User talk:Coredesat/Archive 15
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/18/episode-39-knol-pointer/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Response
Saw your comment on List of middle schools in Fairfax County. Response here. Noroton (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This too Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, I'm asking the article to be restored to my user space, not the article space. This is permitted, regardless of any policies the article violates, so if you won't do it I'll ask somebody else. Let me know. Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 05:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I may be misinformed, but can't I do whatever I want (within reasonable limits) with my userspace? There are plenty of pages in userspace that don't meet encyclopedic standards. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 11:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- What's the distinction between userfied deleted articles and sandboxes? Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Isopropamide
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The CorenSearchBot identified this page as being "copyrighted" merely because it had been copied by a wikipedia mirror (this mirror has no copyright on the material it lifted from wikipedia). In other words, the original article (at isopropamide iodide, which I moved to isopropamide, per naming conventions for drug articles) was copied by a wikipedia mirror. When I made the move, the bot identified the material as being from another website (the mirror), even though it was originally from wikipedia. This is an absurd situation. Too many sites copy from wikipedia, and too many editors are copyright paranoid. Please restore the article, and in the future, don't jump to conclusions about copyrights without first looking at the details of the situation. Thank you. Fuzzform (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Winter storms
There is a discussion started by User:Juliancolton at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology about a proposed/possible new WikiProject called WikiProject Winter storms. Feel free to voice your opinion on the proposal.--JForget 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
2006 atlantic hurricane season
Hi. I think the source for the ACE table is OR, and is much better off with the source that I added to the article. Juliancolton (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. Juliancolton (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano II block reset
Hi. I have returned Giano's block to one hour (less time already served). I have perused Giano's contributions since his block and see nothing he is saying that had already not been said before - and no action had been taken nor warnings given. Giano was blocked for 3RR, and not the content of what he was saying. I further note that you had not advised Giano of the extension of the block. If there was new comment regarding the block duration, and consensus to increase it, I have missed it and would be grateful if you could point me to the appropriate venue. Please note that I acted before contacting you as the original tariff is close to expiry and I wished to make the adjustment before Giano went supanova or something. Speaking of which, I had best drop by his talkpage and advise him that it won't expire exactly when he expects. I will watch this page for any reply. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I can't say I wasn't expecting that to happen, but I won't contest it. --Coredesat 23:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your understanding (although I realise that it will not have your approval). I have struck through my comment about notice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC) I have just noticed the wikibreak notice on your userpage. Enjoy Christmas (or whatever, if you are not that way inclined) and hopefully come back here refreshed. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review of Daniel Malakov
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Daniel Malakov. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eileivgyrt (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
Deletion of Daniel Malakov
Coredesat has, I have concluded, improperly deleted Daniel Malakov, stating that he or she was (in doing so) disregarding multiple Keep arguments by the same editor. I am that editor. No attempt was made to conceal the authorship of my arguments to keep, as every argument subsequent to the first was enclosed parentheses as (Keep).
It seems to me that prima facie, Coredesat is violating Wikipedia policy: Deletion should not occur on the basis of a popularity contest.
Further, I was not the only one who argued for Keep.
The merits of the argument were never considered. The quantity of Wikipedia pages deleted by Coredesat in a short time (see deletion log) makes clear that Coredesat could not possibly have evaluated the issue on its merits. I suspect the same is true for other editors who voted to delete such as DGG. If this is what Wikipedia administrators mean by consensus, they are simply wrong and Wikipedia is nothing more than a tabloid (the one word Adminstrators eschew above all others) version of Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Further, the basis for deletion was notability, a criterion for which there is no objective criterion.
Trygvielie (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_24#Daniel_Malakov User:Coredesat, you state that as Administrator you removed my legitimate if prolix argument to overturn the deletion of Daniel Malakov several days prior to the end of the five-day period provided for by WP:DRV, stating
Can you please identify exactly why you considered my statement to be a tirade? At a respected online dictionary, the word is defined as:Your nomination is understood to be an argument to undelete - this tirade of bad faith is not necessary. I moved it to the talk page to make this page more manageable for other DRVs. --Coredesat 10:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I need some help. Kindly identify language which is intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious. I would have thought that, since the statement was a written one, it is not a prima facie candidate to be considered a tirade (at least according to this definition) because it is not speech. You were not obligated to listen to any protracted speech. Could you kindly explain your deletion of my argumentation. If at all possible, could you provide a source for removing lengthy arguments from the main page in WP:DRV proceedings? Eileivgyrt (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language
- User:Coredesat, thank you for writing on my user page. I guess we are going to have to disagree regarding your characterization there of my 8-part argument in favor of reversing deletion of Daniel Malakov as directed at yourself and DGG. As I wrote on the WP:DRV page, to reiterate, describing you as having a 'hot hand for deletion' is hardly an epithet. If the shoe fits, wear it. If deletion is something you feel is an altruistic effort on your part on behalf of Wikipedia (and in general it may well be), you should be proud of having a 'hot hand for deletion.' Why not put it on your user page?
Now that I've got your attention, would you possibly consider supporting a Wikipedia page called Murder of Daniel Malakov, which could migrate to the name of the murderer(s) once they are convicted? Eileivgyrt (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments after unblocking
Hi there. I noticed the evidence you added to the arbitration case. One thing didn't quite strike true when I read it. I remember the comment you made here: "I have (very grudgingly) removed Giano's autoblock.". The "very grudgingly" aspect doesn't come across at all the way you have presented your evidence. The impression I get is that Giano's comments had provoked this "grudging" attitude on your part, but this is not clear. If you made clearer in your evidence that you were feeling this way, that would help clear up a few things. The impression I got from your comment was that you were begrudging something, and that sounds an awful lot like holding a grudge (or maybe just being disgruntled). I've seen this several times now in several cases, and a lingering reluctance to undo an unblock is never a good sign on either side, and is usually a sign that the admin is getting too involved and is taking things personally. I feel that unblocking should be all or nothing. Once you've decided to unblock, it should be done with good grace and an eye to healing the situation, not fostering resentment with comments like "very grudgingly". What do you think? Anything worth putting in evidence? Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding that section to the evidence. Many people I know wouldn't have done that. About the frustration you felt, really, this is not worth leaving over. Taking a break or doing different things for a while nearly always helps to put things in perspective. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Dear Coredesat, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
WikBack
Thanks for registering at the WikBack. I look forward to your posts. If someone other than you registered in your name (or if you have no idea what this is about), please let me know immediately as it may be an imposter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Inactive WPTC users
Just to let you know, since you did not respond to the previous message, your status within the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has been transferred to inactive. However, it merely looks like you're away, so when you come back, I hope you change your status back to active. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back
Hey, its Mitch. I hope you can come back to the tc wikiproject soon. Its not the same without you.Mitch32contribs 12:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Strawberry Flower
Eh, I got to look more carefully next time, but I've restored the page and its fine now. Thanks for catching that.Mitch32contribs 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Matt Sanchez
I've been trying to keep tabs on the problems associated with this user and article for some time. The indefblock seems disproportionate. There seem for some reason to be many separate ANI threads on the subjects. Could you catch me up on how this situation has escalated so fast from my recent 48 hour block? WjBscribe 00:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given the ridiculous provocation caused by the addition of this section [2] to his biography and edit warring over said content, I propose do reduce Matt Sanchez's block to one week. Do you object? WjBscribe 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would you mind raising this on ANI instead of here, and hashing it out in a wider forum? I brought up the topic there myself after I saw all the homophobic comments he had been peppering for months, such as the ones detailed on the RFC. I asked for the indef block due to that ongoing incivility. I agree he may have been partially baited, or at least provoked in some sense, but attacking people that are gay, or insisting gays not edit his article, is unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which ANI thread should I raise this at? For some reason there are many.... Or should I start yet another one? WjBscribe 02:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Probably here, at this one. That's where I asked for the ban. Three of us all started threads in rapid succession, made a bit of a mess... Lawrence Cohen 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which ANI thread should I raise this at? For some reason there are many.... Or should I start yet another one? WjBscribe 02:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would you mind raising this on ANI instead of here, and hashing it out in a wider forum? I brought up the topic there myself after I saw all the homophobic comments he had been peppering for months, such as the ones detailed on the RFC. I asked for the indef block due to that ongoing incivility. I agree he may have been partially baited, or at least provoked in some sense, but attacking people that are gay, or insisting gays not edit his article, is unacceptable. Lawrence Cohen 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
In reply to your comment on my talkpage, I think Matt Sanchez's recent flare up was inspired by the most recent use of his article to attack him. In particular, the addition of very weakly sourced material suggesting that he had been a male prostitute, which is a serious accusation is regard to a serving member of the US armed forces. His conduct was not acceptable and I agree should be sanctioned. But I do not think an indefblock is right. His "legal threat" seems a knee jerk reaction to obviously distressing material being added to his biography rather than a real threat to pursue legal action. I really think the block should be shortened, or the matter refered to ArbCom. WjBscribe 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me what happened with Zirnevis? There was an AfD with the result of delete, which you closed, but it appears it was never deleted, somewhere along the line the AfD tag got removed, then last week, a user put a speedy deletion tag on it which I reverted and added a "move to wiktionary" template on it. It's now been moved to Wiktionary, so I was going to put it up for afd but saw that it's already gone through that process, so I've just put a db-repost tag on it, but it isn't really a repost, it just seems like it never got deleted. Corvus cornixtalk 00:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to protest the deletion of this page. I was unable to take part in the original discussion, which ended with a reasonably secure consensus for deletion, but pursuit of "official channels" in reopening it seems to throw the buck initially to you. My ire has principally been raised by the philistine nature of many of the arguments for deletion. IrishGuy even suggested that the fact they were never on a major label asuggested non-notability, which is completely absurd - Infest were a hardcore punk band, which is a genre where the vast majority of influential and (yes) notable bands are never within reach of major labels. Application of this "rule" would result in speedy deletion of Minor Threat, Gorilla Biscuits, Dead Kennedys and almost every other band of any worth in the style.
Infest's specific qualities were a key influence on an entire subgenre which has been deemed "notable", namely power violence, and they have had numerous records out on that style's most "major" (and also "notable") record label, Slap-a-Ham Records, whose discography is peppered with equivalently niche-interest-but-influential (and "notable") extreme metal and punk acts such as Burning Witch, Melvins and Man Is The Bastard. To have a page for Spazz and not for the band from whom Spazz most frequently cribbed is a nonsense. Commander deathguts (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I created the page of Nial Djuliarso. Although he is not notable in the US, he is a notable jazz musician in Indonesia, because he's a child prodigy of jazz and has created a number of recordings which won awards in Indonesia. Deletion of his article is regretted. Again, I am really sad that Wikipedia uses American standard for notability, while ignoring people from developing countries. We can see categories such as Indonesian Journalist, Indonesian Musician, and Nial Djuliarso is one of them. (Sorry for the late comment regarding this matter because I was away to give birth of my son) Chaerani (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- You wrote: Odd, I haven't deleted this article (nor have I considered deleting it). Someone put a {{PROD}} tag on it, and for some reason it went to DRV without being deleted. It's not at AFD, either. --Coredesat 11:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of City of Bones
An article that you have been involved in editing, City of Bones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Bones. Thank you. Jack Merridew 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
VA secondary shields
Oh ok. They were redlinked, so it might have been a typographical error. But yeah, for simplicity's sake, instead of having six different sets of circular shields, we use what is available. So yeah. Good to see more editors! --MPD T / C 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
First Edit
Happy First Edit Day
|
Happy First Edit Day, Coredesat', from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:MiszaBot III (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC) |
- FROM YOUR FRIEND:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
| HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! | from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE | |
|---|---|---|
  Wishing Coredesat/Archive 15 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee | ||
--Nadir D Steinmetz 00:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/01/24/episode-40-wikipedias-genetic-makeup/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
MfD Closing
Hope you don't mind, I added the {{oldmfd}} tag to a couple of MfDs you closed yesterday, wasn't sure if you hadn't gotten to it yet or forgot, but thought I'd take care of it for you. Cheers.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
School AFD closure
I have noticed you are frequently closing school AFDs as delete and redirect; I am querying why does the page history need removing? Keeping the page history is one of the ideas of redirecting a school article, as it allows any material in the original article to be used in the local area and district article. Also, it allows an article to be re-created easily if the school becomes notable. I am considering restoring the history on some of these redirects, as I cannot see anything wrong with them. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #13
The January issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to USRD
Being your pal, I shall be the one to say welcome to USRD. It was sure a surprise. You chose a needy project all right. Here are VA's statistics. If you need anymore help, just notify me. Mitch32contribs 14:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I am writing to you because you have had previous experience working with this article. The edits of David Shankbone on this article have been reported to COIN as seen here, [3].
--72.68.114.33 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
My Simpsons Template
I don't appreciate your deleting my template without notifying me. I worked hard on it because I thought that people would want to know what episodes of the simpsons had mini-episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by The1nonlybenji (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, your PROD tag was removed by the author. Best, shoy 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
|
My RfA | |
| Thank you very much for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
|
You deleted Mrs. Hudson on 4 February 2008 as CSD A7 (Bio). However, I'm not sure it should have been speedied, presuming that the article referred to the Sherlock Holmes character. First of all, A7 only applies to real people. Next, note the number of articles that link to the character. I'm not well-versed in Holmes fiction, so I'm not saying that you were necessarily wrong that the article should be deleted; however, I do think that AfD would be more appropriate here. Thank you! —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/02/04/episode-41-setting-the-record-straight/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
ED on userpage
My ED arguments on my userpage User:SamuelRiv/Articles/Encyclopedia Dramatica have been deleted. I would like my userpage restored, as I believe it was deleted without anyone reading the actual contents - the page was designed to host meta-arguments, not a copy of the controversial article itself. By deleting meta-arguments, you are saying that WP is effectively stifling any possible debate on this subject. Again, please restore this page. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Tornado outbreak naming
When you get a chance can you give your opinion on February 2008 tornado outbreak. One of the admins moved it saying it should not be capitalized. ---CWY2190TC 17:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of TeXTree
Please explain why you considered the page TeXTree patent Nonsense and deleted it ignoring the hangon tag. It certainly wasn't giberish. The page clearly wasn't very useful *yet* but I wonder how a page can become useful if it is deleted 5 minutes after one starts editing it. M8ram (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Old English Terrier
I am not exactly sure why the Old English Terrier article keeps getting redirected to the White English Terrier article. The White English Terrier is a terrier breed that was created in the late 1800's while the Old English Terrier was created in the 1700's. The Old English Terrier was crossed with the Old English Bulldog to create most of today's Bull Terrier breeds. The fact that most of the Bull Terrier breeds are far older than the White English Terrier should give enough pause so that one can understand and grasp that a dog create over a century later cannot be the foundation stock of much older breeds.
It is my hope that objective and educational reasoning will prevail concerning the Old English Terrier vs. the English White Terrier. They are not the same breed and they never have been. Working terriers (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
general slocum fire
am not sure if this is correct site, though I wish to be directed to list of slocum fire victims as I found out
recently that my relatives were on the ship. It would help immensely with my geneology chart I am presently working on. I was at slocum fire site and her I am. sorry if this is off subject.---Gloriana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.91.0 (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)