User talk:Gdr/Archive 4

Archives
1 — 2004-04/2005-04
2 — 2005-04/2005-08
3 — 2005-08/2006-03
4 — 2006-03/2007-08

Baracuda images

I noticed that you reverted my aligment changes on the baracuda page. The problem is that the Northern Sennet image is *not* aligned properly to the right side in the Mozilla Firefox browser. By placing the image outside the list things work fine in all browsers. May I ask why you objected to fixing the layout? Janderk 11:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I fixed the layout. Hopefully without messing things up this time. Janderk 13:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

Hey, this is probably not the best place to ask, but I don't know where else. I've seen your bots around, and I think they're a great help. Is there some bot you could make that would look to see if there are wikimedia commons/other sister project articles for existing articles and link them? It's amazing how many great pictures and other things there are in other sister projects and people would never know about them if they only looked at wikipedia. Thanks!--TheAlphaWolf 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stomiidae

Hi Gdr, Something up with the Stomiidae page since your last update... GrahamBould 13:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point conceded

Your point conceded. Henceforth will remove images from new stubs and amend other stubs too till I get some images. Thanks for visiting. Regards, AshLin 14:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Dear GDR

 thanks for your comment...

Blind Electric Rays

Hi Gdr, Have received the following:

"--Electric Rays and Blind legged torpedoes-- hi -= I think you might have re-directed my Blind Electric Ray article at the Blind Legged torpedo one. I know it's kind of a weird request, but could the main article be called Blind Electric Ray, not Blind legged torpedo, and with the redirect going the other way? They're both legitimate names for the fish, as far as I can see, but I think Blind Electric Ray is the better name (more common in NZ where I come from) - indeed, you'll see I've even named my Wiki-self after it. I don't know anyone else in the world who's especially interested in blind electric rays (or ~ legged torpedoes), so I can't see it'd do any harm could it? ElectricRay 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Not sure which way to handle it - Is common name of 'blind electric ray' OK? & where should a disambiguation/redirection be placed? GrahamBould 13:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gdr

Thanks for the useful advice. I absolutely agree with your comments regarding my site.I shall do as you suggest ie add small context specific intros for each species and add the detailed info later. I am involved in the process of populating a page for each species of Papilionidae found in India. Initially, I have manually created the stubs with an editor and uploaded them. I am now in the process of arranging info held with me in a systematic way to load it. I suppose I should have written full articles and added them in turn. I thought stubs gave people a chance to add info besides me at their convenience. Please understand that it will take me time to populate the 87 odd species.Regards, AshLin 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwa (m).

I understand why you reverted my edits - maybe (at some time of your choosing) you should edit again if you think it's important to state that there was possibly an error in the source they used on Kiwa. Kahuroa 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity classes

Regarding DTIME, DSPACE, and NESPACE... I don't think these deserve seperate articles (certainly not in the shape they're in, possibly not ever). I think they should be merged into Computational complexity theory. What do you think? Ripper234 22:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DTIME and DSPACE, certainly. NESPACE is a bit technical to be merged into that article. Gdr 22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I never heard of it by name until now. Agreed (removed the merge tags regarding NESPACE). Ripper234 22:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keels

Hi Gdr, I wondered if you could add another definition to the Disambig page for 'Keel', for the fish anatomy use. I think it's based on the ship use, but I think it needs either a separate page or some explanation in the ship section. Sure you can do a better job than me. It's referred to on quite a lot of fish articles, so it would be handy. Thanks. GrahamBould 18:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caudal peduncle

Hi Gdr, Just noticed that you redirected caudal peduncle away from my article, to fish anatomy, where the term is not explained. I'm sure there is a good reason.... GrahamBould 18:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See fish anatomy now, which should make things a bit clearer. Gdr 19:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fernbird

Yeah, sorry. I must admit that I could have been more careful - I was simply writing a stub to remove a redlink from an article I'm trying to get to FA standard and it was a subject I knew very little about. Thanks for correcting it! Grutness...wha? 06:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxoboxes

Hey... I've seen you been adding authorities to the fish taxoboxes I create... Where do you find the info for it? I would like to do it right in the first place ...! Kjaergaard 17:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For fishes, I use FishBase. Gdr 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New species

OK I'll add the references. Isfisk 18:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitata

Thanks for helping to format the Capitata article correctly! I'm pretty new here, and that was my first article, so I'm still learning. :) Anyway, I'm glad it got noticed. Have a great day! Sarah crane 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True sole

The Sole dab page is not the place for extensive descriptions, however, it should give enough information that the user can choose the correct entry. Authorities in this area such as Alan Davidson confirm that the Soleidae are the 'true soles', and that Solea solea is the (or 'a') Dover sole. The so-called Pacific Dover sole is at best confusing, at worst deceptive, and the dab page should help the user figure out where to go.... --Macrakis 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's why I left in the "Dover" name of the common sole. Some people call Soleidae the "true soles", but some people class the American soles in Soleidae, making those soles "true" as well. Gdr 08:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the function of a dab page. If "true sole" is a commonly used term for the Soleidae (and I think it is), then it ought to appear. If the American soles are sometimes classified in the Soleidae, that may be worth mentioning, too. The Pacific "Dover sole" is a really annoying case. Dover is a place in England and has nothing to do with the Pacific, so it's more confusing than the common (and also confusing) practice of calling unrelated fish in the Atlantic and the Pacific by the same name. I am not sure what the best way to deal with that on the dab page is. See what you think of the edit I'm about to make.... --Macrakis 13:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is bizarre to call Heteromycteris proboscideus the 'true sole', as it is native to the Southeast Atlantic, therefore was unknown to Europeans until fairly recently, whereas the name 'sole' (solea) has referred to Solea spp. (especially solea/vulgaris) since the 14th century in English (OED), and probably longer in Italian, French, etc. I am willing to believe it has been dubbed the 'True sole' (as a name), but is it the true 'Sole'? I think not. At least it is a member of the Soleidae....

More generally, as I'm sure you know, many commercially important fish have been given marketing names which don't correspond to any sort of historical, culinary, or even taxonomic reality. As an NPOV encyclopedia, we definitely need to cover these names, but that does not mean that we should encourage the confusing that they engender. We also need to cover not just the technical taxonomic reality, but also the culinary/gastronomic reality. About the soles, Davidson says:

It is unfortunate for Americans that Solea solea, which is the sole, is only found on the eastern side of the Atlantic. Indeed, American waters harbour no true soles, although several of the flatfish found there have been called soles. Bigelow and Schroeder consider that Achirus fasciatus Lacépède is the American species most closely related to the sole." (North American Seafood, p 143)

One of the problems is that complex realities like all this don't really belong on dab pages. I suppose the situation will be improved once we have a full article on Solea solea. By the way, I see that Jackie Kennedy supposedly liked Dover sole, but a quick Web search shows that she often ate it at the Hotel Pierre in New York, a bastion of French cuisine, where it was probably Dover sole flown in from Europe. What would you think of clarifying the article title of Dover sole to something like Dover sole (Pacific)? --Macrakis 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created separate Sole (fish) and Sole (foot) articles so that Sole can be a proper dab page. Content is mostly copied from the old Sole page, but I'd appreciate your corrections and improvements.... Is it useful, do you think, to have a complete list of all fishes called 'soles' in the Sole (fish) article? --Macrakis 22:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about the two pages on Sole and Sole (fish). I have added back the sub-disambiguation of the fishes called 'sole' into the Sole disambiguation page, while also leaving it in the Sole (fish) article. WP policy says that dab pages should not have substantive encyclopedic content, including wikilinks, bibliography, discussion, etc., which is why I moved the Sole (foot) and Sole (fish) content out. Having a separate Sole (fish) article also makes it easy to link to it. If I have the time, I will take a first stab at the Common sole article in the next day or two. I am not convinced that Sole (foot) deserves its own article, but if not, it should be merged into Foot (like 'palm' into Hand), not into Sole (dab). --Macrakis 14:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah in Messiah

I think the characterization of that paragraph as "absurd pedantry" is a little harsh. Before I edited that section, the section was called "The Hallelujah Chorus". That's what everyone calls it, and they believe it to be the full title. There's the discussion regarding the titling of the oratorio in the beginning of the article, and I considered that paragraph the logical extension of that discussion. IMHO, its important to make the distinction between "the Hallelujah chorus" and The Hallelujah Chorus. Furthermore, no one calls it "the For unto us a Child is born chorus" -- everyone just calls it For unto us a Child is born (or Unto us if you're into the whole brevity thing). MusicMaker5376 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a little harsh. Sorry about that. It's just ordinary pedantry. Because "Hallelujah" is short and potentially confusable, it's perfectly ordinary English to say or write "the Halleleujah chorus". It doesn't imply that you think the title is "The Hallelujah Chorus", any more than referring to "the chorus of the Hebrew slaves" means you think the famous Nabucco chorus is called that and not "Va, pensiero". This is the kind of thing that Wikipedia should simply get right without making a fuss about it. Gdr 10:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but, yeah, they do. When I got to the article, it was referred to as The Hallelujah Chorus in both that section and in the track listing. Believe it or not, people commonly believe that to be the title. It's a different story with "Va, pensiero" (which will now be stuck in my head all day, thank you....) because 1) the real title is in a foreign language and 2) "the chorus of the Hebrew slaves" is a more accurate description to an English speaker who doesn't know Italian. If this is the sort of thing "that Wikipedia should simply get right without making a fuss about it," then the discussion of the title of the oratorio should also be considered "pedantry" (absurd or not) and removed. However, there was a lengthy discussion regarding the title Messiah about a year ago, and it was decided that an explanation was necessary. Wouldn't that same logic apply to Hallelujah? -- MusicMaker5376 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox conversion

Hil, Gdr. I'm sorry to pester you with my own technical shortcomings, but I've been trying to run your taxoconv script in the Spanish wiki. I have installed and am familiar with the pywiki framework, but there must be either a version incompatibility in recent versions of said or in my Python installation (im running 2.3, on a Debian GNU/Linux box), becuase I'm getting an error on line 553 of the script. It seems to be failing in calling a function in wikipedia.py. I know next to nothing about Python, so I'd be glad if you could lend me a hand in fixing it. You can see the exact error yielded by python taxoconv.py, both with and without -v at User:Taragui/taxoconv.py. Best, Taragüí @ 17:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprinodonts

I'm not hugely happy about conflating 'pupfish' and 'cyprinodont'. The first is an English name primarily applied to a group of American fishes; the latter is a taxonomic term applied to a family of fishes, some of which are called 'pupfish' and some 'killifish'. I know that some scientific databases stick the name 'pupfishes' on the whole family, but that's not how the names are typically used. It makes a nonsense of the statement that 'pupfishes are related to killifishes', since if either name is applied to the whole family, then killifishes are pupfishes (or pupfishes are killifishes). It seems to me that it would be better to describe killifishes at killifish and pupfishes at pupfish, and mention both of these English names at an article on Cyprinodontidae, instead of claiming that there's an agreed English name corresponding to the family, which I don't think there is. Myopic Bookworm 12:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to describe both at Cyprinodontidae with redirects from pupfish and killifish. Unless there's a commonly accepted biological meaning for "pupfish" and "killifish". Gdr 12:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you'd want links rather than redirects from the other words, or the one article ends up trying to do too many things at once. (You surely wouldn't have mere redirects from 'dog' and 'wolf' to 'Canidae'.) Really you need to have the straight zoological information about the family under the Latin name, but (for example) information about keeping killifishes in aquaria at killifish, and information about the curious habitats of rare endangered pupfishes at pupfish.

I'm also sceptical about the value of dumping Fishbase species lists into the Wikipedia articles when there's nothing as yet to say about most of them; but I'm new to fish entries on Wikipedia and if that's what people like, then fine. Myopic Bookworm 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodeidae

Hi Gdr, I know I'm quite inexperienced at this, but I have to disagree with you changing the number of species and genera (from 40 to 55 and 18 to 19 respectively) in the article for the Goodeidae, as I believe the Fishbase references may not be as accurate as the ones I have cited. I have used two references in particular, one being the most comprehensive personal website on goodeids that I have found (at http://www.goodeiden.de), and also a recent phylogeny published in Molecular Phylogenies and Evolution. However, you have done a great job on the species names. I hope you dont mind if I prune the species list in the next day or two. Let me know what you think. SEJohnston 16:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In perusing the list again: I dont think I will prune it, but there are only 40 species, with 55 subspecies occurring. It is important to distinguish between this. But still, thanks for the list improvement!! SEJohnston 16:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing picture

Hi Gdr, Please see Oceanic_lightfish. I cannot figure out why the picture image:Vinciguerria_nimbaria_(Oceanic_lightfish).gif I uploaded to Commons doesn't appear in the article. I have done many others OK. It must be staring me in the face but I can't spot it! Thanks for help GrahamBould 16:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me now. Perhaps the Wikipedia image servers were out of sync for a while. Gdr 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Your maps (E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eastern_Front_1942-11_to_1943-03.png) look amazing. What program do you use to create them? Amcfreely 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fin rays

Hi Gdr, I seek your advice. An important way of IDing fish is their fin/spine count. Yet I haven't seen this mentioned in any Wikipedia fish article I've seen. Is it too esoteric? Prone to error? Etc. I know it's a heck of a lot of extra work, but is it being targetted for some future date? It would be ideal as a Taxobox item(s). GrahamBould 13:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a case of editors not feeling confident that it's of general interest. You should feel free to add it. But not in the taxobox, that's for taxonomy. Gdr 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps of the Eastern Front

Hey! I've been asked to produce translations of your Eastern Front -maps for Finnish Wikipedia, so I would like to know if you possibly had any kind of vector, PSP-image etc. files of the maps without the texts, so I could translate them easily. Thank you for your help. --Ningyou 11:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The originals are in OmniGraffle. The only export options from OmniGraffle are as PDF and EPS. Are any of these formats helpful to you? Gdr 12:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PDF would be fine, I think. I should be able to use it. --Ningyou 17:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Hi Gdr, I have 3 of my pictures that have had newer versions uploaded. There is provision for previous versions to be deleted, but only Admins can do it. Could you please do the deletions when you have some time? Thanks. They are:

Image:Victoria Falls Bridge over Zambesi.jpg
Image:North American Harvard at Onerahi Aerodrome, New Zealand 1961.jpg
Image:LRDG Memorial at Papakura New Zealand.jpg

GrahamBould 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with your pictures

On my monitor they're too light, and I think this is a problem with other people too ([User:Zocky] has made changes as well). You think, perhaps, that you could update them, using more distinct colours? I already changed the Battle of Rostov image, that was one the WW2 page, but I'm not very good at this stuff and I borked it a bit. Thanks, --CalPaterson 11:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.

Thanks! --evrik 20:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Battle of Kursk

Hi, I am translating the article to Norwegian, could you upload your map to commons so I can use it in the Norwegian article as well? Ulflarsen 14:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwa hirsuta

FYI I have had a couple of emails from the member of the team responsible for the naming of Kiwa hirsuta - their source was Encylopedia Mythica. See Talk:Kiwa hirsuta. Kahuroa 10:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

Hello! I'm a Persian Wikipedian and I wanna build a robot, but I like to build a one in English Wikipedia. So Can you help to make a bot step by step??? Thanks a lot! --MehranVB 17:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hexanchiformes

Hi! Sorry to bother you but just a quick question, is the Hexanchiformes page correct in stating Sharpnose seven-gill shark, Bluntnose sixgill shark and Broadnose sevengill shark as both a extant and extinct species? Can not be correct? Or is there some taxonimic explanation that escapes me? Stefan 12:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna

Hi Gdr, Regarding the Tuna page, it seems to be different to most other fish Family pages. Instead of listing all the genera in the Taxobox, & referring to the text for species, it seems to have a fixation on one genus & as an afterthought attempts to list some others. I am happy to do the legwork to get it arranged like the others, but would like your opinion first - maybe there is a good reason for the current arrangement. Cheers GrahamBould 06:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (PS. I'm about 2/3 the way through adding New Zealand fish articles)[reply]

Hi Gdr, have you had time to think about this. It seems Scombridae & Tuna could easily be merged. GrahamBould 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Scombridae includes mackerels and bonitos as well as tunas so I don't think it's appropriate to merge the pages. Gdr 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

star

Hi, Gdr. Just a star for your eastern front maps :) (I know they have been here for a while but I have recently found them really useful. Thanks for making them --Astrokey44 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removing italicisation on ship classes

Hi, I see where you are coming from removing the italicisation around ship class names (i.e. N class to N class). However, the reason that this was done was to highlight the letter. Do you think replacing the italicisation with quote marks might be a better solution? Lenton's authoratative work (British and Empire Warships of World War II) does the latter, as does Cocker (Destroyers of the Royal Navy 1893-1981), Leo Marriot (Royal Navy Destroyers since 1945) and Conway's. I feel on a page of letters, there needs to be something to make the class letter stand out. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has always used plain letters up to now. Gdr 11:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my feeling if the definitive literature uses it then there should be no reason for wikipedia to break ranks. In my opinion, just because wikipedia has done something up until now, it does not neccesarily mean it the correct way to go about something. Emoscopes ^Talk 11:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but this is a typographical convention, not a matter of fact. Gdr 12:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is still with using quotation marks, specifically for the Royal Navy that is. I've asked another contributor who is knowledgable in this field for their thoughts, I do feel it needs discussed. For the meantime I'm putting my edits on hold for a day anyway as I have to be elsewhere. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't use italics (since the J class is not named after a a vessel named J), and we don't need quotes in "J class" any more than we need them in "Flower class".

Wikipedia tends to be fairly minimial in its use of punctuation: thus "BC", not "B.C.", "6 June", not "6th of June", etc; the ship class conventions follow this general style. Certainly many printed books have other conventions. For example, J. J. College's Ships of the Royal Navy writes 'A' class, 'Acacia' class, 'Bay' class, A.1, ACACIA, and 31.3.1942 whereas Wikipedia writes A class, Acacia class, Bay class, A1, Acacia, and 31 March 1942 respectively. That conventions like this differ completely doesn't mean that either is wrong. Gdr 12:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed genus authority

A couple of days ago you removed my addition of the genus authority for Pelican eel. I thought it was standard to include this when the species is the sole member of the genus. Todays featured article about the Short-beaked Echidna also list the genus authority. Isfisk 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the pelican eel, the authority for the genus is the same as for the species, so there's no need to repeat it. In the case of the Short-beaked Echidna the two authorities are different. Gdr 13:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchenjunga (disambiguation)

Regarding the article, do you disagree with WP:MOSDAB or something? The one-bluelink-per-entry guideline is a core mainstay of disambig articles... eg. "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles", and therefore each line should link to the article, and any further linking/expansion/whatnot should occur within the actual article itself. --Interiot 09:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disagree with WP:MOSDAB and have said so several times. The idea of having one link per entry is a fine starting point, but should be applied with a modicum of flexibility and common sense. Gdr 20:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flexibility is definitely needed at MOSDAB, especially for subject-specific disambigs (and especially when someone tries to clean one up while knowing very little about the subject). And for the record, I definitely don't think that MOSDAB calls for mass removal of text descriptions, and I think that sometimes people are initially "overachievers" and misinterpret what MOSDAB calls for.

I think that disambiguation pages are generally chaotic (using inconsistent styles internally and between disambig pages) because there's a wide range of possible styles, and therefore editors should strive for certain points of consistency unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. It's hard for me to see the utility in the style differences you have with MOSDAB (eg. hiding parens in wikilinks, using periods on every entry (which isn't particularly flexible), and leaning towards a full sentence structure in a variety of ways). And it's hard for me to understand why you disagree with MOSDAB on so many points... --Interiot 23:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding parens in links is standard in all Wikipedia articles; putting full stops at the end of sentences is standard in English text. What's so hard to understand? Gdr 07:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that the style that MOSDAB has chosen is so obviously correct, it's that disambig entries can reasonably be styled in so many different ways. There's an argument for using semicolons at the end of entries, and maybe even commas. Clearly one disambig page should not intermix entry-ending styles unless there's a good reason. And it may be preferable to use a consistent style across disambig pages, especially since the styles can differ so greatly (eg. "For blah blah, see link" or "In mathematics in Britain, link is a blah blah"). --Interiot 18:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I noticed that you have been tidying plecostomus and related articles. However you have been changing some instances of 'suckermouth catfish' to 'armored catfish' - these catfish can be called 'armored catfish' but did you know that the family Callichthyidae are also known as 'armoured catfish' - in fact I suspect the name is more commonly used here. Personally I'd prefer some user of 'sucker' in the English name eg 'suckermouth armoured catfish' to avoid any potential confusion. After all many types of catfish have bony plates/scutes etc but only the Loricariidae have suckermouths.HappyVR 19:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Loricariidae was what I meant. Gdr 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchenjunga, moved from user page

I'm not sure you should have done the globalization of Kangchenjunga its going to anger the people that have been there, "Kanchenjunga" is the least correct especially when you talk to the people who have been there for te last 50 years. To be honest you should undo your spellings and leave in the good work on punctuation. Kang means five as in "The five treasures of the great snow, "Kangchenjunga", however that isn't a correct spelling as "Kangchendzonga" is the closest. I think you should have put in a section regarding different spellings and possibly as an alternative put your own country's preference, and not done an arbitrary global edit that people will change back. The poeple that may revert this may well be Indians themselves - http://www.hindu.com/mag/2005/02/20/stories/2005022000500200.htm (Gowron 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There's a list of alternative spellings in the very first sentence of the article, giving both of the spellings you list. The etymology you give is given in the second paragraph of the article. My position is that the article should (a) use consistent spelling throughout and (b) the spelling should match the article title. I don't have a particular preference for any spelling over any other. If you want the article to be moved to a different spelling, suggest a move at Talk:Kanchenjunga. Gdr 19:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should have put in a more full section regarding different spellings and possibly as an alternative put your own country's preference, and not done an arbitrary global edit that people will change back. (Gowron)

HMS Cobra

I've just been turning a couple of redirects into disambiguation pages, and stumbled across HMS Cobra, which previously redirected to HMS Cobra (1899). I can only find reference to one Cobra in RN service, which surprises me a bit, and thought I'd better check if this was a valid redirect. You have (if memory serves) access to Colledge; could I ask you to check quickly and see if there were other ships of this name or not? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 20:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colledge indeed only lists the 1899 destroyer. The redirect is not wrong (but you could move it to plain HMS Cobra if you prefer). I expanded the article with the info from College, plus the explanation from [1] as to why the name was not reused. Gdr 20:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I noticed the no-reuse thing... as Rattlesnake and Snake were both used for earlier vessels, though, it seemed a bit odd there was no earlier Cobra. (On examining the OED and the Times archive, though, the term doesn't seem to have been in general use until the mid c.19th. Interesting.) Shimgray | talk | 20:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomialbot abbreviations

Hi Gdr,

I was wondering what the purpose of edits like this one was. Was Linnaeus actually the inventer of the name, and if so shouldn't he be listed under his proper name, with a year, in a section below? As it stands these L. links are rather confusing, appearing immediately below the species names in various taxoboxes. Cheers — SteveRwanda 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carolus Linnaeus is the authority for the genus Lavandula (see botanical nomenclature), meaning that he was the first person to publish a botanical description of a species in the genus together with the name. For this reason we write his standard botanical abbreviation "L." below the genus name in its taxobox. Note that botanical authorities don't have dates (but zoological authorities do). The section at the bottom of some taxoboxes is for species and subspecies only, so Lavendula doesn't get one.

"L." does look a little odd on a line by itself, but it's consistent with the way we present authorities for genera throughout Wikipedia. (See more or less any other article on a genus, e.g. Wisteria, Tsuga, Armatocereus, Selenicereus, etc etc.) If you can think of a better way to present this information, please make a suggestion at Template talk:Taxobox. Gdr 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for answering. — SteveRwanda 12:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speckled moray

Gdr, How did you manage to Move it? I tried & gave up. (:-) GrahamBould 11:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gdr. I feel quite flattered about your Admin suggestion, but don't think I've been around long enough & have the feeling that I've only just scratched the surface of the beast. Also, I will be busy finishing the NZ fish articles for a while, only done three quarters to date.

This case business still confuses me - it seems fish names are lower case (except proper names), but birds are upper. Others I don't know. Is there a set of Wiki rules on this? You might have noticed I've gone back & fixed the case on all my old articles, hope I haven't inadvertently ruffled any feathers. Cheers GrahamBould 11:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that ornithologists have created a set of official common names, which are capitalized in ornithological references, e.g. field guides, scientific papers etc. Ichthyologists have not (though some researchers would like to do so; see e.g. [2]).

This issue has been discussed in some detail four or five times; see the archives at WT:TOL (this discussion is probably the most informative). The consensus, in so far as there is one, seems to be that each group of organisms can establish its own capitalization rules; the issue is deliberately glossed over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). The current status quo is that plants, birds, mammals, Lepidoptera and Orthoptera are mostly capitalized, reptiles and Amphibia are a mixture, most everything else is lowercase with occasional anomalies. Gdr 12:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation status

Hi Gdr, Thanks for the 'case' explanation above (as far as you or anyone else is able to give it!). Another thing I'd like to do is include 'Conservation Status' in Taxoboxes. I can see how, but the question is - where does one go to get the official status for fish, mammals, reptiles, etc etc? Is there one world-wide body like the WWF? GrahamBould 10:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the World Conservation Union, which maintains the IUCN Red List of threatened species. Gdr 10:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Categories

Hi Gdr again, Thanks for the WCU info, I'll be making use of it.

There only seems to be one category for NZ fish, both marine & freshwater (Australia has a separate freshwater one). I'd like to create a NZ freshwater one. Doing it is no trouble, but that leaves the NZ marine fish with the NZ Fish category only - should it be changed to NZ marine fish? Or could we assume that if a fish is not in the Freshwater category then it must be marine, as is the Australian model? I don't want to create more work for myself than is necessary.

I'd be happy to rename Category:New Zealand fish to Category:New Zealand marine fish for you. (I can run a program that does this kind of thing.) Or if you prefer you can post a request at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion for the category to be renamed. Gdr 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that Category:New Zealand fish has only ever been added to NZ freshwater fish articles anyway, & nearly all these articles were written by me. So if you could run your program to rename them to Category:New Zealand '''freshwater''' fish that would be very nice. Had second thoughts about NZ marine fish: Some are endemic, some are NZ plus nearby countries, & some are worldwide. Pointless having categories for the first 2, but I might create one for 'New Zealand endemic marine fish', what do you think? GrahamBould 12:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Gdr. GrahamBould 18:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest I'm not getting warnings of your replies as you are putting them in your own talk page - just noticed them as I started my next question. GrahamBould 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm often lazy like that. Gdr 12:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going Batty

Hi Gdr, Another Move that I seem to have got into a knot. Could you please Move 'New Zealand greater short-tailed bat' to 'New Zealand Greater Short-tailed Bat'? Thanks. GrahamBould 14:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie Bot -- references style

Could you reprogram Beastie Bot so that it recognizes (where possible) the references style of the article and adds the IUCN reference accordingly? For example, in an article like [3] you should use {{ref}} and {{note}}; where an article uses <ref>...</ref> and <reference/> you should do the same. (Otherwise I should add that this bot appears to be doing a good job.) Gdr 11:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, this is not at all straightforward. There doesn't seem to be any easy place to put the footnote or reference. (Maybe taxoboxes need a parameter i?) Gdr 12:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for checking out the bot and giving feedback. It does do the second type of referencing but not the first. For the <ref>. style referencing I added status_ref to the taxobox to make it work (e.g. see Yellow-shouldered Blackbird.) Beastie Bot has just recently finished doing the initial run, so it might be trickier to fix things for the note-type referencing now. Unfortunately I didn't come across it when testing and thought it had disappeared and been replaced with <ref>. I might try making a list of taxoboxed species that use it and update them by hand. I don't think there's many. —Pengo 13:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

range maps

Hi. Thanks for fixing the Archey's Frog range map, what exactly does the zero alpha channel mean? And what program did you use to fix it. Once you let me know how to fix the problem, I'll do all my range maps that way, but could you have a look at this map and try to fix it so it works in the Leiopelma page. Thanks.--Tnarg 12345 08:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I will do it that way from now on, the lower file size also helps. With the naming of the article we (the frog article editors) generally use complete capitalisation for individual species, but do not captilise for groups of frogs ie. White's Tree Frog and New Zealand primitive frogs. Thanks again.--Tnarg 12345 21:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Hi there! You replaced the content of List of Royal Navy battleships with templates nearly two-years ago (time flies!). These templates are veritable relics now and shoud be deleted and actual content restored to the respective articles. Incidentally, would you object to transforming the subsidiary lists into redirects? The comparable List of battleships of the United States Navy is not sub-divided. In their present form, these lists only exist as duplicates to a list that wasn't/isn't particularly large. I've sent a similar message to User:SpookyMulder. Happy editing! SoLando (Talk) 12:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the templates was to avoid duplication between articles (inevitably corrections would be made to one copy of the list but not the other). If there is no duplication any more, the templates can be deleted. Gdr 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniance can be appealing ;-). I'm awaiting SpookyMulder's reply before I take any action against these duplicate lists (such as List of pre-Dreadnought battleships of the United Kingdom). In my opinion, these lists are redundant, there really isn't a need for such sub-division. SoLando (Talk) 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Categories 2

Hi Gdr, would like to do something about the empty Category:New Zealand fish. NZ endemic freshwater fish, & NZ introduced freshwater fish, are now complete. The marine fish is a bit of a quandary - some are endemic, some are NZ plus nearby countries, & some are worldwide. I would like to have :Category:New Zealand fish renamed to 'New Zealand endemic marine fish', & then include those marine fish that are strictly NZ. Not sure whether to include Kermadecs & Chathams & southern islands. Would appreciate your advice, & can you make the category name change please. Thanks. GrahamBould 08:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the best thing to do is for Category:New Zealand fish to remain. It can be the parent category for the various subcategories, including Category:New Zealand endemic marine fish, which I've just created. Gdr 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NZ endemics are now in the new category, thank you. There is another category - "Marine life", which has a few fish articles in it plus some other useful marine articles like Coral Reef. I'm wondering what the intent is for this category. I don't think individual species should be included, only general articles (like the Coral Reef) plus other categories covering marine life. Value your opinion. GrahamBould 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Category:Marine life is quite the wrong way to do it. At best, it could be a high level category containing many subcategories. Feel free to remove it from articles when you spot it. Gdr 11:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Just noticed that you wrote/edited the Convoy article some time ago. Excellent work. In one of my past lives I was in the Rhodesian Army during the Bush War in the 1970s. Off duty I occasionally travelled in road convoys guarded by trucks like that at the top of: :http://www.mazoe.com/echoesarmouredvehicles.html .... (;=) GrahamBould 11:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomialbot is awesome!

That is all. Melchoir 21:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime warfare task force

Hello, Gdr.

Good news: Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) has recently created the Maritime warfare task force as part of the Military History project. Bad news: so far, it has only six members (the worst news is that one of them is me).

I think this would be a good forum for discussing of maritime warfare/naval history, exchanging ideas and establishing best practice at a more general level than the Ships project. If you are interested, can I suggest you pay a visit and, if you like what you see, sign up?

Regards, John Moore 309 17:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category rename request for bot

I'm looking to rename articles in Category:Cults to refer to Alleged Cults because labeling an organization a cult is highly subjective (see Category Talk:Cults and the CFD entry. I'll probably add the request to another bot owners page or two so you might want to check that it hasn't been done yet. If you do get to it, please leave a message. --Antonrojo 01:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

Hi Gdr, Have checked Wikipedia:Manual of Style to find out if military ranks should be capitalised - but not mentioned. Do you have an opinion on this? Cheers GrahamBould 10:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual rule is to capitalize them if used as a title ("Captain Cook", "Admiral Lord Nelson") but to treat them as ordinary nouns in other instances ("No captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of an enemy"). This parallels the use of other words as titles (for example "Doctor Livingstone, I presume" but "David Livingstone was a doctor"). Some phrases that look like ranks are really names of positions, and do need to be capitalized, for example "Admiral of the Fleet". Gdr 12:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gdr, Confirms what I thought. GrahamBould 17:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article project

I would like to nominate Asian arowana for featured article status some time in the near future. I am writing to ask for your help in improving the article in any possible way in preparation for nomination. Thanks! --66.7.182.48 16:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bother, I forgot to log in. That was me, Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

mithradates

Why did You revert my insertion? I think it was a much-needed clarification. If You don't think it's in the proper part of the entry, okeh. But don't just cut w/o giving any reason.Kdammers 01:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already gives his cognomen in the opening sentence, no need to repeat it. Gdr 10:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says he is the Great King of Persia; this is NOT the same as M the Great. Kdammers 04:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings

Ongoing discussion at concerning spoiler tags. Please see Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. -Randall Brackett 10:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc. See Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC. -Randall Brackett 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case

Hi Gdr, I wonder whether you would be good enough to 'Move' Blue Cod & Yellowtail Kingfish to Blue cod & Yellowtail kingfish. I'm not able to. Thanks GrahamBould 05:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether you could check the link :Fish (Biology) as it seems to go to an article with little relevance. I'n not clear what should be happening here. Should this be corrected? GrahamBould 07:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoenus

Hi Gdr;

You are right - some, but certainly not all, measurements of distances in antiquity (and even today) are quite variable. In particular, distances used by caravan leaders tend to vary considerably and are often more a rough measurement of the time it took to cover a certain portion of a route. Thus, they tended to be longer when travalling over flat, even ground, and shorter in mountainous country.

Also, of course, measurements of distance tend to vary from time to time and place to place, and also on the uses they are put to. For example, compare the Roman mile, the English Imperial mile, and the Nautical mile.

Wilfred H. Schoff, has an interesting note (on p. 22) to his: Parthian Stations by Isidore of Charax: An account of the overland trade route between the Levant and India in the first century B.C. The Greek text, with a translation and commentary. Reprint by Ares Publishers Chicago. 1989:

“SUMMARY. The SCHOENUS or Parasang was a Persian measure, perhaps not altogether fixed, and may be calculated as somewhere between 3¼ and 3½ miles; more or less, perhaps, an hour’s travel by caravan. According to Strabo, it was equal to 40 stadia, but varied from 30 to 60.

(Strabo XV, I, II.) “When I ascended the hills, the measures of these schoeni were not everywhere uniform, so that the same number sometimes designated a greater, sometimes a less actual extent of road, a variation which dates from the earliest time and exists in our days.”

Masson notes Isidore’s schoenus in Persia was about 2½ miles; on the Euphrates, 3¼. Cf. Herodotus I, 66.”

Hope this is of some help. If you feel it need it, perhps you could add an explanatory note to the short article on Anthemusias. I will add the note from Schoff in the entry on the Parasang.

Cheers,

John Hill 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karsten Page

I moved the Karsten page to Karsten (disambiguous) and set up a redirect on the Karsten page to that new page. Just wondering what your reasoning was for reverting back, because there shouldn't be two identical pages.--Gephart 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine at the name Karsten; there was no need to move it.
You didn't move it, you started a new article and cut-and-paste the content.
Your article was mistitled; if the page needed to be disambiguated it would be called "Karsten (disambiguation)" not "Karsten (disambiguous)".

Gdr 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priority of wolf names

Hi Gdr, I've noticed you have some expertise in nomenclature. Would you care to comment on a debate at Talk:Eastern_Timber_Wolf concerning rules of priority? --Aranae 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

Gdr, I've checked :Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics) but could not find advice about italicization of naval & air force bases (or army camps, etc). In the British world naval bases are named & treated as ships, so I think they should be italicized, but am not sure of the others. Perhaps you could update the article with your opinion. Thanks GrahamBould 13:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pelagic basslet

Hi Gdr, According to FishBase the pelagic basslet (a marine species) is in family Percichthyidae, but Fishbase also states Percichthyidae has no marine members. Are you able to throw any light on this? Thanks for any help GrahamBould 07:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mado (fish)

Gdr, I wonder whether you could have a quick look at this article. User:Chemica started with adding a stub, which I didn't think it warranted, & I sent him a link to the Wiki Stub Guidlines. It seems he has removed the stub, but now seems to have declared all-out war on the article, ruining its appearance & use to anyone. The fish doesn't have a particular importance, it's just one of many reef fish you see in this part of the world. Potentially Chemica could put silly boxes all over most short articles in Wikipedia. Value your take on this. GrahamBould 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we have the guideline Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Gdr 20:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mustelus

I wasn't aware of the Common Name First rule for Families, so I have probably erred. I was trying to allow the common name for one of the Mustelus species. To revert, I don't think I will be allowed to Move, so could I prevail upon your good nature to do it for me please? BTW, thanks for whatever you did for mado (above). It worked. GrahamBould 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen

Gdr, thanks for sorting out Mustelus. Does Wikipedia have a preferred use of hyphen in for example major general (major-general)? This [4] seems to cover it but not sure whether it is US English as well. GrahamBould 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HMS E18

Sorry to bother you again...

I've just created a short stub for HMS E18, a WWI submarine. Our article on the class said she'd been sunk by KE41, a German decoy ship; someone wrote to OTRS saying this was commonly reported, but wrong, and she was probably sunk by a mine. Could you check and see what College gives for the reason she was lost, if anything?

Thanks again for your patience. I really ought to just buy a copy... Shimgray | talk | 10:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Thank you very much for the great maps you've made for the Eastern Front (WWII) article. I took the liberty to translate the first map to Serbian, (here's the picture). However, I did it using Paintbrush, and it took a lot of time (to erase every name, and then to insert it in Serbian). I was just wandering if you somewhere have these maps, but blank.. it would be great, since I could then just insert the Serbian names, and spare a lot of time :). Thanks anyway, cheers.. -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 12:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NZ Fish

I wonder whether you'd be interested in tidying up a NZ category by renaming it to be a bit more accurate. We have "Endemic marine fish of New Zealand", "Introduced freshwater fish of New Zealand", but the other is simply "Freshwater fish of New Zealand" - this last should really be "Endemic freshwater fish of New Zealand". If you agree, could you please make the change using one of your magic bulk procedures. Thanks GrahamBould 11:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Van Soest, Attack on the Medway.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Van Soest, Attack on the Medway.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 August 16/Images because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

NB I've listed this pic because the source is UK and therefore not covered by US rulings on repros of out-of-date works. You may know other reasons why it is legal, but since this has knock-ons for the whole of the National Maritime Musuem collection (which I'd dearly love to use but believe is out of bounds), it would be good if you could explain this in detail. JackyR | Talk 16:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read Bridgeman vs Corel. But this is a US judgment based on US law, and therefore only applies in the US. Since the NMM is in the UK, and I assume its servers are as well, UK law must be taken into account when using these images. This is explained at commons:Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States Copyright Law and Foreign Copyright and elsewhere on that page. As I understand it, if you can find a copy of the pic you want that is already legally in the US, then you can use it - as long as you too are in the US. If you have to route the pic via your own machine in the UK then you're back under UK law. And as for me looking from the UK at a pic that you've placed on the WP servers in Florida - not sure about that!

This is all hideously complicated, so I'd suggest we leave it to the experts at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 August 16/Images, unless you are one of these. JackyR | Talk 20:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, someone other than you has uploaded it to Commons (commons:Image:Van Soest, Attack on the Medway.jpg, stating that it had a worldwide licence, which look definitely untrue. I note that the wording at Commons is "This applies to reproductions created in the United States (see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.), in Germany, and in many other countries" (my bold). So again, let's wait for an expert opinion on this. Cheers, JackyR | Talk 20:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeman vs Corel refers to transparencies, not digital copies, so clearly it wasn't the same way. But I don't know if that has any significance. Fortunately it's not up to me (or you) make the decision here - I pushed the Q to the copyvio page to be looked at by Those Who Know. Personally I'd be delighted if we could get at the NMM images - it has a wonderful collection. Watching this space... :-) JackyR | Talk 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you use your bot to re-categorize the entries in the following categories to entries in the categoeries Maps of XX (XX being te name of the country):

The purpose is to make the categories identical to the categories in Commons. Electionworld Talk? 11:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:HMS Malaya.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Malaya.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomialbot and Hungarian wiki

Hi!

Browsing the category of bots, I came accross yours, and I think its "powers" might be useful on huwiki too.

Do you still have the source code for the first taxobox conversion script? I don't know if its possible, but I'd like to check with it, if we have completed already the first part of the conversion or not on the Hungarian Wikipedia. If you still have the code could you make a test run to check this.

Also, could you please explain your authority.py, what does it do, and would it be useful on huwiki.

And lastly could you send me a latest version of your taxobox.py script to bdamokos@gmail.com, as the one I downloaded from Your userpage gives me a UnicodeDecode error which I hope is caused by me saving the file in the wrong encoding.

Thank you for your help.--Dami 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Leyte Gulf FAR

Battle of Leyte Gulf has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 01:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a automated to all bot operators

Please take a few moments and fill in the data for your bot on Wikipedia:Bots/Status Thank you Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which plant is bushy seedbox?

I see that in 2005 you made a redirect from Bushy seedbox to Ludwigia helminthorrhiza, whereas most sources I could find say it is Ludwigia alternifolia (rather different plants in terms of geographic distribution and habitat). Did you have a source or were you just relying on information elsewhere in wikipedia? I elaborate slightly at Talk:Bushy_seedbox (which would be one place to reply). Kingdon 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated message to bot owners

As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:

Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.

Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Bicycle_racing.jpg

An image that you uploaded from stock.xchng or altered, Image:Bicycle_racing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC_images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OrphanBot 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you got a vector version?

You uploaded this excellent image: Image:How_e-mail_works.png

By the looks of it, you used a vector program to create it. If you still have the vector version, could you (convert it to SVG if necessary and) upload it? Thanks! Shinobu 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's drawn in OmniGraffle, which has no SVG export. It does have PDF vector export, so if you want to do your own SVG conversion then you can try it with Image:How_e-mail_works.pdf. Gdr 14:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lord Valentine's Castle.png

Hello, Gdr. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Lord Valentine's Castle.png) was found at the following location: User:Gdr/3rd-party images. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lublin-Brest Offensive

Could you make an image specifically for that offensive? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added further maps in elink section of that article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Eskimo (F75).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Eskimo (F75).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Hadleigh Castle (K355).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Hadleigh Castle (K355).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Llandaff (F61).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Llandaff (F61).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Mohawk (F31).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Mohawk (F31).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Cornwall (56).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Cornwall (56).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bron, Bronn (onomastics)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bron, Bronn (onomastics), by Sgeureka (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bron, Bronn (onomastics) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Houskeeping - cleanup per WP:SU. All relevant info got moved to their own pages (Bron (disambiguation), Bronn, Bronner).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bron, Bronn (onomastics), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelea

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pelea, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pelea fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

incorrect redirect as their are many other plants within that genus. --Melly42 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pelea, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Pelea itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Azalea (K25).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Azalea (K25).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Clarkia (K88).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Clarkia (K88).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Mallow (K81).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Mallow (K81).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HMS M2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:HMS M2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Matchless (G52).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Matchless (G52).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HMS Nelson (1925).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:HMS Nelson (1925).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HMS Thistle (N24).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:HMS Thistle (N24).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:HMS Benbow.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:HMS Benbow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:HMS Matchless (G52).jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[5][6]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. J Milburn 20:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:HMS Cygnet (U38).jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[7][8]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. J Milburn 11:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for merging

Hi Gdr, I just wanted to say thanks for your work merging all of the articles into the Cook–Levin theorem page. It looks great, and now hopefully people can concentrate all of their work in one place. Cheers! --Culix 15:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History edit of article Mountaineering

Apparently at 11:57 12 August 2004 you added that "Therefore, April 26th, 1336 is regarded as the "birthday of alpinism", and Petrarch (Petrarca alpinista) as the "father of alpinism." Can you tell me your reference source for this? I'll check back here on your Talk page as I have a temporary Watch on it for your answer - thanks.--Doug ^talk 23:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, after three years I can no longer remember the source. So it would probably be a good idea to remove the claim. Gdr 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy of machines

I'm very far from any sources at this point, inthe puckerbrush of colorado. Van Emde Boas is the name that comes to mind. His is a very large article... I just organized the "taxonomy" but I can't point to any "source" in particular. I wrote it as an outcome of all the articles on register machine and counter machine etc. that are sourced both inline and referenced. If the article of "taxonomy" is "too original", c'est la vie. wvbaileyWvbailey 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HMS Avenger (F185) with RFA Fort Austin (A386).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:HMS Avenger (F185) with RFA Fort Austin (A386).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Copyrighted-navyphotos

Template:Copyrighted-navyphotos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of great ships of the Royal Navy

A template you created, Template:List of great ships of the Royal Navy, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]