User:Chris 73/Archive 006

Chris 73

Chris 73|Talk Talk archive: 1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10| 11|12

My Articles

commons:My Images commons:My Gallery commons:Free Images commons:FreeGallery Other Images

Boilerplate texts Work in progress | 2 Closet | Userbox

DE Commons JA Meta Test

If you find this page on any other site than Wikipedia, then you are viewing this from a outdated mirror. Please direct yourself to the real thing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chris_73 or one of the subpages there.

This is an archive of my Talk page. Do not edit this page! Please leave new messages on my Talk page.

(Old archives: 001 — 002 — 003 — 004 — 005 — 006 — 007 — 008 — 009 — 010 — 011 — 012)

Hi, this page, "Actually" is my attempt to add a footnote or end note to my contribution to someone else's article. Ok, I see now the style you are presenting is unsigned contributions and those won't be likely noticed for deletion I guess either. My footnote in this page attributes the information about the precise location of Trier to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. If this page had no such information, that is strange. Or someone else erased it. Also, if this page is floating in space, that is because the refering insertion into someone else's article was itself deleted, but not by me (maybe it was deleted by an over-zealous (because over-paid and proud) computer science hacker who couldn't nevertheless pass the math it takes to get a B.A. in the subject). Ok, not to get off the point, I will sign this now: --T. Mc. 03:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I am not just making nonsense or disruptive contributions! I don't see how University at Buffalo meets the requirement of no promotional pages. It is presented as a promo page would be. Actually, I don't mind that contribution is deleted, but simultaneously all my contributions are deleted or marked for swift deletion.

Why are not new users allowed to contribute to extant articles useful information such as the fact that Trier had a Roman governor long after 476?" It seems that in the context of who ruled Trier in the history section, i.e. Gauls, Romans, Attila, Franks, Lorraine, there would merit some detailed discussion of what the real historical importance of Trier was. One, that it was a Roman Regional Capital. Two, that, perhaps as such, it survived the fall of Rome given in our childhood history books for perhaps twenty-five years or more as an example of an on-going continuing Roman Empire Civilization. (See also wikipedia, "Soissons" and "Aegidius" and "Syagrius." It is interesting that the article before my now removed edit (and during and after) contained a photograph of the throne room of the Emperor Constantine, thus illustrating the importance of this provincial seat. And so, my contribution was not so wild and out of place as you angrily suggested on my talk page! Even if EVENTUALLY deleted, I don't think in the context of how wikipedia publicly presents itself, it merits the negative comments you placed upon it.

As far as not meeting your standards, this is kind of ridiculous! How can you have a wikipedia that advertizes itself for Newbies AND allows them to directly contribute AND expect them ever to read it again after being deleted. I am assuming hundreds of thousands of people are reading Wikipedia by now and not a few of them trying unsuccessfully to contribute after you edit them!--T. Mc. 03:04, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if sb would translate german article on Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand into English wiki article, and there is more german relevant material on the article talk page. Same goes for Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain. Is there a place on Wiki to ask for translations? I couldn't find it yet... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much tnx for the translations :) If you need anything from Polish, let me know. If you feel like looking into one more bio, there is also Talk:Maria_Anna_of_Austria. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. BTW, did the bit about the Cardinal-Infant being so-called because he was a child when he was made cardinal come from the German? Because that's just outrageously wrong. john k 03:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Infante means "Child," but if you're talking about "the Infante" or "the Infanta", that means a prince or princess. The usage is similar to France, where a son of the king wasn't called a prince of France, but a "fils de France" (son of France), and a grandson of the king a "grand-fils de France." Is this term not used in German? john k 03:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I was just wondering of the use of the term "Infant" and "Infanta" for Spanish princes and princesses generally. It's pretty usual in English, while, for instance, "Fils de France" is not normally used. One would never talk about how Charles I of England married "the Fille," (Henrietta Maria, Henry IV's daughter) while one does talk about how he courted "the Infanta" (Philip III's daughter Margarita, I believe, who ultimately married Ferdinand III). john k 04:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Sorry for the short notice, but just to let you know that your photo Image:Edo period Wakizashi.jpg is up for Pic of the Day tomorrow. You can check and improve the caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/February 24, 2005. A little more detail on the decorative lacquer work might be a good idea, and are those pearls on the hilt? -- Solipsist 08:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi chris, sorry for spamming your page like this (if you consider this one, I mean) I started a nice discussion on meta:Music Markup to bring music to our wiki, and it seems that everyone loved the Idea. But we're just humble users here and I would love if some nifty important admins like you could hop there to give some advice to why this could or could not be implemented. thanks. --Alexandre Van de Sande 21:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chris, you have very mistakenly speedy deleted a page of my own making, with my own copyright. If you want to be an administrator, then do your job thorougly!! (User:62.166.44.171)

Which page? If you mean Crossmedia, we at wikipedia assume a copyvio if the text is copied from another webpage, unless there is evidence otherwise. That's why it is listed on the Copyvio page. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:25, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I am formally requesting the deletion of two accounts I created on Wikipedia: User:Paradigmbuff and User:Puffydoogle. I don't have anything more to contribute to Wikipedia. Paradigmbuff 04:16, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Can't do that. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:46, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Chris, I'm Heimdal. I apologise for breaking the 3RR rule, and I'll respect your decision to block me. Actually though, it wasn't me, but Jiang who started the "edit war" in the first place, by reverting all the work I've done on the UK page since last week. He did the same on the Germany page, then asked AllyUnion to protect his version. But it cannot be (can it?) that it's up to Jiang to decide how long an article should be, how many words a section should have, how many subsections should be allowed, how many images the article should have, and how large or small the images should be. I do not even intend to talk with Jiang anymore, since I've got the impression that he only wants to force through his own view. - 129.143.4.65 14:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Again, this block is only a cool-off-period. About the conflict: You could add a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to see what other users think. If you get support, you may convince Jiang that your version is better. Same the other way round, if he gets more support, maybe you should rethink your position. Another option is to take a break from editing this page, and come back after a week or so. I find that most of my disputes look rather silly a week later. Anyway, good luck and happy editing -- Chris 73 Talk 08:08, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

A few weeks ago, I apparently inadvertently 'edited' Roo72's user page by entering a discussion comment there by mistake (for which I have since apologized, and corrected it). It occurs to me that Wiki user pages ought to be set up so that only the user could edit his own page. Just a suggestion.

My hat is off to you for the naming conventions vote program. Danke vielmals.

Sca 19:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Why should it be discussed on VfD talk before it is listed ... your friends in the VfD process don't talk on the pages they propose for deletion. The VfD process should be applied to VfD, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. dml 02:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just read the mess with user:172 on 3rr. Unfortunately it seems that while he was unblocked he relocked the global warming page under very suspiceous circumstances. I posted a note on 172's talk, but if he's really blocked then he cannot reply. Anyway, could you take a look at the page in question and my note on his talk and give us some help or advice here. There is definelyely something odd going on. Thanks, Vsmith 04:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...in terms of not counting votes, I'm not sure what the protocol is on this. I would say that probably Danzig wins 1466-1793 with or without new users, but it's incredibly close if we count all votes, and not terribly consensusy even if we don't. So that's the other question - how to deal with that issue. I would be satisfied with using Danzig in the main article, and using Gdansk or Danzig as appropriate in other articles (use Gdansk in History of Poland articles, for instance), but I'm not sure such a result is supported by consensus. What do you think? john k 04:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been having a problem with my IP, and delays, occasionally causing duplicate sections. I appreciate both the headsup and your support. Vaoverland 07:42, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Has a Vfd , please vote to keep or move to wikisource. There should be a brief description about it and it 's significance. Best regards,--Jondel 05:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added my 2c -- Chris 73 Talk 03:00, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanks! Thanks! Can I leave other requests with you? Or should I go through channels? 24.126.41.116 08:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) aka User:Italo Svevo

Please unprotect the United Kingdom page. I won't edit there anymore. -Heimdal 14:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for saying "sloppy". I've done enough stuff on Wikipedia to realise that we don't always get it right in the first cut.

I do have a problem with people expecting to be exempt from WP:3RR if they go edit warring over the spelling of a city name. I have expressed my concerns but, for obvious reasons, will now withdraw and watch quietly. If I think my concerns were valid in, say, a month's time, odds are that you will too. Most likely everybody will be happy enough and we'll all just forget there was ever a concern. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Chris - I am a bit worried that the vote on 1466-1793 won't be considered legitimate, given that the total vote (including dubious votes) was 48-47 for Gdansk. Is there anywhere we could seek an advisory opinion on this? john k 05:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On what basis was my vote not counted? What does "any user of Wikipedia in good standing may vote" mean? How do you distinguish those? I would like to see some Wikipedia rule about it. --Akumiszcza 12:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "There is no fixed rule, but users with a low edit counts are usually not included in votes. If you would be at wikipedia more often, you would know about this (and your vote would have been counted). Similar applies to other votes. Anonyous users definitely cannot vote, too. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:13, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)"
  • If there's no fixed rule, the voting is simply senseless. You can choose whatever reason for including a user or not in your votes, making the result you choose. This is not fair at all. In my opinion every user who can edit pages, can also vote. That's what democracy is about. People can vote no matter what education they received or what do they know about politics. So why here should be otherwise? Besides, what is important, basing the "good standing" of a wikipedia editor by the number of edits is just STUPID. User A makes many simple corrections (changing commas into semicolons for instance) or even destroys many articles. User B produced several big pages on important topics. User A can vote, B cannot. Stupid enough? --Akumiszcza 12:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • One more thing: "If you would be at wikipedia more often, you would know about this". I've been at wikipedia more often than you think. Ever heard about wikipedias in other languages? --Akumiszcza 13:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...too late, have been away — but the outcome was reasonably good anyway! ;-)
Ruhrjung 23:59, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, waaaay back in June I created a series of flawed posts to test how quickly the wiki community responds. After I finished my research, life got in the way and I didn't return to my account until today, where I saw your comment on my talk page:

Are you associated with any newspaper or other publishing entity? According to your statement on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, you created a number of pages only to test the responsiveness of Wikipedia. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion&diff=3995900&oldid=3995888). I can accept this for valid research, but please don't do it just to satisfy your curiosity. Are we getting a report now how many pages were created, how long they stayed untouched, and when the faulty information was removed? -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:25, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Atlastawake"

For one, yes, it was for research for an article (I write for a small blog). Here's the link to the finished post: http://lawlegislationandlunacy.blogspot.com/2004/06/market-of-knowledge.html

The one that was voted for deletion was the only one that was not corrected--all other ones were changed within an hour of their posting (here's to the wisdom of the crowds). For more information, check out my article. (I also kept more careful records on my computer that contain the exact content of each article, if you're interested.)

I apologize for the delay...this explanation is long overdue.

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to find someone on Wikipedia who doesn't take a disagreement personally. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my appointment as an administrator. I appreciate the pat on the back this represents. It felt nice to read the comments during the voting. Please let me know if you see something I should be doing as admin, as I intend to be fairly passive unless it is clear I should do otherwise. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Great job handling the onslaught of articles relating to Church of God International, in particular the redirects. Here's a flower. BanyanTree 05:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I'm honored that you would have taken an interest in my work; thanks for your kind words. I would love to have a few extra tools to keep Wikipedia in top shape. Thank you for your offer; I gratefully accept. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating me. I appreciate you offering me this chance. Hope I can keep your success rate at 100%! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's great to see that so many people think well of me. By the way, I don't know if it is intentional, but the first sentence of your user page has two 17's: "I discovered Wikipedia on 17 October 17th 2003, 11:26". Maybe you wanted to compromise between the different date styles, I don't know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

yes, it can be deleted ... I'll put it up for deletion myself. Thanks for running across it; I'd forgotten I'd made it. Courtland 16:54, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

Greetings. I have listed Image:IndiaBowlingCricket.jpg on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion because it has no source or licensing information, and it's not listed in any articles. If you would like this image to be kept, please add source and licensing information, and include it in an article. If you need any help with this, just ask me. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 18:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Refdoc 10:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I have recently pointed out some copyright problems on User talk:Rsabbatini to this user. Unfortunately, he appears to have taken it quite personal, and thus I'm hesitant to point out his newest mistake to him. I don't want to drive him away—he's doing good work. But his labelling lots of things (both texts and images) from Brazil as PD disturbs me, for I can't find any verification for his claims. He labelled his latest image upload, Image:Cesar_Lattes.jpeg, as "public domain State University of Campinas", but according to the external web source at [1], it is copyrighted: © notice at the bottom, text to the left of the image says that the text following was taken from a 1987 issue of the Jornal da Unicamp, which makes me believe that the image also was scanned from that issue. The image is clearly {{fairuse}} (and should be slightly cropped to get rid of the blue stripes at the top and bottom), and in César Lattes, it should be framed and have a caption "César Lattes in 1987", but if I did this now, I think User:Rsabbatini will take offense. Could you do it, and maybe have a word with him on his "Brazilian government stuff is PD"? Lupo 12:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Lupo 07:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hiya Chris. I thought you might be interested in this site. An excerpt:

When you can't find copyright holders, copyright becomes a quagmire. Let's fix it. . . The Copyright Office has specifically asked for comments from people who have run up against the problem of trying to clear a potentially copyrighted work -- either for use in a new creative effort or simply to make the work available to the public once again. If you have a story like this, it's essential you make your voice heard.

Your comments are needed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi ya! No I didn't forget to log in, I was already logged in. Ocasionally when I create or edit pages as User:TomStar81 I will have a seperate, unlogged page to check information on. Why do you ask? TomStar81 03:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ironically, I just asked Rossami about that. If you want to start the process, be my guest. There wouldn't be enough words in the English vocabulary to express my gratitude for it ^_^ TomStar81 03:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm "old enough to be technically copetent and young enough to need adult supervision", so its nice when people help and/or volenteer to correct my mistakes. I apreciate your help. Thanks again. TomStar81 03:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly resent being up for 3RR's. I weas fixing malicious and deliberate vandalism from multiple user Cumbey, who had been using the site to provide evidences that Solana is ther Beast. She had also deliberately put in false information, accidentally put in false information, and put things in the wrong place. I tied the article up to look like a political article and not a series of evidences that Solana is the Devil, and she reverted all my work and removed the neutrality notice. I am already beginning the process of her taking her to arbitration to get her banned from the article. She had also removed a lot of valuable info without reference to the talk page, and vandalised my own user page yesterday. If you look at the evidence you will see this is not an edit wa, it is one user gone on the rampage, and the other cleaning up her vandalism. If I get blocked wiki asserts she has the right to put her POV thesis slagging off Solana and the EU, and including gross inaccuracies, in wikipedia. In which the spooks have already taken over. I am very angry at this accusation.--SqueakBox 16:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) It would be nice to have an explanation as to why you want me blocked for reverting vandalism? especially when you do not know the case.--SqueakBox 16:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) I am willing to apologize for what I did, if that wil,help. if I did wrong okay, i did not think I was. it was 4.45 in the morning, something here woke me, and I wanted to go back to bed. I have been told by another user I should have got help. Okay, but please don't support a ban? I am very stressed out with this. Best wishes,--SqueakBox 17:11, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Having taken advixce I can see I was wrong to revert more than 3 times, so i will accept a temporary block gracefully. --SqueakBox 20:31, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cumbey has now engaged in an identical edit war at [2]. Any help would be much appreciated. --SqueakBox 17:17, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cumbey has gone and vandalised a GFU agreement wikielite forced her to tag onto the article as it came from wikipedia. No-one there at the moment, but they will not be happy! She is being stupid on all the levels, i.e. both childish and she gets caught out. People think on the computer isn't real life, but it is. Wrote something about it at Talk:Javier Solana/Solana vandalism and POV#Is Cumbey using sockpuppets. --SqueakBox 01:22, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cumbey has made another personal attack against me at Talk:Javier Solana--SqueakBox 04:30, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Chris 73. Thank you for cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page. Much appreciated. Take care. -- PFHLai 07:49, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

The anon that vandalized Adolf Hitler this morning. If you look at the history of his talk page, it says that I created it at 13:03 UTC, and that you subsequently placed test5 on it at 13:02 UTC (so, before me according to the server time, but after me according to the history and diffs). How can this be? Whatever, he's gone now. But I'm just puzzled. — mark ✎ 12:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris! No worries about your "slip of the finger" block. Errare humanum est. I'm glad you got the vandal—eventually... :-) --Plek 13:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the external link to nutritiondata.com acceptable but kallipolis.com/diet not?

Nope, just a user. It's a free service supported by adds like nutritiondata.com I just think its nice to see the data in the form that we are used to seing it here in the States. I suppose I "could" copy and paste into Wiki but I worry about copyright rules.

--140.192.110.110 04:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words. I'm sure I'll be around, but you probably won't see me... I'll most likely edit anonymously (and infrequently!) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris 73, for nominating me for adminship and for having faith in me. I was surprised by the turnout and I will work to see that the community's faith in me is not misplaced. Now I have a bit of reading to do to ensure that I properly understand these new powers of mine. Again, thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. The recent wrangling about Guanano and adminship got me thinking - I think I would qualify as an admin and make a good admin. I am professionally a editor for a stockbroker so I think my skills cross over to WP. What do you think? --JuntungWu 14:06, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Chris, you may be interested in my recent comment on the the dear old Gdansk discussion page.

Sca 19:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris, just a note to say thank you for voting for me in my adminship nomination! I very much appreciate your support. Best, SlimVirgin 03:39, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris 73,

You recently created a page about saibashi (Japanese cooking chopsticks) and another about makiyakinabe (Japanese square omelet pans). I've been reading a book called The Japanese Kitchen, by Hiroko Shimbo. She calls these tools ryoribashi and tamagoyaki-ki, respectively. Which is correct?

In the interest of full disclosure: I don't know a word of Japanese, I'm just copying letters out of the book. :-)

DanielVonEhren 05:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The two kinds of chopsticks are similar. I don't know how to tell them apart. I am Chinese. We use long metal/bamboo chopsticks for deep frying. For the record, I don't speak Japanese either.

Ach! It's happened to me again: I go to a sushi bar and say itadakimasu, and the nice lady in the kimono gives me a blank look and then says "Sorry, I'm from Hong Kong".  :-) DanielVonEhren 18:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may want to see this Japanese catalog: http://www.bannai-k.com/katarogu/cookware/cook-etc/cooketc04.html

• agibashi 揚げ箸

揚げ箸 (deep fry; あげ; agi) 箸

Catalog: P-5; 345 mm; wooden handle + stainless steel tip; ￥480

Catalog: P-6; 350 mm; rosewood handle + stainless steel tip; ￥880

• saibashi (菜箸)

菜 (dish; さい; sai) 箸 (chopstick; はし->ばし; hashi->bashi)

A pair of long chopsticks (used in cooking, or in serving food at the table)

Catalog: P-7; 330 mm; rosewood handle + stainless steel tip; ￥930

• ryoribashi (料理箸)

料理 (cooking; りょう‐り; ryory) 箸

Catalog: P-8; 340 mm; resin handle + stainless steel tip; ￥450 <- Possibly not heat resistant.

I really cannot tell them apart. If I were a cook, I'll buy the P-5 chopsticks and use it for my deep fry jobs. -- Toytoy 16:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Here's another catalog: http://www2.edu.ipa.go.jp/gz/c1part/c1kigu/c1jhou/IPA-par370.htm

• makiyakinabe (巻き焼き鍋) The 5th item from top.

巻き ([egg] roll; まき; maki) 焼き (cooking; やき; yaki) 鍋 (pan or pot; なべ; nabe)

http://kitchen.b-smile.jp/consumer/goods/00006.html

• tamagoyaki-ki (玉子焼き器)

玉子焼き (omelette; たまご-やき; tamago-yaki) 器 (container or tool; き; ki)

卵焼き器 (玉子 = 卵 = tamago)

玉子焼鍋 (tamagoyaki-nabe; also usable)

Makiyakinabe and tamagoyaki-ki are the same. They are usually made of pure copper (not brass) because copper is a good heat conductor, moreover, a trace amount of copper forms a golden colored compound with protein. Not very good for your health, but it looks nice. French chefs also used copper bowls as their egg beaters. -- Toytoy 16:57, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

This looks like great information. Che fox has been helping me also. Thanks.

DanielVonEhren 18:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The makiyakinabe article may need to mention its wooden lid. -- Toytoy 18:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

---

Just wondering, is there some sort of page that lists all the current naming convention issues, that I might not know about? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aparently User-Name is not familar with the proscess of moving pages, and in my abscence has redirect the Magellan class battleship and the Salamis class cruiser (Gundam) pages to new pages by doing the old copy/paste. Is their any way to redo the pages and officially move them so that they reflect the full history? TomStar81 08:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks a bunch. Now all the people who worked on the articles can recieve credit for them. I apreciate it. TomStar81 21:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hope you can come vote on this selection: [User:Fir0002/FPCandidates#Blackberries] Thanks--Fir0002 06:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your article Suikinkutsu has been translated to Japanese, and is linked from the main page. I had nothing to do with it, but thought you'd like to know. Fg2 05:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm currently working at unifying and improving the image and license descriptions on images at the Wikimedia Commons. Doing that I stumbled at commons:Image:Convento_do_Carmo_ruins_in_Lisbon.jpg (in fact a poor resolution version with a slightly other name at commons:Image:450px-Convento_do_Carmo_ruins_in_Lisbon.jpg so I searched for this image in en-Wikipedia and reupladed the right version, which I found at Image:Convento_do_Carmo_ruins_in_Lisbon.jpg). As I saw the uploader was "Chris Adams" that only has two single edits. As I saw you picture gallery linked and you are also named Chris I suppose you are the same persons as User "Chris Adams" right? But now I saw in your picture gallery that you claim no own copyright on that image but that all these images are indeed free. So now I'm a little bit confused who the real author if this image is... So I would be happy if you can enter the right author at commons:Image:Convento_do_Carmo_ruins_in_Lisbon.jpg. Thanks in advance. Arnomane 21:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, it me again. I uploaded "Image:Missouri panama canal.JPG" and thought I corrected a typo by changing Panamna to Panama Canal, but it turns out that I deleted the "m" and not the "n", so I reloaded with the correct link in the picture, ...and now the machine says I can't delete the previous load with the typo, I need a sysop to do it. Can you help? TomStar81 03:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Just to let you know that I've removed your photo Image:Barlach Magdeburger Ehrenmal.jpg from FeatruedPictures, because of its change in license. I guess I should have done this a while back, but it seems a bit of a shame. -- Solipsist 12:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Chris 73

Here's an invitation to visit WP:JCOTW, Japan-related collaboration of the week. Your vote, nomination and comments are welcome. Hope to see you there! --Aphaea* 04:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I did it... ^^

Chinese character 或 huò, « or », write in order, from black to red.

Yug 10:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Hope you can cast an eye over my latest gaggle of photos! Thanks --Fir0002 01:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I've uploaded a more detailed tarogato picture to commons. The current jpg on en: (as was created by me also) can be renamed/deleted which will enable the commons jpg to take over. I don't know the RFD procedures on en: so... Arent 09:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You have answer at my talk page -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 22:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Chris: Thanks for the response. Problem is I retireved the image several months ago and don't remember how I came across it. It came from a site in Spanish [3]. It's my guess that it is public domain, but that's just a guess. thx. Nobs 15:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If you have fun in translating of Polish city names into German, please join the | Wiktionary Project]--Witkacy 19:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop to provoking editwars. (i hate German crypto-nationalism...)--Witkacy 20:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, why did you revert my changes to the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice you like so much? Also, what are the actual Germanic languages names of cities in Poland? And which Germanic language is it? English? German? Danish? Or perhaps Icelandic? Halibutt 01:15, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I must say I find your insistence on including the German name for Szczecin in the article Lacznosciowiec Szczecin difficult to understand. This article does not fall into any of the categories addressed in Talk:Gdansk/Vote (and of course it has nothing to do with Gdansk).

Again, are you serious here, or is this all just about having a bit of fun playing revert wars with some emotional Poles? (Also, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard where I put a few sentences about your activities.) Balcer 06:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not upset by the word German. Rather, I am upset by a certain, shall we say, lack of common sense in what you are doing. Articles somehow significantly connected to histories of formerly German and now Polish cities should mention the German name prominently, that's clear. But putting in the German name for any and all articles mentioning Szczecin or other Polish cities, even for obscure articles obviously only of interest to people intimately familiar with the cities anyway strikes me as, well, just weird.

Let's keep in mind the most important thing. Talk:Gdansk/Vote established certain rules to be followed in case of disputes. It was not a decree that all articles about a given city must mention the double name, and users should assiduously work to enforce this even for obscure stubs. The decision here was left to the common sense of the users. It was not a license to abandon common sense. Balcer 07:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, where is the rule that the new registered users are not allowed to vote? AFAIK there is no such rule and excluding 12 votes from that voting seems like an attemt to falsify the results. Also, if there were complains about it, then the issue is quite serious. Finally, you also reverted my typo corrections... Halibutt 09:12, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote on Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, while I support creating a rule for such exclusion of new users, until we have a clear policy for this, lack of it leaves much possiblity for cheating, thus I have to support Halibutt on this. I would be happy to help creating such a policy ASAP, and if the rule confirms current Vote:Gdansk results, so be it - but without such rule I have to support Halibutt, I am afraid. On another note, plese don't revert spelling changes - I know rollback is nifty, but sometimes it is too powerful for the article's good. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I invite you to comment on the proposal discussed in Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Where to place this template.Balcer 18:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You have reverted List of basilicas three time in the last 24 hours. Any more reverts today will be in violation of the three revert rule, which may result in your being blocked from editing to cool down. Gentgeen 23:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it would be both pleasant and good if you could help me translate a little german text on article Apollonia (city) into english. Thank you in advance! --Albanau 18:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the welcome back! While your about it, check out my Windows 2000 article. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

So you are claiming that the Nazi occupation of Rumia was a "reannexion to Germany after 19 years of Polish rule"? What about the rest of Poland? Yes, Chris and Hitlers September Campaign was not an invasion but "reunification of Germany". --Witkacy 08:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see your anon helpers..--Witkacy 08:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Rahmel had been German for centuries until 1919. It was not occupied as it was not part of the General Government of Poland, but rather reincorporated into Germany (more specifically, the province of Danzig-West Prussia), as the website of the German parliament confirm [4]. Is the German parliament wrong?

This page is about Erika Steinbach. It mentions Rumia (Rahmel) only as a place of her birth. And yes, German parliament can be wrong. What's so strange about it? BTW, I don't want to take part in the discussion about Rumia (although I live there...), just want to point out the weakness of your sources, Chris. And maybe I'll make you answer my arguments about Gdańsk somehow...--Akumiszcza 07:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

He is constantly reverting and vandalizing pages (including altering other people's messages in talk pages). The vandal is also frequently "reporting" his enemies at the admin's noticeboard, deliberately trying to mislead other contributors. Who is this guy? His behaviour is very disruptive. Something should be done. 83.109.191.90 04:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy simply added the usual User: signature at the end of the anon's messages, plus he corrected a grammar mistake. To me that appears to be a service, not vandalism. These constant accusations of vandalism by this particular anon are getting tiresome. Balcer 04:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

To the anon: While i often disagree with Witkacy's edits, I also think your edits are not particular neutral either. We should be able to find a common middle ground. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago I asked you some rather serious questions here. I would be really happy to hear your answer. Halibutt 00:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I am rather busy currently, and do not have as much time for Wikipedia as i would like to. It seems most of the questions have already been answered, and the majority of them seem to have resulted from a misunderstanding on your side. If there are any questions still unanswered, could you give me a brief summary of these questions? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 11:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

The brief summary of still unanswered questions is there. Halibutt 11:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

The only question i found that was adressed to me was about the vote count. This was also answered by john. In some cases, it seems you were thrown off by a typo. I tried to count the votes as good as I could, trying to be as neutral as possible. If i should have miscounted one vote, sorry about that. However, this won't make any difference to the outcome of the vote. For details, please read Johns answer. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:55, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings! FYI, I've listed the two bassoon pictures you uploaded from foreign-language wikipedias, Image:FagotBlack.jpg and Image:Fagot.jpg on IfD, as they have no source, and they've been replaced by better-quality GFDL images. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Before you continue your revert war spree at various Szczecin-related articles, please be so kind as to provide evidence on the respective talk pages, that for instance the neighbourhood of Szczecin-Klucz is called Stettin in : High German, Standard German (Hochdeutsch), Luxembourgish, Alemannic German, Austro-Bavarian German, Yiddish, Low German, Dutch, Afrikaans, English, Scottish English, American English, Jamaican English, Indian English, Scots, New Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese, Danish, Standard Norwegian and Swedish (to name just a few).

Otherwise please stop the vandalism. Halibutt 10:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing new, a large part of your recent contributions (?) are AAMoF reverts. Which doesn't answer any of my questions. I asked you for sources, in accordance with Wikipedia:Cite sources guideline. Unless you are able to prove that all Germanic languages use the names as such, your introductions to those articles are simply factually inaccurate. Yet, you are trying to enforce them at all cost through the privileges of an admin.

Also, the voting on Gdansk was about Gdańsk while Szczecin is a completely different city. Also, you failed to respond to the questions various people asked you at the respective talk page. It has been over two weeks now since Balcer asked you for your reply, not to mention my questions to you specifically. Some of them were adressed by JohnK, but still you did not reply. To me it seems that you were interested in that page as long as the revert war was raging on and when the discussion started you simply withdrew.

To reply to your comments on the talk page: you too should follow the same rules. Also, in addition to my request of sources, please be so kind as to point me to a place where a community consensus is to provide Germanic language names for places. Halibutt 13:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your attention to this. “On Friendship” and “Laelius de Amicitia” both by 82.55.215.43 are fairly new entries and are really the same article (except for my wikifications and some edits to the first), and they probably should be merged with a redirect. I don’t know how to do either, or even if a non-administrator can make such changes. I saw that you were an administrator and had made some edits to the Cicero article, so I thought I’d call this to your attention since these are articles about one of Cicero’s dialogues. Thanks again. --Tregonsee 17:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Should have linked the articles I was talking about. --Tregonsee 17:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, and for checking them out for copyright. The webpage these articles were copied from says it's available for non-commericial uses, but you were prudent to mark the articles as copyright violations for deletion. Too bad. I'd thought they were works in progress rather than word-for-word copies of an intro to an online copy/translation of Cicero's work itself. My reading of Cicero's writing is limited at this point so I'm probably not the one to write an article on this work from scratch. Also thanks for the editing tip. I enjoy what little time I have to spend on Wikipedia so we might encounter each other again. Nice meeting you and thanks.--Tregonsee 20:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since you are staying away from Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, I will write to you here. These revert wars are clearly getting out of hand, and the Gdansk vote, instead of helping to calm things down, is in fact making them worse.

In the light of this, what do you think about my proposal to amend the template of the Gdansk vote result to state (my addition is in bold):

The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, in articles relevant to this shared history the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin).

And now, in the light of what is currently going on, I would also add.

Users are advised to use common sense when applying the results of this vote. The use of the literal interpretation of the vote to disrupt Wikipedia and start revert wars is strongly discouraged.

To me, limiting the range of application for this vote to only "articles relevant to this shared history" is something perfectly reasonable, and, in my opinion, in accordance with the spirit in which that vote was taken.

Now, just to remind you, your only reaction to my proposal before was an argument that the German name for Stettin is still commonly used, which you backed up with a number given by Google search for terms Stettin Poland not-Szczecin. I then countered with the Google numbers for Szczecin Poland not-Stettin which give about 17 times more results. In my mind, that is evidence that Stettin is no longer commonly used, certainly not commonly enough to warrant including Stettin any time Szczecin is mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. After all, as detailed before, the numbers can be taken to mean that, very roughly, only 5% of the English-speaking users of the Internet that write about Szczecin/Stettin use the German name exclusively. Unfortunately, after this point you dropped out of the discussion. Balcer 21:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at User talk:John Kenney#Vote clarification proposal for my comments.

As for double naming the suburbs of Szczecin, I would have no problem if, for example, some user took the trouble to find out what the German names of these suburbs were and added them to the article (presumably in the history section since the German names of particular suburbs are certainly no longer in wide English use). That would actually be a useful contribution. However, fighting a revert war to insert the German name Stettin into 40 articles about the suburbs of Szczecin, all of them one sentence stubs, does not seem to be a common sense thing to do, especially for an admin. Balcer 18:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

It seems someone has "repolonized" the Gdansk history section again. This is absurd and disheartening.

Sca 22:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We need to fix the policy, or this reverts will never end. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like your comments on my rough proposal in Naming conventions/Vote on city naming#Proposal for further clarification. Balcer 00:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chris —

I noticed your image Image:BalaclavaAndGun.jpg was tagged GFDL. Looking at the site it came from, though, I don't see that the copyright holder has explicitly released this under GFDL, which they would have to do for it to be tagged as such. I think that {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} is the tag you were looking for.

Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk 19:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a heads-up to let you know that Tony Sidaway has taken it upon himself to alter the Gdansk vote page:

I have altered the vote conclusion and general notice to conform to a more realistic intepretation of the vote, bnut I won't get involved in it beyond that. It just isn't worth the time. However I hope we all will strongly oppose any further attempt to alter the 3RR on the basis of that flawed vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) - from [5]

I'm beginning a little project to improve the copyright status of Wikipedia. I'm not trying to gather any assistance, but since my work will ultimately end up deleting or changing some of your uploads, I wanted to discuss it with you to avoid any hurt feelings. As part of my project I will be relabeling stock xchng images from PD to a new pd-stockxchng template that will seperate the stock xchng images which have a somewhat questionable copyright status from ones that a more clearly PD. I've contacted about a dozen stock xchng users about our use of their pictures, ... Some were happy, some offered to sell us more pictures, but quite a few were upset that their work was being labled public domain, and a few haved claimed their images were available under licenses like CC-BY-SA-NC. Because of this copyright uglyness I will also be replacing some of these images with new ones with clear copyrights when it is possible me to produce a higher quality image, or with poor or placeholder images when it's very clear we are in the wrong (for example, a number of the stockxchng images uploaded have since been removed from stockxchng for being copyvios). --Gmaxwell 19:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you stop provoking edit-wars? Could you stop it? Thanks--Witkacy 17:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Balcer proposed a compromise solution on the boroughs of Szczecin. What do you say? Halibutt 18:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[6]

Hi. Sorry, but I rolled back your edits on Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, after Jayjg rolled back Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The vote was already the outcome of a dispute resolution process, and there was an explicit support of an enforcement of the outcome of the vote. I also think this is necessary, because a vote has no effect whatsoever if it is not enforced, and some people just ignore community consensus. Let me know if you want to discuss that inmore detail. Sorry again. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with Tony on this one. I voted against the original "enforcement" provision, having just such anxieties. While I hardly want to encourage User:Halibutt's disruptive activity, it could certainly be argued that he does have a point. Under what interpretation did this vote achieve "rough consensus"? Was Chris_73 and appropriate person to "call" the vote, given his status as an, in not the active proponent of such measures? And should policy debates for an open-ended number of articles be taking place on the talk pages of single articles, anyway? Alai 17:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What Alai said. Changes to wikipedia-wide policy should be discussed wikipedia-wide. Also, there wasn't consensus for the exception from the 3RR, just a majority. --W(t) 17:33, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

I'll just add for myself that I cannot understand how any 61% (or 64%) vote on about 80 votes can be held to signal consensus of any kind, let alone be used to set aside the massive consensus, well over 80% on nearly 200 votes, for 3RR enforcement. Moreover this vote has clearly been counterproductive because it is being misused to justify edit warring. See my comments on recent events in Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule and WP:AN/3RR.

I'm willing to work around this. The activities that most concern me are cases that amount to disruption when lasting for days if not weeks, and as an administrator I'm inclined to take advantage of my powers to block users whose behavior is seriously disruptive if that should become necessary. I don't normally block for 3RR in any case, usually citing disruption in cases of egregious 3RR violation (roughly equivalent in my view to five or more blocks on one page within 24 hours or else very serious edit warring across a multiple of articles). I would block for a token two hours in the first instance, if a single warning does not produce better behavior. The period of the block would rise for subsequent disruption. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The problem with any community consensus is that some people just don't care about consensus, citations or references, and simply revert back to their preferred version only three times per day. In my opinion, Wikipedia lacks any good methods to curb such a behavior. Having the whole vote on Gdansk (or any other content question) would have been a waste of time if there is no way to enforce it. I am not sure if the 3RR exemption is the best way, or if there are other ways. I am happy for any suggestions in that direction. Maybe Piotrus's proposal discussion will lead to a better solution. As for now, I would continue to support the 3RR exemption, even though the rule can be misused like most other rules, too. Regarding the vote outcome, with the current count it is 61%. This is not stellar, I agree, but still way more than half (Whole EU constitutions fail on such votes ;) Plus, many voters explicitly opposed the label "Vandalism", but may have supported it otherwise. But again, I am open for suggestions. Another thing I would like to get off my chest: I have no particular interest in Poland, or the naming of these places. Before starting the vote, I did pretty much no edits in this area at all. I merely tried to solve one large dispute by a vote. There was a strong majority for double naming, and since then I am trying to enforce this outcome. While I do not care much about the naming in individual articles, I revert some users who despite vote consensus mass-removed any double naming on hundreds of articles. Thanks for listening -- Chris 73 Talk 18:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly not suggesting there's not a problem; I edit some articles also inhabitted by the "I'm entitled to my daily reverts" mob. I'm just saying that, even supposing a 3RR exception is the way forward, the procedure to institute it was sorely lacking. Firstly, the 3RR is policy, so an article talk space vote hardly trumps that. Secondly, because, as Halibutt's excesses demonstrated, it had a much larger, and much vaguer scope than just that one article, so it was doubly the wrong place for it. Better to have placed it in the naming convention space, or another policy page -- such as one clearly related to the 3RR. And lastly, because it did not achieve consensus.

As things stands, I'd suggest a better course of action is to use the dispute resolution process for those that repeatedly make counter-consensus reverts. At a minimum, RfC then ArbCom. That process isn't ideal, but it would seem to be at least fit-for-purpose. Alai 04:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that 61% is not consensus even by the most generous measure. The enforcement proposal failed but has been treated as if it prevailed.

I agree that you need to follow dispute resolution and get arbcom looking at the worst cases here because only they can salvage this kind of mess. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really hope the current version is one that everyone can live with. German names are still missing for Szczecin-Wielgowo and Szczecin-Klucz. Szczecin-osiedle Sloneczne sounds like a suburb built after the war. Balcer 19:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. Balcer 20:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So that the Gdansk/Vote horror never repeats itself :) Please see the proposal at my userspace, it is an updated version of Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. After I hear (or not) and incorporate comments from you and several other users I know are interested in fixing this, I will officialy move this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and I would like you to be one of the co-signatures of the proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have posted the info on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. So far there is little responce, though. Any help appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, chris, WOW, i really like like that pic. I am in need of a similar one, i want to use it in Patras and Patras Wireless Network. If you got any ends with satellite imagery or any ideas where i can find one or two pics of patras from above, i'd appreciate it if you let me know. Thanks :) Project2501a 20:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I've found something else that might need an administrator's attention. The New Thought Movement article has been deleted by 169.204.230.202 and replaced with this statement: "The New Thought Movement is now part of the Old Thought Movement. Please check there for further information." Needless to say, there's no article by the name of Old Thought Movement, and this edit appears to me to be somebody's joke. Just want to check in with you before I revert it. I'll check back tomorrow about this time and if that statement is still there, I'll revert to the last version of the article. Thanks. --Tregonsee 23:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks once more. As before, I appreciate your help. I enjoy Wikipedia, and want to help those who are working to improve it. Nice meeting you again. --Tregonsee 21:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hallo chris, danke dass Du Antarctic krill mit promotest. Du hast sehr schoene Bilder. Gruesse nach Japan Uwe Kils 14:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi it is nice that you recently developed an interest towards a geopolitics, Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Grand chess board" , mermeids, Dutch underground, legacy of pop culture, online journalism, murals and surrealist art. However before deleting the whole paragraphs in the text you have not created and about the field you aren’t an expert with(judging by your editing record, sorry if we are mistaken) it would possibly more appropriate to talk to the text creators, or at least leave a note at the article talk page about your intentions. Cheers and have a nice editing. BTW ,I am not actual Nick Gabrichidze. I just named my account after the guy, because I respect what he is doing.. Gabrichidze 11:47 19 June (UTC)

Hi Chris, Hope you can spare the time to vote again at Pincushion Hakea] Thanks, --Fir0002 11:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)