the image description page. I personally think that's overkill, but I took the liberty of adding such a comment to the keratoconus page. Thanks again. adavidw 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi BillC. I’m not mediating the Natasha Demkia dispute, that would be difficult since I’m on one side of the dispute. In the Cabal Mediation request, I agreed to serve as a mediator for another case, and have been assigned one. The mediator for my Natasha Demkina request is User_talk:Rohirok. I guess the question on the request page looks like it might be asking if I am willing to mediate my own dispute, but if you check out the Request for assistance page, it explains the question a bit better. Unless I misunderstood your comments.

Perhaps my attitude on the Natasha talk page is wrong because I’ve offered to serve as a mediator in other disputes? I believe other mediators have withdrawn from mediating the Natasha dispute because of the aggressive approach of Mr. Skolnick, but I’m not sure what the best route to take is. I just don’t like being attacked, and would rather work with people who want to make an honest, civil effort to move the discussion forward. Mr. Skolnick doesn’t seem to want to do that. If I had been mediating the Natasha case, I probably would have withdrawn by now - having become a target for Mr. Skolnick.

I respect your feedback, so if you think I need to answer Mr. Skolnick’s questions, please let me know. I don’t feel that he is arguing in good faith, and seems to be continually on the attack. I'm awaiting mediation at this point. I’m a fairly new user, so I may be completely wrong.

Besides, the talk page there is way too long already. :) Dreadlocke 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

attack templates

{{db-attack}} is for pages that already exist, and were created to disparage their subject. {{attackuser|somebody's_user_name}} identifies an user account that was created to disparage somebody's_user_name. For example a username registered as "User:Ralph28 is a noob-face loser" would be tagged as {{attackuser|Ralph28}}. But an article called "Ralph28 is a noob-face loser" would be tagged as {{db-attack}}, make sense? (My apologies to Ralph28 if such a name actually exists.) — Mar. 13, '06 [02:45] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Zweisimmen

FYI: [1]. -- User:Docu

Hey

Just to drop by and say a word of greetings! How are you these days? Have your interests on Wikipedia changed lately? What sorts of things are you focusing on at the moment? --HappyCamper 16:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll await for your return from Sweeden. I hope you are having a wonderful time! Take pictures of the sunset for Wikipedia if you get a chance! --HappyCamper 13:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

August Müller

Great article! Enjoyed it very much! Cheers -- Samir ∙ T C 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'single sentence paragraph' anon

Thanks for getting in touch. I also reverted a very similar edit to James Chikerema which was by 216.194.56.12 who I suspect may be the same editor as 216.194.4.132. Definitely someone to watch. David | Talk 17:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

re Ian Smith

No problem, I thought that might happen anyway. Badgerpatrol 18:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Molinology

True, the debate does look pretty one-sided. I was going to suggest that since the nomination wasn't in bad faith or anything it should be left open, but I notice the nominator has switched to 'keep' as well, so ok, I'll close it out. Good job with the rewrite, anyway. Flowerparty■ 07:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Deviated Septum talk page

I was a little hasty to start using the talk page as a message board. I will attempt to become more acquainted with wikipedia rules and guidelines. I made this account a few years ago however I have only used used it on a few occasions. Anyways, I put in a request for an article about Nasospecific. If you or anyone other editor wants to feel free to set it up (if the topic currently deserves its own page; I am not entirely certain about this yet). I put it under the Health Science section.Nizhny

Criticizing BillC in the Proper Place

Hi Bill, this time I got to the right place (thank you for the direction). So, as I said, it is nice that you corrected things and explained that you are not a wikipedia administrator, but only Skolnick's most helpful "friend"... You know that my position is that many times apple polishing serves no one. And the intances when you engaged in such questionable actions are clearly representative of it. Anyway, your priceless contributions have been added to my update page about Natasha Demkina.

After all, someone has got to be impartial around here...

Best Regards Julio Siqueira Julio Siqueira 19:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

POV in Egyptian Land Reform

Thanks for pointing out the issues with POV in Egyptian land reform. I'll add some numbers and citations of scholars to back up those assertions, they weren't meant as a judgement by Wikipedia, but by the scholars and I failed to make that clear. Thanks again! Cool3 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for taking it in good grace. Cheers, --BillC 19:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a couple of quotes are the best way to eliminate the POV, could you please tell me the proper format for citing a quotation? Thanks, Cool3 19:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I inserted one quote into the article with an MLA style citation (author then page number) referring to one of the references listed at the end of the article. I'd be very thankful if you'd format it for me. Thanks, Cool3 19:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help on Egyptian land reform, I think we've got it all straightened out now. Have a nice day :-)!

Corneal topography

Great work on another great article! Did you want to mention in the caption that the map is of a keratoconic eye? Any way to get a hold of a maps of spherical and regular astigmatic corneas? -AED 21:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lynn lashbrook

Yes I am the wife! :-) Thanks for the advice on the redirect pages is great. I will try to figure it out after church. I do believe you will find him notable enough to keep him. I see lots of other folks who deserve bios, can I do them too? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizlash (talk • contribs)

Articles for deletion

Since I can't make the delete entries, I put them here. Maybe you can make them Wikipedia:Articles for creation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.87.103 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports management worldwide

Hi, with regard to the above AfD, I have been contacted by the article author, who was newly-registered, and told me she created the article under a misunderstanding about what WP was for. She was apologetic, very good-natured about it, and seemed to have acted in good faith. Given that the AfD vote is very one-sided, and that it is probably an embarrassment for her for it still to be up, is there any chance of this one getting closed off soon? Thanks, --BillC 07:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, if the author requested deletion, I suppose it could be tagged under CSD G7. Usually, the admin who deletes it would like to see the original author add the tag, or see the discussion by the author that led to its tagging. (Personally, I am unable to close an AfD of this nature, since I am not an administrator.) Cheers — TheKMan^talk 09:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Keratoconus front page nomination?

I think you've done an excellent job on presenting a very informative article. The front page is well overdue for a medically-oriented article, so I can't see why this one wouldn't be accepted. Although they probably wouldn't bother Wikipedia's target audience, I have one or two concerns that I'll attempt to bring up in the article's talk page. -AED 03:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: "harder to separate Signs from Diagnosis". I agree. I am not positive what Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Template for medical conditions has in mind. Books and articles vary on how they subcategorize the discussion of diseases. Some combine "signs and symptoms", other state "signs and diagnoses" or "signs and detection". To me, symptoms, signs, and diagnostic tests could all fall under "Diagnosis". I'll think about it a little more to see what may work best in Keratoconus. -AED 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bill. Thanks for the update! Congratulations! -AED 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

I nominated Charles Schepens for Did you know? If you have any suggestions on how to improve the article, please feel free to do so. I found a great image of him here, but it's probably copyrighted. Any idea on how to get a better image for the DYK page? Thanks! -AED 08:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sudish and Medish

The Sudish and Medish races may not meet the requirements. The Xanthochroi race along with all other races I added are from historical race scientists and not from this website. Dark Tichondrias 22:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's clarify which ones we are talking about. Sudish and Medish are the only ones from this website. Now, I Googled Medish race and found it mentioned on [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=262108&page=5 Stormfront White Nationalist Website] under subraces of Europe, so it is mentioned on other websites.

I Googled the Sudish race and it's mentioned on Stirpes discussion page about physical anthropology. I Googled the Medish race again, and it's mentioned on the Skadi Germanic forum. These are both independent sources.

I guess they are not reliable sources. Delete only those two. The others are from historical race scientists.Dark Tichondrias 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

==Welcome to VandalProof== Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A Download Is Now Available

I just wanted to let you know that a download of VandalProof has recently been made available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

County flowers

Following the AfD debate, you may wish to join in a discussion taking place at Talk:Plantlife. SP-KP 18:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: British Library

There is nothing I need at this point but I appreciate the offer! Thanks! -AED 22:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiletics

I would not normally be so quick to jump the gun, but the article has been previously deleted (speedily) one month ago. Also, this does not seem like a case where expansion would help the article's case - WP:WEB would apply to even the best-written articles. I do understand your concern though. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dark Tichondrias's "historical definitions of race" articles

I thought he had run out of them, but apparently not! Do you think they all merit a Wikipedia article? --Lukobe 06:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--ping me when you're back! --Lukobe 19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what the best way to go about this is. There are so many articles to deal with. Many of them should really be parts of other articles if the information is indeed accurate. --Lukobe 22:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You want to approach him or should I? :) --Lukobe 00:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Lukobe 00:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Generator Picture

Hi BillC: Yes, the figure you proposed is something like what I'd think is useful in the article. I wouldn't show 4 stages in the rotation, unless you felt like animating it! That would be cool. Color would be nice. Perhaps some straight lines joining the N and S poles, labelled with a phi to inidicate flux. --Wtshymanski 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Demkina RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Natasha Demkina, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Note: I haven't noticed your involvement in the article in a while, so I don't know how involved you want to be in this process. I think it is needed (possibly long overdue), is all. You don't need to get involved, I just thought I should included you as a potential party. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download

Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

About Crop Circles

Thanks for the support. We need everyone to speak up so its obvious that this is not a personal fight. Its about preserving the agreed upon version. (Although with 4 editors reverting him over 10 times its pretty obvious by now) Regards, --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just going to do it myself as I got your message. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Simiamese Twins (disambiguation)

Thanks, I thought there must be an easier way of deleting the page. - sYndicate ^talk 22:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Woodeaters

From an original text made by Monbodoo translated to English, I found Lord Monboddo defined the semi-human wood eaters. If someone knows more about these people they should add information. All races are opinions, so it doesn't matter if someone thinks this is a real race today. -- Dark Tichondrias 03:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Formatting for music articles

Thanks for the efforts to improve Godley & Creme! However, according to a longstanding policy laid out in Wikiproject Music, "Albums are italicized and songs are in quotes (i.e. The Beatles' song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" comes from their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band)." This is upheld by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). Hope that helps with any future music editing -- keep up the good work! — Catherine\^talk 02:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bernier first

I have never seen the cover of that book. The internet source from which I found Bernier did not have a cover, so it could be that book. I said he was the first because he was one of the earliest dated people to classify race. I never checked to see if he was the first or second person to make broad classifications of race. He wrote a book rather than an essay because it also had a volume number. -- Dark Tichondrias 03:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Holy mackerel, like we say at sea, quite a character this D.T. From unchecked impatience over the recent editing of François Bernier my attention to User:Lukobe and yourself,BillC, has turned into downright admiration. Between the two of you Wikipedia is in good hands. I apologize for behaving snotty. (84.193.172.199 12:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

Importance of Historical Racial Definitions

It is important to have an extensive listing of historical race scientists racial classification schemes, becuase it is shows classification is just an opinion. From the book Race The History of an Idea in America, there are records of race scientists disagreeing with each other. Historical race scientists disagreed with each other on who were included in what races and how many races existed. This does not make one historical race system more important than another. All racial classification schemes are important because they show there are no objective races. This is why every historical racial classification scheme is beneficial to have in an encylcopedia. --- Dark Tichondrias 05:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You may have some kind of point here. Your listing of "racial scientists" is mirky in the extreme though, judging by the way you handle your sources. "Anthropologists" or "ethnologists" would perhaps be a better choice of words (when it came from someone who sounded as if he knew what he was doing). As it stands you miss the point about racial science -admitted such a science exists. Suppose it was the kind of science that captured the imagination of Charles Darwin at the start of his brilliant analysis (see: The Origin of Species)then it would fall into the confines of animal husbandry and horticulture with a far richer historical and scientific background to "specification" than you would have the user of Wikipedia believe from your contribution to François Bernier. See for instance: Patrick Matthew. See also Steven Jay Gould:"The Mismeasure of Man

(84.193.172.199 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Mongoloid page full of extras=

The primary reason why the Mongoloid page is very long is because it has a lot of opinions about the way different peoples look, representative pictures and it has genetic history of Asians near the bottom. If it was shortened to "Mongoloid is a term made by Carleton Coon in his book to include these peoples. The term is not used anymore and considered offensive because of its previous use to labele people with Down Syndrome" it would be as short as all the other race articles. Either the extra stuff should be added to all the other race stubs to make them comprable to the Mongoloid page or the Mongoloid page as well as the stubs should be merged with their respective race scientist. --- Dark Tichondrias 06:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The Mongoloid article is 17kB; which makes it neither a long nor a short article. No-one, least of all Lukobe or I, is suggesting it be shortened. The reason why Mongoloid is not 'as short as all the other race articles' you have created is because the topic has significance: the material is encylopaedic. Wood Eater race, at least in its present state, does not. This issue is not about Mongoloid, but rather the multitude of articles you have created, that lack incoming links, context or any assertion of the significance of their subject matter. --BillC 06:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the reason it is long is not because the "topic has significance", it's because there are a lot of opinions about how each group looks. If the Western American Temperate group had information about how they looked it would also be a long article.

The only reason why these articles lack incomming links is because until now everyone was convinced that Coon's system was the absolute truth. This caused all users to edit seamingly unrelated pages to conform with his system. For example, the Mexican page used to say they were New World Mongoloids to conform with Coon's system. I also could add in the American Indian page the that they are really the Tropical American race or I could add to the East India page that their real race is racially mixed or they are all their own race or part of the degenerative race.

They have the same context as Coon's system. They are historical races nobody believes in anymore.

They are significant because they prove that everyone disagreed on who was part of what race, but this statement is not needed on every page. --- Dark Tichondrias 07:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Do you want me to add to every article that this race is important because it

Re: Zimbabwe

Hey, thanks for the note. This seems to be a new thing with Firefox, and only happens intermittently. I'll try and be more careful by checking my edits in future :-/ Thanks, dewet|✉ 07:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

nuvola icons

hello nice to meet you.

i have noticed the nuvola icons on your userpage (from transfomer).
Q: gallery with the complete nuvola set?
Q: are they "certified" for user page (by policy)?

probably they suit my "NEAT" project (for user templates). see my user page/news for this structure.

transformer article

• it only includes high-power transformers (in improveable quality). they suit to put them in a gallery (except the one in the cooling section).
• the analogy is not state-of-the-art.
• it requires more data about other transformers (a section "appliance of transformers"). i added a few to "operation at different frequencies".

just a few thoughts. alex 12:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The Israelbeach mess

Thanks for your kind words. I've decided not to abandon WP just yet.--Woggly 08:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

{{HDS}}

Hello! You mentioned that you have a way to add 'date=' and 'author=' fields to Template:HDS while still allowing the correct formatting of existing uses of it. I'd be all in favour of that - how does this work? Sandstein 20:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Outstanding. Now, let me see, that would give...

{{X7|329|Alternate Title|date=Date|author=Author}} De-wikied now, Sandstein 04:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but isnt't there a <br> too much between the "Author" and the rest? And do we need the "Date" to be a link? It may not be provided in a standard format, and the link may not be relevant as per the MoS for links. Sandstein 20:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. I can't see it now (the X7 template appears to have been overwritten) but I have no objection to you copying it to {{HDS}}. I agree to wiki-linking the date if that's what's done in similar templates. If I can assist with writing the documentation that is needed, do let me know. Sandstein 04:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: monobook.js

Oh, I don't mind the question at all. My belief is that a newbie who gets his edits reverted with a summary message of rv, rvv, revert vandalism or Revert to revision dated 10:12, May 3, 2006 by XXX, oldid 51505322 using popups does not teach him why it was reverted (unless he has done blatant vandalism). Thus, my reverts look similar to Reverted to version as of 02:26, 6 May 2006, use consistent date formatting throughout an article per date formatting guidelines. This way, the newbie is able to click on the wikilink and learn more about this guideline. I have most, if not all, the guidelines for WP:DATE, WP:EL, WP:LEAD, WP:MOSHEAD, WP:NOT and WP:SONG.

This appears as a combo box to one side or below the summary box (depending on screen resolution), with items like WP:DATE No ordinal suffixes, which once selected, replaces the summary with XXX: do not use ordinal suffixes ('February 14th' or '14th February') per date formatting guidelines. If you are editing a previous version of the page, you get the "Reverted to version as of XXXXXX, do not use ordinal...". [2] If you are editing the current version, "Clean up: do not use ordinal..." [3] [4] Explanations are limited to around 160 characters including the wikilink.

I use this with Firefox in Windows and Linux with no problem, and I think it works correctly with IE as well. This does not (yet) corrects errors, it is not AWB, just a way of consolidating my summaries and not having to remember everything as I used to do. Feel free to try it out if you want, modify, use it, etc. Just note that it is not really newbie friendly (you need to know the guidelines so that you can locate the summary faster). -- ReyBrujo 17:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Two things only: I use it in almost 80% of my edits, so if you are going to do some testing, either tell me beforehand, or copy the javascript in your own namespace, try it out, and then merge the modifications into mine. Just be sure it doesn't stop working ;-) I need to polish it, but won't be doing until I am finished adding all the guidelines. And please tell me what you did, until I don't CTRL+F5 it I would not notice the changes. -- ReyBrujo 18:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sven Littkowski

Hehehehe, I did not actually check the nomination, went straigth to Google to see if he was notable or not. I changed my vote to Userfy. He can write whatever he wants in his page. -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re : AfD on Terra Romana

Oh, my apologies! Looks like I tend to overlook this quite a few times due to my oversight. It's done now. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppppps, hehehe. (*Pats own head on his carelessness*) All done. ;) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 01:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Double redirects

This is in response to the comment that you recently left on my discussion page. I definitely appreciate your concern, but I'm afraid that you're going to have to educate me here. This may seem like a stupid question, but if you move an article, how do you know that you're creating any double redirects? If I move an article from a common name to a scientific name (controversial, I know), how am I supposed to find out if there were any redirects pointing to the article's original name? Actually, even if the article was my own and I decide one day to rename it, somebody else may have made redirects for it without my knowledge. --Jwinius 08:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help on Dartford, the vandalism on that page is almost intrinsic, there are still a bunch of parts that I'm not sure aren't old vandalisms that have survived. Jdcooper 13:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Most of the vandalism is presumably done by Dartford Grammar School students, since "Geoff Trescott Prout" and "Jesus Lepine" are references to two teachers at the school. Jdcooper 00:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Simon Balle

Regarding the Simon Balle AfD. It was one of those tasks I started but got sidetracked and never actually got round to finishing. But the current article seems far better (and far different from the version I nominated) so I won't bother re-issuing the AfD note. Regards. SteveO, 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

James R. Gillespie citation

Citation was added to the James R. Gillespie page, thus the fact tag was removed. The cited source does not yet have an ISBN number so it cannot exist in the Library of Congress catalog. - Maior

Until you provide evidence that this book was independently published, it fails to meet WP:RS, if it exists at all. --BillC 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Proper citation has been given at Osbourn Park High School. I hope that this newspaper report, which I fortunately kept for easy reference, can clear this misunderstanding up and the James R. Gillespie page can be unprotected and re-opened for editing. ~~Maior

The article was published April 21, 2005. Being a small local newspaper, I doubt they have extensive archives that reach back that far for a short article on the second to last page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maior (talk • contribs)

Venus

Hello Bill - nice to meet another editor with a list of countries they've visited on their user page! I saw your note on Talk:Venus and would certainly like to see the article brought up to current FA standards, so a mini-collaboration would be great. My suggestion for how to start off would be to construct an ideal table of contents - then we could fill it in with existing content, before filling in the gaps that will surely be identified. Worldtraveller 23:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with your assessment that it's what is missing that is the problem. I've just put together a potential structure for the article, at Venus/temp, including your intro which looked great - can be tweaked as necessary when the rest of the content is there. I bsed the TOC on Mercury's - that recently became a featured article. Anything else you can think of that needs to be there? Worldtraveller 11:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent additions to the proposed contents - they look to me to describe a very good article indeed. I'll start on merging content from the current page into the temp page tomorrow, I think. Could be a slow job because a lot of things will need fact-checking and referencing! Worldtraveller 01:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm really enjoying watching the spacecraft section unfold! I should be able to finish off integrating the old content into the geology/geography sections tomorrow. Then it's just internal structure, observing, early astronomers and ground-based studies that need to be filled in. If we work quickly enough we might even be able to make this the 1000th featured article :) Worldtraveller 01:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The exploration section is great. Quite long, yes, but as you say we can see how the finished article looks and then see what, if anything, needs trimming. I think the exploration of such a hostile environment does deserve a fairly prominent section. Perhaps breaking it up with a couple of sub-section headings could be good though?

I'll work on the observation section next, I think. I've found some interesting stuff about the Ashen Light, a phenomenon not mentioned at all in the current article - see this paper, for example.

As for peer review, I don't mind but I am not sure if it will be of much use to be honest. I find it works well when I'm not sure what else an article needs, but I feel in this case we will have already ensured comprehensiveness as we write it. If you copyedit my parts and I copyedit yours before we submit to FAC I think that would be more than sufficient. But, as I say, I don't mind a pass through peer review. Worldtraveller 15:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

ND Draft

Thanks for your comments on my first draft. The line you quote as an example of the article being "heavy" with my POV is not mine, it is a quote from the cited critique of Professor Josephson. I presented both sides of the issue as best I could.

Siqueira and Zammit's sites are not used as citable references, but only as links included in the Further Reading section, which does not appear to require the same level of WP:RS scrutiny as articles cited as References. From the way I (and others) read the Guideline, there is a distinct difference between Cited References and External Links/Further Reading. Further Reading provides space for "..links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article."

Feel free to improve on the article, such as adding criticism of the Japanese appearance. Everything I've written there I've provided sources for, so I'm unsure how it "falls short" of what would be acceptable. Dreadlocke 22:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BillC, I'll go through and attribute the quotes properly. I wasn't sure how much material I could actually take directly from another site, and in the "critique" section I didn't take the time to rewrite most of it as I did with the earlier material. I feel your weariness.. :) It's a first draft and I was looking for help and direction, so I really appreciate your comments and any help you can provide. - Dreadlocke 23:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

PD Image?

You were saying that for my front page nomination I require a PD image? Could I ask what PD stands for? The Filmaker 18:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA

I notcied that you've left messages for Cool3 on his talk page, so I thought you mihgt want to vote in his RfA at WP:RFA. ShortJason 15:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Allan Whitwell

I just wanted to commend you on your excellent cleaning up of Whitwell's page. It's only a stub, but it's as probably as good as it could possibly be. -- Kicking222 21:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article Keratoconus

Hello Bill, I've just noted your comments on Talk:Main_Page. I sincerely hope you haven't taken any offence to my remarks on the issue of the appropriateness of the originally featured image, or thought that I was in any way belittling the medical condition or the quality of article and images. I have re-read my postings and am now worried that they may be misconstrued as flippant and dismissive. I was merely aiming to comment on my astonsihment at the furore that seemed to have erupted over the originally featured image which, in my view, is the one that best illustrates the article on the main page. I was also trying to inject a little bit of humour but, with this imperfect digital communication medium, I am now worried that this may have been taken wrongly. I hope that clears things up (if necessary). Best wishes and happy editing. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you certainly have raised awareness (in some quarters at least), but your decision to use the image on the front page was absolutely correct IMHO. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Hey, Bill. Congratulations, again! For medical conditions, I think the image is pretty tame. Somewhere I have an image of an egg-sized red and green melanoma dripping out of one man's orbit and down his cheek. Perhaps we can work to make Eye cancer the next featured article. Cheers! -AED 18:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I too wanted to chime in to let you know what a spectacular article I think it is. Raul654 04:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Venus - almost there

Well, we've filled all the sections and I've just added images to the bits I've done, so aesthetically I think it's looking excellent. Your 'in fiction' bit should be held up as a model of what these sections should be - so much better than the arbitrary list which is all too common. I think we could probably finish off the article by copyediting - how about I do the bits you wrote and you do mine? Once that's done I think we'll be ready for an FA nomination.

After we've done this, do you fancy tackling Mars? Also you might be interested in the astronomy collaboration of the week that's just been set up. Worldtraveller 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just made a slight adjustment to the intro, and I think it now summarises the article's content pretty well. If you feel like giving my parts a critical eye that would be great. Then I can go ahead and move all the content to the main article and merge the page histories. And then, I think we're about ready for an FAC nomination. What do you think? Worldtraveller 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've taken the plunge: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Venus. I haven't merged the page histories - first of all because I've never done that before and I feared messing it up. Secondly, because of all the edits to Venus since we've been working on the temp page, I think it would have ended up being massively confusing, with revisions of the temp page and the main page appearing alternately in the history. So, what I've done is just copy and paste, and leave a note in the edit summary indicating where the history of the rewrite can be found. I could still merge the histories if that would be preferable.

Hope you have a trouble-free recovery from the operation. Hope to collaborate again some time! Worldtraveller 08:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Binary star

Hi,

Thanks for commenting on the FA nomination of Binary star. I have tried to take care of your objections.

Regards, Nick Mks 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Keratoconus picture

Hi there. Thanks for the picture. Thanks for the article too. It's got me more interested in ophthalmology articles. I wasn't aware of keratoconus before today, and now I've read about a lot of other eye conditions as well! Carcharoth 01:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Venus

Venus looks wonderful! Very nice work! - Dreadlocke 17:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! I would be surprised if any more objections came up on the FAC so it looks like we're there. I'm away for the next two weeks so I hope no-one comes up with major objections to any of 'my' sections! See you on Mars, or some other article, soon! Worldtraveller 19:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the two nearby Magellan radar images. How would you suggest we resolve? Remove the orangish one? Move it immediately next to the other one (and possibly shrink sizes) to directly contrast views? FelineAvenger 23:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems one of the surface images from one of the venera(e)? would work, seems more context appropriate. I'll try that. FelineAvenger 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Swiss municipalities

Yes, that would save a lot of time. :) One thing that would be nice would be to add the district navigational template at the bottom (adding {{Navigation bar XXXX district}}); however, many of the districts don't have that yet. If you feel so inclined, perhaps you could make a script to copy those from the de wikipedia. They should be in the category de:Vorlage:Navigationsleiste Politische Gemeinden, but unfortunately most of them have not been categorized. (The districts in a canton navigational boxes seem much more organized.) When you run it, be sure to keep a list of added municipalities somewhere, so that someone (hopefully not just me) can go through them and make them look less stubby or bot-generated by adding some facts from whichever interwiki versions exist. In the meantime, I'll work on other articles.Rigadoun 18:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So, will you just put all the text to be copied on a user subpage (or something), to be pasted into the articles as they get created? That solves the issue of the list. One other thing, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Swiss municipalities active? This will help meet their goal, but I've never seen any activity on the project site. If it is, you should see if they have any suggestions. Rigadoun 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Demkina sources

Hi BillC, just checking to see if I answered your question about the use of the source Pravda.RU. I separated out the quotes and other comments I sourced from it and put them here: User:Dreadlocke/Sourced_from_Pravda.RU. I've been searching the web for other sources and have found things like Iran Daily.com and ananova.com, but nothing appears to be much more substantial than Pravda.RU. I know you're sick and tired of this darned article, so many thanks for your help! Dreadlocke 01:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to make sure I understand your stance on Pravda.RU for the limited material I've sourced from it. You and Mikka reject Pravda.RU as an “ultimate source”, but accept it for certain things. Things like the quote from Natasha’s mom: “Overall,” her mother says, “she was just a normal kid. Never was she able to see through humans!" as well as the general outline of the trip to Japan. After all, there’s no doubt that she went to Japan at the behest of Professor Machi, and that he proclaimed her to have passed his tests, right?

As I said on the ND talk page, in no way is my intent to use Pravda.RU as a source equivalent to the CSICOP or Discovery Channel Documentary for scientific or qualitative purposes, but just as a general “outline” of what happened. With the dearth of online information for that trip, I don’t seem to have much choice, and it seems to fall well under the “tabloid” policy. I’m not advocating citation of it as scientific proof, that’s for sure.Thanks! Dreadlocke 04:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

World Hockey Association (proposed)

Hello I put up a dispute about 2 weeks ago about the World Hockey Association (proposed) and gave people time to oppose it. There has been no opposition since I put up the dispute so I would like you to take a look at the site and see if you can remove the items I am talking about and remove the Dispute tag. I feel that I am right and that I gave people enough time to voice thier opinions. Thank you. John R G 04:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you fixed a dispute for Osbourn Park High School so I thought you did all kinds of disputes that is why I wrote you. If you have any ideas on who I should contact let me know. John R G 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. I've added a link to Image:PowerStation2.svg in the image description page incase a version without an integrated key is prefered (for other languages etc.). Since the other two versions (Image:Power Station with key.svg and Image:PowerStation.svg) are not being used in any articles, would it be OK if I deleted them as redundant images? Raven4x4x 08:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, never mind. I just realised that they were on commons, and I'm not a commons admin. In reply to your question, from what I know we generally leave old versions in the history. I've never seen a page that says we shouldn't. Raven4x4x 08:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)