User talk:Rmhermen/Archive6

Greenland/on the edge

My issue with the phrase "on the edge" in the History of Greenland page is that it really has no point of reference. On the edge of what? I'm having a hard time navigating through all this editing, so I'm not sure if this is where one is supposed to place a comment. Guernseykid 04:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, They are the same person. King-of-no-pants 03:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

Insane Clown Posse is originally from Wayne, Michigan. this is why I have changed the page because at their concerts they refer to themselves as Michigan not one of its members is from the city of Detroit except for Esham who recently left the group and Twistid is from Rochester Hills, Michigan. Mitchellandness1 08:23, 8 Feburary 2006 (UTC)

Richard Smalley

You recently edited the Richard Smalley page, revising the statement about his Christianity. You directed the reader to his "personal statement" in Wikiquote. I went to Wikiquote and did not find an article on Smalley. I created one, but did not have a source for his "personal statement". I'd appreciate learning from you where I can find his personal statement (or alternatively, if you would add it to the Wikiquote article.) Thanks. 70.122.87.59 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted writing another article. I will add that now. Rmhermen 04:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually someone beat me to it. Rmhermen 04:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Which quote were you going to add? Do you have a more specific statement on Christianity? 70.122.87.59 17:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism not a religion?

Man, you sure could have fooled me. Rchamberlain 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholicism is the denomination of a branch of the religion called Christianity. Rmhermen 21:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong again. A denomination denominates from something. As the original, Catholicism isn't a denomination per se. Also, yes, we're Christians, but Baptists have a different religion than say Pentecostals. Rchamberlain 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. Christianity is a religion. Hinduism, Judiasm, Shintoism are religions. Catholicism and the Baptist movement are not. Rmhermen 15:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Meijer Gardens Copyright

Rmhermen: As a representative of Frederik Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park and author of the document in question, I am authorized to publish said document. I have posted the information under the name Greedo. Following Wikipedia guidelines, I have included the following copyright statement on the document's "talk page."

I respectfully ask that you remove the copyright violation immediately. And in the future please contact me through the organization's Media Page with further questions regarding the information stated on this page.

I appreciate your understanding.

Brian Burch Frederik Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park

Copyright (c) 2005 Frederik Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

Thank you. I will note this in the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page. I hope you appreciate that we cannot allow anonymous (or pseudonymonous) authors to republish copyrighted information without explicit releases and contact information. Rmhermen 15:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Rmhermen: Please realize that PR material, such as information in press releases is intended to be reused.

Glacier National Park (US)

Some of the images in this article are probably yours because they are tagged as GFDL and uploaded by you. Anyhow there're no informations on sources, f.e. if these images are your own and as a follow the licenses of these images are incomplete. Some of them are now on Commons and without these informations they have to be deleted. --Saperaud 04:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Yet again. Pick a standard and stick to it, people. Rmhermen 15:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sombrero Key lighthouse

Please look at the picture of the lighthouse: [1], which can be reached from [2]. The reference to being near Marathon Key is in error, as the city of Marathon occupies Key Vaca and Boot Key. It is a reef lighthouse, and while parts of the reef are exposed at low tide, there's no way you can call it an island. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 04:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sombrero key (after edit conflict)

I was wondering about your insistance on the USGS name - there are a number of names for many lighthouses, and this light is known by several. See [3] and [4] and [5], as well as Sombrero Key Light, Near Marathon Key, Florida. Is there any reason for keeping the USGS name, when Dalbury is using for his reference the USCG? As the Coast Guard actually has more to do with lighthouses, I would consider them a higher authority. See Sombrero Key Light on the USCG site. There has not been a Key at that location since the mid 1800s. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The United States Geologic Survey sets official names for places. They call it an island that is ten feet above sea level called Sombrero Key. They have no entry for a Marathon Key, so I am not sure where the National Park Service got that name (which is where the "Sombrero Key Light, Near Marathon Key, Florida" originates). Rmhermen 05:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The photos very clearly show that the Sombrero Key lighthouse is standing in open water. Could you please post the USGS reference? I cannot find Sombrero Key on www.usgs.gov. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at the maps that are generated for the location of Sombrero Key? None of the maps show any island there, just a point indicating the lighthouse. I would guess that the 10 foot elevation was measured on the lower platform of the lighthouse, but the sources I have say that platform is 15 feet above the water. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiking edit

hey Rmhermen -- it was idiocy on my part. See "Disambigged links" on my Talk page. Sorry! bikeable (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

counting slaves

Thanks for backing me up on that. I hadn't noticed the response or would have responded in a similar way. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 19:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about the Islamic Calendar

I wonder if you could answer my question? I saw you edited recently. Khoda Hafez -- Tompsci 00:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Detroit Fun Facts censorship

Yes, I found that information in various sources, some of which were on the Web. But the information was all true and factually accurate. Two things you should know:

--First off: it is NOT in any way a copyright violation to repeat basic facts that were published elsewhere. I can, for example, say that Detroit is in Michigan even if someone else put that in a book somewhere.

--Second, the sources I used want (such as the Detroit Regional Chamber) want that kind information to be distributed... that's why they put it out in press releases and on Web pages aimed at the media. That's kind of the nature of press releases and similar kinds of PR.

As for the need for the section... well, some of us think interesting tidbits that reveal the unique character of a community are slighly more interesting than dry statistics. Beyond that, Detroit gets a bad rap from lots of people -- including those who post misinformation in this article on Wiki. I wanted to show that Detroit is a proud city with good things to offer -- something to counter the one-dimensional picture painted elsewhere. Please put back the section I wrote.

Yes, it is a copyright violation to cut-and-paste sections of someone else's work into your own. If you would like to reword these facts and reinsert them you could avoid the copyright issue but I still don't believe them necessary in an encyclopedia article and some of them reppeat content already in the article. Rmhermen 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on some of the "editing" that I have seen in this article in the past... I think there is another agenda here. It is, apparently, OK to wrongly state that criminal gangs "Can be seen patrolling the streets" of Detroit. But is is not allowed to correctly state that Campus Martius Park was named one of the best public squares in the nation and to link to the site where that is stated?

I had to delete the gang comment at least twice because someone who didn’t even bother to check that put it back in. But, I guess if it fits the stereotype of what a predominately African American city is like, then there is no reason to check, right? It's only positive facts that have to be deleted immediately. Sad.

Also, please check again the rules related to using press release material. Press releases are created in order to encourage people to re-publish what is in them. That is well within the bounds of "fair use." Plus, that issue only applied to a part of what I submitted. Yet you just deleted all of it. Again... I see an agenda here

Please note that the usage of "fair use", a by the way U.S. only legal custom, are nto necessarily compatable with the license of a "free" international encyclopedia. We require our source material to be GFDL or public domain but greatly prefer you simply rewrite it yourself. Really we are taking about a couple sentences here. You could ewasily rewrite in your own words in less time than typing your comments here. All edits are saved in the history with the names of the editor - if you suspect a bias, it is easy to check the history to determine who is inserting it. Rmhermen 14:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And again... I implore you to look into the essential nature of what a press release is and what it is used for. The whole point is the encourage the information to be redistributed. When they are sent out via e-mail, they often contain bullet points in unformatted text to facilitate cutting and pasting.

Also: if you look at "Houston, New York City, Chicago, Dallas (as well as London, Paris, Tokyo, and Beijing)," I doubt you will see the kind of racist and untrue statements that have been allowed in the article about Detroit.

In any event, I have re-submitted that stuff to make the changes you suggested. And I deleted a bullet point that I thought repeated stuff in the food section.

---

I think this article needs an editor without such a blatant bias against Detroit. I jumped through your hoops and did what you asked. But you still could not overcome your resistance to pointing out the positive aspects of a largely African-American city. Cities with different demographics have different rules.

Actually I did not make the last edits to your section and am rather a fan of Detroit and frequent visitor downtown. If you look at the history you will notice dozens of editor have worked on the pages, creating hundreds of edits. I think you are jumping to your own conclusions adn also do not believe that "different demographics have different rules". We are making an encyclopedia here, not a promotional tool. Rmhermen 15:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot

This bot tagged an image I uploaded and someone later deleted it. However no one ever inform me. Or bothering to read the fact that it was a U.S. image from 1910 - 13 years before even the possibility of an active copyright. I have some images I have had to cchange license tags on three times because Wikipedia keeps changing its standards. It is very frustrating and deleting them without even informing the uploader is even worse. Rmhermen 23:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You're in luck. Odds are, OrphanBot's got a cached copy of the image, so if you can tell me the name of the image, I'll see what I can do about re-uploading it.

I'm working on modifying OrphanBot's code to notify uploaders of problem images, but it's tricky. I don't want to notify someone repeatedly about a single image, I don't want to notify them if someone else has, and I don't want to give someone a flood of notices if they've uploaded a whole batch of images. At the same time, I don't want to skip notifying them if they haven't been notified. --Carnildo 07:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pioneer Hi-Bred

Why did you delete my addition to this article? It seems to me that the fact the company was founded by Henry A. Wallace (one of the most influential members of the Roosevelt administration, and, hence, one of the most prominent New Deal supporters in the 1930s and 1940s) is one of the most fascinating things about the company. The original article hadn't even mentioned that Wallace had been FDR's second vice president, or that he had run for president in 1948 on the Progressive Party ticket. I think Wallace's involvement with the company is one of the things that makes Pioneer interesting. I did not infringe on any copyrights in my article revision, as everything was written in my own words, and all the information I included is considered general knowledge. It can be verified in a number of sources, including Culver & Hyde's 2000 biography, American Dreamer: A Life of Henry A. Wallace.

These details are appropriate for the biography of Henry Wallace but they are not appropriate for the article on the seed company. If any of this detail is missing from the biography it would be welcome additions. Rmhermen 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason many people, including myself, find Pioneer Hi-Bred interesting is because of the man who founded the company. Henry A. Wallace was not just a businessman (though he was that, too), but he was also one of the most powerful political figures of the 1930s. (I spent a few days in the farm country of Iowa this past summer, and I was surprised to see Pioneer Hi-Bred logos not only on signs in cornfields but also on baseball caps and coffee mugs. I asked some of the people who I met about the company's connection to Henry Wallce and most of them indicated that they didn't even know who Wallace was!) Wikipedia has biographies on other business leaders in its articles on various companies. (For instance, even though there is a biography of John Deere in Wikipedia, the Wikipedia article on Deere & Company still contains a biographical paragraph on the company's founder.) I was very careful to write the paragraph on Henry Wallace in such a way as to not embarrass the company by detailing his political views (which were lauded by some people, including Eleanor Roosevelt, but which were considered extremist by others). (And you are right, such a discussion appears in a biography of Wallace not an article on his company.) Still, Wallace was such an important historical figure that he deserves mention in an article on Pioneer Hi-Bred. Yet, I get the sense that you (or someone at Pioneer) does not want to associate the company with its founder (again, why did the orginal article not even mention that Wallace was once Vice President of the US under FDR???). If that is, in fact, the case, it is a great pity, as Wallace was a giant in his time.

I assure you I have no connection to this company (although I may have relatives who once bought seed from them.) Notice how the Deere and Company article mentions how its founder trained and invented which led directly to the founding of the company - but not how he later in life was President of the National Bank of Moline and Mayor of Moline. These details are found in his biography as they are unrelated to the company. The original article did mention Wallace and contained a link to his biography. However, even if it hadn't that wouldn't indicate any malfeasance but just the process of building an article. Rmhermen 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Jelly - why all the rearrangement?

Hi, Can you explain the rationale behind the moving of Jelly (food) to Jelly, and the moving of the old Jelly page to Jelly (disambiguation)? The jelly page in itself needs split into jello and jam-jelly, as they are two different things, so what do you think should be done in *that* situation?

It doesn't make sense at all.

Fourohfour 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense that every link should go to a disambiguation page. That is bad form. Every link refered to jelly as a food so that topic clearly should be what is discussed at the page called "jelly". Rmhermen 15:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(More at talk:Jelly, I should have noticed your reply there). Fourohfour 15:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Space exploration

Hi, thanks for your question. No, it's not really a new standard. It was added to the MOS a little over a year ago. I brought it up on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (titles)#Italicize names of spacecraft? and a couple other editors I'd seen working on spacecraft articles. Based on recommendations from Chicago, a NASA style guide, and a couple other sources, after consultation with them I added a spacecraft example to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Even more so than for titles of movies or books, they're inconsistently italicized on Wikipedia, although you'll usually see them italicized in featured articles or on the Main Page and such (I just did it for New Horizons, so that doesn't count). The reason I just did that one is that I was using WP:AWB to take all the articles that link to Apollo 11 and italicize its name in those articles. The process is semi-automated; there isn't an easy way to scan each article to see if any other spacecraft names are mentioned elsewhere in the article. I figured I'd get around to doing the other spacecraft later, but it probably makes sense for me to manually go through that article and italicize them—I'm sorry, I should have done that in the first place. Do you have any objections? — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I also discussed it at User talk:The Singing Badger#Italicization of spacecraft; I can't remember offhand with whom else I discussed it. Let me know if you disagree with my actions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the feedback. I just went through Space exploration, and will continue to work on this. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Baron Raby

I'm not aware of a Barony of Raby created before the seventeenth century. It was a subsidiary title of the Earls of Strafford from 1640, and also a subsidiary title of the Dukes of Cleveland (1833 creation). Hope this helps, Mackensen (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is the barony Neville de Raby, which seems to fit the people you're indicating. Let me go write that up.Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

list of 3 letter words

I know that the list of 3 letter words has suvived AFD over a year ago, but man I want that page gone. I'm thinking of trying again- as someone who has edited the page, what do you think? Lotusduck 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it fits in with a series of similar articles (TLAs, two letter words, longest word in English) and really does no harm. Rmhermen 16:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

If it disobeys guidelines and is original research, then it does obvious harm, in encouraging everyone into making wikipedia their own personal scrabble guide, no? Lotusduck 16:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that a simple unannotated list could ever be considered "original research". The second objection "scrabble-ish/non-encyclopedic" has I believe been brought up for each of this before and they have always been kept. You could think of them as an alternate way of indexing (like many other lists). Rmhermen 16:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But in what way is it notable? Lotusduck 01:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

You've added a merge tag to Rush Limbaugh. When are you starting the discussion? patsw 04:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Cottage Cheese

Thanks for your help with the editing...I am new to this.

Your query

The tag was suggested by User:Tomos at the time when there was no mention of 1923 therein. See User_talk:Ghirlandajo/Winter_2005 for the context. Today, I changed the tag to {art}. As the image doesn't illustrate any article at all, feel free to delete it.

Parenthetically, it is amazing how willing people are to delete images uploaded in good faith. On the other hand, I've been campaigning for months for the deletion of some obvious copyvios, such as Image:Slavs.jpg, Image:Wawka2.jpg, Image:Warszawa2.jpg, Image:Wawka.jpg - all to no purpose. They were moved to Commons and here the matter ended! --Ghirla | talk 11:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC) === The Coptic bust === I shot the image, and own those rights. The iconic origin of the cross by Christians is widely recognized as starting with the "ankh" or "cruz ansata" in late 3rd century Egypt. 3dnatureguy 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fort Caroline

I don't know who made the image. It was at the Florida State Archives just listed as "an old etching".--Cuchullain 21:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Color blindness

Hi, I looked at the map and I can't really tell "Marijampole" and "Kaunas" apart. But that's just me. Color blindness can take many forms, it's probably impossible to create a color palette that is perfect for everyone. Using primary colors always helps. Using different brightness or even patterns (in addition to different color) also helps. If you want to learn more I suggest this link, and other great pages linked in the External links section of Color blindness.

I appreciate you effort. -- nyenyec ☎ 22:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have fixed the colors. Now it does not look that cute, but it should work for all people. I have tested the image with http://colorfilter.wickline.org/ and the only time there might be some problems is when a person would have tritanopia (but suposedly it is uncommon). Also, on grayscale they should be able to separate counties, but not identify them by the legend. Please let me know if you see other problems, and thanks for the input! I haven't really thought about such problems. That's is something new for me. Renata 01:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Thanks for your work in cleaning up the output of the prolific editor, RJBurkhart. I tried gently nudging, asked other editors to nudge as well, but apparently our efforts were insufficient. Some folks, however well-intentioned, don't "get" Wikipedia or the norms of the project. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks from me also for your help with this. Malepheasant 00:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • OK ... Message received! I'll retreat to a more familiar multi-dimensional world (where people matter more than places) rather than exercise in two-dimensional virtual reality ... RJBurkhart
    

Detroit Media

I live near the border in Downtown Detroit. And I can get just about all those canadian channels, like Global(ch. 22), CTV(ch. 42), A-channel(16), Citytv(ch. 31). even a french version of CBC(ch. 54) and Korean channel(ch. 68) too! And I can also catch Ohio channels like NBC 24 etc. Marquita188 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That a number more than me. I get 24 sometimes, otherwise from Canada only 9, 32 and 54. Rmhermen 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

AO-22 :: Style vs. Substance Edits

Please correct this template defect since place seems to displace people perspectives

RJBurkhart 00:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the question or see anything obvious wrong with the template. Rmhermen 02:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cimarron was never designated as a "fleet replentishment" unit.

So, template should link to article Cimarron class oiler
RJBurkhart 11:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Done. Rmhermen 13:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cimarron class oiler article is ambiguously named, since there have been two different classes of oilers named Cimarron. The first was the class described in the template, and the second started with the AO-177 in the 1970s. Please revert those changes, or at least place the 1939 vintage class and newer class into separate articles and templates. --RandomWalk 03:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article contains no information on the second class which will go into

when it is added. Apparently, according to RJBurkhart, the old oilers are not "fleet replenishment" vessels. Rmhermen 03:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions "jumbo-izing" some of the oilers, which only occurred with the 1970s-era class of oilers. I will defer to RJBurkhart on wheter they were "fleet replenishment" or not. I suggest that the older classes template and article have the suffix "(1939)" added to their names, and likewise, the newer class have an appropriate year tagged onto their names. --RandomWalk 04:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No license tag

When you are using the no license tags on images, please include all the parameters like {{no license|month=January|day=26|year=2006}}. Otherwise, the images are just thrown into Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of unknown date 2006 instead of by exact date. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Cadillac and Olds images

I'm a long time photo journalist and have thousands of images . I am perfectly willing to contribute them to commons under GFDL (self) and try to mark them as such.3dnatureguy 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We appreciate them. Rmhermen 04:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking

On 26-Jan, you blanked Soft serve. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the deletion procedures. Or perhaps a better option, would be to create a stub. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is equally a bad idea to have pages redirect to other pages which do not discuss the subject! This is both misleading and prevents the creation of appropriate content (much more so than having a blue link to a blank page). Rmhermen 14:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ice cream does indeed discuss soft serve. It is listed under "alternatives" (which is misleading as it's a type of ice cream and not an alternative, but it is there). The redirect is neither misleading nor does it prevent the creation of a new article. A blank article leaves someone searching for "soft serve" at a dead-end. If you felt this strongly about it, why didn't you just stub it as it would have been just as quick as listing it for deletion? -- JLaTondre 19:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A redirect leaves someone trying to write about "soft serve" at an even worse dead end. And having the words "Soft serve ice cream" which I unlinked as a circular reference is not discussing the subject. Rmhermen 19:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. They can edit the redirect or the ice cream article. Either are valid. -- JLaTondre 19:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Learning how to edit a redirect is a very frequent question on the help desk and village pump. It is not obvious. Nor is it obvious that when clicking on a link to go to the soft serve article and it sending you back to the ice cream article that you should add content on soft serve there. Circles are bad. Rmhermen 19:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I had removed the self-link... Anyhow, I decided to take my own advice. I wrote a stub as that was faster than continuing to discuss this with you. I'm hoping that you'll find that acceptable. -- JLaTondre 20:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable Comment and Request for Speedy Deletion of Articles

I disagree with Wikipedia administrator Rmhermen's remark that the comment that Lane K. Akiona is a non-notable church official. Where exactly in the Wikipedia policy is the term "non-notable" defined? He is a vicar forane in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu. Until the phrase "non-notable" is clearly defined, I respectfully submit that your request for speedy deletion of this article is arbitrary and capricious. Aloysius Patacsil 18:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not a speedy deletion request but a normal deletion one. Please discuss this on the deletion page, not here. Rmhermen 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: douglass houghton

Hi, thanks for your message. I'm new to this project but am very intrigued. I wrote both each of those myself, and copied and pasted them directly from papers I had written that were on my computer. They are my own work... am I okay in doing this? Thanks. Also, that picture of the St Peter Cathedral was my own.

Your vote on the RFR poll

Hi, Rmhermen, you voted oppose on the requests for rollback privileges consensus poll, suggesting that people who would like rollback should just become admins instead - that being an admin is "no big deal". While I think that in an "ideal" Wikipedia, this would indeed be the case, I believe that over time standards for becoming an administrator have clearly risen. This is apparent by looking at the RFA system throughout Wikipedia's existence - intially, all one had to do to become an admin was just ask nicely, now we have a complicated procedure. A recent proposal on the RFA talk page for requiring at least 30 minimum support votes and a significant number of existing contributions was given some serious consideration. There is frequent talk of "bad admins slipping through the RFA net", and while you may not agree with that philosophy of adminship it is undeniable that the standards have risen.

Because of this, candidates who pass are already very experienced with Wikipedia. While this in itself is no bad thing, it means that for the month or so before they become admins they are not being given the tools an admin has which would help them to improve Wikipedia, by removing vandalism and performing administrative tasks such as moving pages. The qualities which make a good administrator are not determined by length of stay on Wikipedia or number of friends you have, but by personality and character. Time at Wikipedia only gives familiarity with the way things are done here. However, being at Wikipedia for an extra month doesn't grant any special insight into the ability to determine which edits are vandalism and which are not. This is why I believe that we should hand out rollback to contributors who are clearly here to improve Wikipedia but won't pass the RFA procedure because of their percieved lack of familiarity with policy by some Wikipedians. I think that adminship should be no big deal, like you, however I see just two ways to make sure Wikipedians can quickly and efficiently remove vandalism - either by all those who believe adminship should be no big deal involving themselves much more in RFA, or by supporting this proposal and giving out rollback to good contributors who have not yet been here long enough to become admins. We have to remember that our ultimate aim here is to produce an encyclopedia, and we should balance the idealism of "adminship should be no big deal" with the pragmatism of granting rollback to our best non-admin contributors. I would be very grateful if you would reconsider your viewpoint on this issue. Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 13:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Having been here myself for 58 months so far, sticking around for an extra month or so to learn procedures seems a good qualification. I admit I rarely vote on RFA but I usually find that consensus doesn't require my addition. If they do go with a minimum vote count, I will have to try and make sure I vote more often. Previously, when Wikipedia was smalelr, I only voted on candidates I had already interacted with. Now I don't even know most of the admins. Rmhermen 18:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Rmhermen. I hope you can understand my beliefs on the topic despite your opposition. :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, that's what consensus building is all about. Understanding and working together. Rmhermen 15:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sudovians

Thanks for letting me know, but I think I'm gonna have to support User:24.23.39.36 on this one. Space Cadet 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wielbark culture

Try Googling "Willenberg Kultur". Space Cadet 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again most of the hits seem to be Wikipedia related but I beleive it is reasonable to mention Willenberg. Rmhermen 04:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain re: Soft drink

Hello. Please explain what you find so objectionable about my edits to Soft drink. Ewlyahoocom 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cat got your tongue? Thanks for being communicable. Ewlyahoocom 09:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see edit history. Along with deleting valid statements from the article - you were re-introducing material that was removed for being U.S.-centric (and you added it to the article lead to boot.) Rmhermen 17:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you don't know what you're talking about. For example: since when is the second section in (5th paragraph) considered the lead? Can't you be more specific? Ewlyahoocom 13:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Entwistle

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this article and Lillian Entwistle. Talk:Rachel Entwistle claims it's a story being covered on a number of news agencies, so I sent it to AfD instead (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Entwistle). Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jacobite Rising

You removed an image from Jacobite Rising without comment. Any reason for this? Was it on purpose? --Craig Stuntz 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I moved it down the page so that it illistrated the correct section of the text and not a battle 58 years earlier. Rmhermen 21:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry; missed that further down. --Craig Stuntz 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Transcontinental railroad

You removed my addition, the Trans-Iranian Railway, from the article Transcontinental railroad with the comment that it was "not a single railroad". You are not correct, it was a single and distinct railroad with even a notable history. It connected Bandar Imam at the Persian Gulf with Bandar Torkaman at the the Caspian Sea. It is also transcontinental, as the map will show you. Ekem 11:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing this as transcontinental- the train doesn't take you to they opposite side of Asia (the Arctic) but only to central Asia. Rmhermen 13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On the other side of the Caspian Sea is Europe.Ekem 16:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Pennsylvania State Parks

Please do not make pages without content. Pages like the state park ones without content (only templates) will be deleted. If you intend to expand these please do so soon. Also you are using the wrong naming convention - they should all be named as "Name State Park" and only as "Name State Park (Pennsylvania)" only if there is a conflict. "Name, Pennsylvania" is used for populated places. Rmhermen 17:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I was getting ahead of myself by creating all the pages at once. As for the naming convention, thanks for pointing that out, I based mine an an incorrect assumption. In addition to the state parks, I used the incorrect convention for state forests. I guess most of these pages will be deleted because of the lack of content. However, I did change a few existing pages to the incorrect convention. I will go back and undo those changes, unless you want to makes those changes as an admin. Sorry for the trouble, I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks. VerruckteDan 18:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin powers only make reverting changes to articles faster, not moving them. It would be quicker if you know which ones you moved for you to move them back. Thanks. Rmhermen 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Isle Royale

You asked me to expand upon the comment I made concerning the removal of Scandinavian fishermen in the later part of the twentieth century from Isle Royale. My comment is based on the autobiographical account of life on Isle Royale by Howard Sivertson, called "Once Upon an Isle," unfortunately, I did not remember the exact year in which the majority of families were removed, but I do recall that the National Park Service gave dispensation to families that owned their homes (most of the fishermen were squatters) to continue to reside as long as they lived, so long as they used the right every year. So theoretically, it is possible that some fishermen remained long into the latter part of this century. Anyway, my sources also tell me that the NPS didn't take control of Isle Royale until August of 1946. That said, I will edit my comments to make them agree with the ambiguity of my memory. Jrt989 23:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"The park was finally formally dedicated 15 years after the original legislation calling for its creation on August 27, 1946. " www.nyx.net/~sjhoward/Isle_Royale/history.html -- Whatever the case, it doesn't matter because I didn't include this in my changes and what edits I did make I changed so that they agree with earlier comments. Jrt989 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

However the park was established in 1940: National Park established - April 3, 1940

[6]. I don't know what this "dedication" was. Rmhermen 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Algonquin Park

Hi, Re: Algonquin Park, I thought the units issue was resolved. See: Template talk:Infobox protected area. Am I mistaken? bobblewik 23:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Crime against humanity

Hi there, as you already helped at the Dresden bombing article, would you please take a look at the same question at the related article? Philip Baird Shearer asked for a "third opinion" and got one from a user who got really angry with me when I saw the point of someone who said that it might not be a good idea to have an article about the Iraq war dominated by three guys from the US military. (By the way, I had great fun at Algonquin Park, saw a moose and racoons.) Get-back-world-respect 23:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped to get to Algonquin last year but ended up at the Everglades instead. Hint: Swamps in August -bad idea. Rmhermen 15:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nain Rouge

Mr. Rmhermen, I see that you are the creator of the Nain Rouge article. I must say that having lived my entire life in Detroit, I have never once heard of this creature, and no one I have have spoken to has either. I have asked an urban historian about its existence and he could not confirm that this "Nain Rouge" was ever a substantial rumor in these parts. The one website on the page looks pretty sketchy as well.

In any event, the article gives me that "unique theory on the internet" feeling; nothing personal, of course. If there is some sort of misunderstanding, I beg your forgiveness, but I'll start the AfD in motion in a few days unless we can work something out. Isopropyl 06:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Nain Rouge is an authentic and well-documented character. Try Google, or a good history of Detroit or even any of several documentaries on Detroit or even on the '68 riot. Here is one link from an Oct. 2005 newspaper article[7]. Rmhermen 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, nevermind! :) Isopropyl 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hostel discussion

We could really use some third party moderation for the discussion we're having on the hostel discussion page ([8]) if you have any insight or thoughts to add on the subject... -- User:orrd

Altadena edits

Excuse me!

I am the webmaster for Altadenatowncouncil.org. I wrote the article and included the photos from my web site creation on that site.

My name is Mike Manning and I have long been a member of Altadena Town Council, and the webmaster of record.

Is there some other protocol I need to follow?

Magi Media 13:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

I have since resubmitted my my article on Altadena and have footnoted it. This seems awkward, but is it sufficient to identify the copyright, which is mine? By the way, any edit I put in about Altadena is original. Even the Altadena Historical Society defers to me in matters of community history. Magi Media 14:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Winter Olympics Country Pages

Hi,

You had asked why on the country pages the entries are formatted the way they are. It's the way that we've been doing them since I started working on the Olympics pages a couple of months ago. I'm just using the same format. Sue Anne 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a preference? I actually prefer just the ":" indent versus the double bullets. Sue Anne 20:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Rmhermen 20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Category vote

You may wish to voice any concerns on a category vote involving protected areas here:[9].--MONGO 04:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

None

Spot on. Fowler agrees with you as well. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Mind you, I'd be cautious with using Google polls as your authority with spelling and grammar these days. A Google poll would suggest that "it's" is both a possessive and an abbreviation (when it's only the latter). A Google poll would suggest that "can not" means the same thing as "cannot", which is certainly not true. A Google poll would probably tell you that the verb "effect" means the same thing as "affect", which is certainly not true. Lots of other examples. Cheers JackofOz 01:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

FLC comments

Hi, I just wanted to say that I might have been a little too harsh on some comments. Let me explain & elaborate. I make comments only wishing to make the lists better. I don't want to fail any list, and in fact I like your list very much. I just don't like what's around it because it does not "Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work"... because it can be better! :)

Also, I find an argument "but other lists don't do it" rather strange. Featured content standards are increasing and you have to match that up. Also, I am a strong believer in pushing things forward and not maintaining status qou. Just because someone did a lousy job and got away with it does not mean that you should not do better. I hope you see & understand my position. Renata 14:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to change the standards, you should work for consensus to do so at Featured list criteria. The biggest problem I see is that we have too few lists getting featured to make the process viable. Rmhermen 15:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean that we should lower the standards and accept half-baked stuff? I don't think so. I am not changing standards per se, I am just applying them more vigoriously. Renata 05:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Country Wine

At least change the topic into Fruit Wine, because country wine is a term nobody uses, the correct wine industry term is fruit wine. Also "Vin du pays" is not a translation, anyone who speaks French, will tell you this:

vin du pays = wine of the land of, eg vin du pays Nantais = Wine from the Region of Nantes

what the author might have meant is "vin de pays", but again this is not fruit wine: this is an official category of French wines above the level of vin de table comprising about one quarter of the wine produced in France. Wines bearing this designation should be of higher quality than vin de table wines, and should demonstrate a certain amount of regional character.

see http://www.answers.com/topic/vin-de-pays

same for the German Landwein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutscher_Landwein

See the talk page at Country wine. This is a page about all non-grape "wines", not only fruit, but vegetable and even flower. I did not invent the term or start the page under that page. I did find a reference for its use, though. Rmhermen 03:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox protected area

I just did a quick check of Vicksburg National Military Park, Touro Synagogue, and Yellowstone National Park, and it seems to be displaying fine. Neither the map image nor the template has been changed recently. Perhaps there was a temporary systems bug? — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 27% for major edits and 33% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 19:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dill pickle

Well, frankly speaking I have no idea what a dill pickle is. In fact dill is commonly added to all marinates in Poland, just as garlic or onions, which might mean that it's the same cucumber. However, the only ogórkowa I know is made from either salted or soured cucumbers rather than pickles as such (no vinegar used whatsoever, just water, salt and spices). There is a chance though that for the Americans it's all the same and that they call the sour cucumbers pickles as well... Halibutt 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This might be the very same soup then, though the pickle thingie is misleading. Basically soured cucumbers are made the very same way sauerkraut is made. You put cucumbers in a barrel or some other vessel (usually "stone pots", a kind of heavy ceramic pot, are used in most households) and add cold, pure water with spices. I myself use dill, horseradish (at times), garlic (always!) and cherry or oak leafs. And salt, obviously. Then you have to press the cucumbers under the water with some plate and a stone or anything that would prevent the plate from floating (so that the amount of air that reaches the cucumber is low) and... that's it. After less than a week you get what is called low-salt cucumber or ogórek małosolny in Polish. If you wait several days more, the result is the standard soured cucumber (ogórek kiszony or ogórek kwaszony, depending on the region).

To make the soup you simply use minced soured cucumbers as the main ingredient. I doubt the soup could be comestible if one made it from pickles. Though, on the other hand most of the foreigners I know call the cucumbers Polish style rotten and believe they're poisonous. After all they are basically rotten... Halibutt 17:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Lunar craters

Following a link from the Village pump where someone is questioning why we have such pages, I noticed that some of the namesakes are unlinked and in italics, while most of them, however, are linked. Is there a reason not all are linked?

For some of the eponyms there just isn't any information available. But other than that there's no real reason. We could have red links in there, but it'd be difficult if not impossible to build a page for them. (Many are former Soviet scientists and engineers who worked within the secrecy of that nation's space program.) — RJH 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sabre (fencing)

Rmhermen, you may not remember me, but I have had the opportunity to work with you in the past. I would like your opinion on how to proceed with User:70.50.53.43 and the user's actions at Sabre (fencing) (see the talk page). The user repeatedly removes the link to List of American sabre fencers with no explanation other than "vandalism" and a diatribe at his/her talk page. I suspect that this user edits in good (albeit somehwat misguided) faith, although he/she will not listen to reasoning nor be coaxed into discussion. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Isopropyl 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Isopropyl 22:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful

Thanks for Image:Socalareacodes.png. It's awesome. Will swap it in in a bit. Thanks. jengod 19:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lynx range.png

It shows the combined ranges of all lynxes (Canadian lynx, North American lynx/bobcat, Eurasian lynx, and Iberian lynx). It was made for Wikibooks:Wikijunior Big Cats, and doing one with the species differentiated has been on my to do list since then. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I mispoke when I said it included bobcats, I thought my source map showed American lynx and bobcats. I'll modify the map if you can direct me to a bobcat range map. — Laura Scudder ☎ 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Royal Consorts

I have added your suggestion to the list and from what I can see, from 1066, there have been 6 kings and queens without consorts... Sotakeit 14:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing articles.

You're too much of a dunce. You make yourself look stupid, every time you edit. Also, please stop blindly reverting my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.242.106 (talk • contribs)

Reverting or 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

I know that you mean well, and that reverting vandalism doesn't count towards 3RR, but as this user has a rationale for his removal (although his personal attacks are in my view not helping to state his case...), I think this issue should be discussed rather than repetitiously reverted. --JoanneB 10:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are refering to Family Law or S.V. Shereshevskii, note that I did not violate 3RR at any time and I have discussed this on several talk pages. The user is not inclined to discussion. Rmhermen 17:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course you violated the rule, dolt. Please keep in mind that not everyone is on your limited intellectual plane, and won't be fooled by your obvious lies. 67.71.140.166 17:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not. The three revert rule concerns three revert in 24 hours - which I did not do. However I am refering your persistant name-calling to the Admin noticeboard. Rmhermen 18:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to {dab} pages

Hi, I asked you a question before on the Space Missions portal page and you were helpful. Could I ask you another? Another user has told me linking to {dab} pages is bad style, I thought that was the point of the those pages. Should {dab} links only go one way, from the {dab} to the content? This might be a case of UK style versus US style, in that case I think I'll let it go. I can't find a style guide that says one way or another yet, I thought I would ask you.

Reason I ask is I thought I should tag acronyms in space articles that aren't really obvious to a casual observer to a {dab} page. Thanks for you time. Rob

Mr Stewart deserves an article

whyd u delete The article i did on Jamie Stewart, the teacher?Aeom Mai

The article was nominated as a Speedy deletion by User:Makemi and I agreed. It made no claim to the notability of this teacher - very few primary or secondary school teachers have careers notable enough for an encyclopedia, many college professors don't even. Also it was written in a very un-encyclopedic manner and included a number of NPOV statements. Rmhermen 19:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually

I'm afraid that I'd agree with the others about California Road. It's a notable topic, and his material seems to at least be relevant. I'll put it on my watchlist and keep an eye out for "bio-geography" jargon. -Will Beback 02:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It turns out to have been a copyvio, made even less intelligible by bad formatting. -Will Beback 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Since I'm on your page for the below section...

Where'd the article go. Has Wiki embargoed the whole thing so you can't even look at the offense anymore (I've been away about 7 months). Thanks FrankB

(Butting in with a reply) The previous version is in the article history, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Road&action=history. The "author" made mistakes in transcribing the list making it appear to mean something it didn't. -Will Beback 01:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And it turns out that most of the article was the tour stops of a one-time tour conducted during a conference in 2000. Odd basis for an article. Rmhermen 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

LinkSpam Query

Hi!

1. I've been away from Wikipedia for a long while and was following up a cryptic talk post on my page on the Oceanography article. Checking the Talk:Oceanography Page, I see you reverted the talk page itself citing 'LinkSpam' (Good but new Term to me!), which were additional references placed in (the Talk) there by an editor who was obviously very busy in the article itself circa the 18th-22nd of last month. The article itself shows no apparent reverts, so I was wondering what was up, why the Talk rv, et. al. I guess more to the point, isn't it more appropriate to strikeout said material, rather than deleting something from a Talk page (by reversion)?
2. Do you know anything about why the 'globalize' template was added? There appears to be no recent note in the talk, and I can't seem to find out who might have added it from the history. Well, I acted boldly and deleted it, as it detracted from the article and doesn't seem to serve any good end (Even after looking at the 'anit-bias' manifesto, as it were). Looks like someone took the sole comment last August (in the talk) about wanting more input from New Zealand, and brewed up a tempest in a teapot.

FrankB 00:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to check out in the history the large amounts of material in the talk page before I reverted it. It had nothing to do with any discussion to improve the article - more the contributor used it as a scratch pad or data dump. The same user changed the generic cleanup tag which had been on the article since before mid-December to a globalize tag on Jan 5 with no comment about why. Rmhermen 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Ahhhh - missed that, I was focused on the 'change briefs' that should have made some mention; then did some history version hopping trying to spot it's arrival, but didn't see it. Which is why I asked - you had your hand in the project and I figured you'd have the better feel. If Talk was trashed (I only looked at comparison view, which sadly lacks 'display feel'), I would have done the same. Thanx FrankB 16:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Talk about a "not seeing trees for forest" snafu... RjBurkhart left me the note on my talk that took me to the article, apparently after he saw my 'I'm away note', and instead of asking me to remove the clean template, just replaced the clean template with the globalize... without said documentation. The real irony is I'd placed the original 'clean' temp. that Rjburkhart has been so diligent in following on to bring the article to such a nice state, that I now object to the globalize temp.! (Sometimes one must laugh at oneself, as it hurts so much that otherwise you'd cry!) Just thought I owed you the 'rest of the story'... so thanks for your time three times over!
  • A side query: Is there any system tool to have a keyword searched in the history files so one can easily find something like this? Would be useful in cases like this! (I see you must have done something superior to my efforts to get to your answer. Or did you page back 20-40 versions till the template change showed [brute forcing it], as it were, and I tried some of? Thanks for the maximum effort if so!)

FrankB 17:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • I don't know of any tools that search previous versions - without you first having to download them all. I used the iterative method, rather than the linear one - which probably isn't shorter because you keep having to go back to the history page between guesses. But I had a rough idea when the change happened to start from. Rmhermen 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes

[Older Version] and New Version
Compare, its changes nothing except appearance. Tutmosis 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Mackinac Island

Why take out the sentences I wrote trying to indicate an essential point about Mackinac, viz. its peaceful summer vacation family atmosphere? Maybe there's a better way to put it, but I think the point deserves emphasis in the article.

As for snowmobiles "in the winter", what other time of year would anybody try to use them?

Credmond . . . [email protected]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel brochure. "Peaceful family vacation atmosphere" is an opinion, - and a disputable one. Many families cannot afford to visit it, many couples visit without their children, some certainly will not find it peaceful, etc. You would be surprised when people will use snowmobiles and where. Rmhermen 23:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think an encyclopedia article about a tourist destination should give as clear a picture as possible of what it is about the place that tourists come for, and I don't think this article, without the sentences that I drafted and you deleted, does a good enough job of that. -- Credmond

I think we do a good job of describe the historic sites and tourism industry. I could have added, instead of your "peaceful family atmosphere", that "with the air of a chaotic third-world city with a jumble of bikes, horses, carts and people, it still manages to be out of the price range of average families". That would be equally as POV - but an equally valid observation. Instead we describe what it is, not our opinions about it. Rmhermen 22:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that "we" were entitled to contribute to this part of Wikipedia but not "me". I agree, the "chaotic" atmosphere and horrendous prices are also valid insights into Mackinac, and I see no reason why such points can't find a place in the article. -- Credmond

Malabari paratha

It must be a flatbread. Cheers! deeptrivia (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You accused the wrong party

I've never archived a Talk page. It seems you mistook my comment for the edit made by Bookofsecrets (talk · contribs) . Wadoli Itse 14:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. You are absolutely correct. Rmhermen 15:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright info on picture.

I gave the information on the source of the picture in the edit summary. It isn't copyrighted.

Image Tagging Image:Kungur Ice Cave.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Kungur Ice Cave.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't - read the image description page: "Kungur image uploaded by User:Avkostachuk at Image:Ice cave.jpg - no licence given" He was only active on December 6, 2004. Rmhermen 22:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism move request

My point is that it shouldn't redirect from Catholic Church to Roman Catholic Church. That is simply incorrect from a Catholic perspective. The "Roman" Catholic Church is the Latin Rite, not the whole Church.

But, in any event, you said that while the Catholicism to Catholicity move may be workable, the RCC to CC one is not. But then why did you vote "oppose" to the Catholicism to Catholicity move? --Hyphen5 00:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Conversions

I seen that you had posted a comment to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conversions. Check out the Israel article to see what got that debate started; look for my name in the history tab. I also see that you too are from the mitten...Hell yea—I like ya even more now. Regards. MJCdetroit 02:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pride of baltimore inner harbor-mcallen47.jpg

from what i understand, the proper Image use policy is merely to tag them per the particular situation, as uploading every model/copyright/use release would be a gross abuse of the storage capacity and bandwidth .

if i'm mistaken, please cite your source.

it's pretty obvious that the image is copywritten and a link is given in the image's description if you or anyone else would like to contact the owner directly to inquire about use. if you don't trust the link, google the name imprinted in the watermark and see if they match up.

incidentally, here's a copy of an email from the owner...but maybe i just typed it up right now just throw you off.

--- william mcallen wrote on Fri, 2 Sep 2005 18:33:31 -0400: > As long as I can put my watermark on the photos I don't have a problem. See example attached. Bill

Seasee 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding permission statements is no problem with storage capacity or bandwith. See Wikipedia:Fair use, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission and Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more on the issue. Actually I thought that the tag you used was no longer allowed - I will have to ask about that. In the meantime I have added the above to the page. Ideally we would have a free image, of course. I have a picture of that ship at dock with furled sails against a bright sky - which is very artistic but not very illustrative, which is more important to an article. Rmhermen 13:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thermodynamics

I again seek your sage advice. For merging the articles exergonic and the corresponding exergonic reaction, as well as endergonic, exothermic, and endothermic (and their respective reactions), I have been labeled a vandal by Sadi Carnot at eight different talk pages (see here and here, ther rest are the same). The user has reverted all eight of the pages using the minor edit (m) tag.

This upsets me very much, as I consider the comments made at the individual talk pages to be personal attacks. Prior to Sadi Carnot's reverts, we have had no prior contact, and there have been no posts regarding the issue to my talk page. Bear in mind I was being bold as well as acting in good faith, and as a result have been branded a vandal. I have asked MONGO about what I should do, and he has told me to go back and put {{merge}} on the articles with explanations. I have reason to believe that these will be removed.

I am unsure how to best proceed at this junction. I question my ability to properly respond to Sadi Carnot in a civil manner, as it would very easy to go off. Should I go through and place a response at each of the eight aforementioned articles? It troubles me that there are now a series of pages which call me a vandal. The user has a history of blanking his or her talk page. Before I proceed with anything, I would like a third party's opinion to ensure I am not acting out of line.

I value your advice very much and will do my best to follow it. Thank you. Isopropyl 23:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Situation rectified. Thanks. Isopropyl 23:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hectares

I realized I never responded to your note about the use of hectares, it was in response to something Bobblewik did. Because hectares are not "official", I do not plan to use them myself -- but I do so without prejudice to others using them, or even changing units in articles I contribute to. It is not particularly important to me, as metric units are a matter of a moving decimal. — Eoghanacht ^talk 23:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tahquamenon Falls

I actually don't know. I based the statement on the Tahquamenon Falls article which I believe is based on information from a state web site. In terms of height, there are surely taller waterfalls. And the way it was worded, it also seemed to imply a seasonality -- that the increased waterflow in the spring what makes it the largest in terms of waterflow -- rather than it's height or width. [10] doesn't even list the falls. I don't know of any reputable source that makes an unqualified claim of it being the 2nd largest. older ≠ wiser 16:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Isle Royale

Some of the motorboat-accessible campsites have fire rings and/or grills. [11] [12]

Stone age

Your point being what - I was (differently making I must admit) making the similar point but in the opposite dirrection to my redecisor editor. Un andstand the difference and do not enter such edit wars I just didn't have the time to make the long version of the aguements as you did. I don't disagree with you but seeing someone with no other contribution to make thought much as you did, just didn't respond the same, sorry if I caused offence. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 14:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC) You changed learned to learnt with an edit summary of "This is more correct." This is not true and too abrupt. Rmhermen 15:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well . . . . . ...... you are absolutely correct

about the Albert Kahn References section. I used to call these events "Further reading" then someone went and changed then all "Reference" and I thought "okay" and went with that - thinking of the terms as meaning references to AK, or whatever. rather then just for the article. Also I have been trying to catalog my library and have been posting titles on wikipedia as what I thought was just another resource to be found here. But I have no problem removing them either. Carptrash 17:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would just relabel it as "Further reading" myself. Rmhermen 17:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Contact info for author of picture.

Who is the authur of the 'Hurontario Street' picture supposed to contact exactly to give permission? Provide address. Thanks.

Hiya

I invite you to take a look at Christianity Knowledge Base and join our project!

Thanks!!! 70.30.57.80 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Farmer

This article doesn't need a list of notable farmers. But if it is going to have one, it shouldn't just be a list of US Presidents who happened to own farms, should it? I explained my position on the talkpage, why did you revert it without explaining yours? Kevlar67 10:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Gate to destiny

I write only to let you know that, consistent with WP:PROD, the creator of the article supra removed the prod tag; I likely will support deletion at AfD but haven't yet anything to adduce toward deletion (cf., tagging the article from cleanup, wikification, and context identification), so I'm not altogether comfortable nominating the article for deletion (and, in any case, I hate to swoop in on someone else's prod), but I thought perhaps you might want to AfD the page. Joe 05:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks

For your input on the List of archaeological periods (North America) page this adds significant information and formating to what I was able to produce. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 08:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

William

Hi Rmhermen,

I was wondering why you undid my change to the William page without explanation. Most pages pertaining to a personal name have a section of famous people who had that first name.

Neelix 16:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Any that do should not. This are disambiguation pages for people known only as William - to get people to the correct article when links are made incorrectly, not lists of everyone who every had a particular name. Rmhermen 17:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

reply

Oh, I was to lazy to summarize the conversation. I also have another question, don't know if you'd know the anwser

I noticed that in wikihtml, when we edit, formating has extra space, for example, when we edit a comment, there's a space between the $Subject/headline:$ & the content of the message. Another example is $== Extra Space ==$ is also the same as $==Extra Space==$. Does this make comments larging in size as bytewise? Even if not, it could create confusion. So I guess Mediawiki needs to be tweaked/the devlopers\the codes needs a little editing?

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me [email protected] [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki code ignores the extra spaces - rather the same as HTML. It even ignores the double spaces some people insert between sentences, this is a more debatable feature.

It doesn't ignore double returns though. However these extra spaces take up very little space bytewise compared to the text on the entire page. Rmhermen 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Exploration Timeline

I appreciate your listing the NASA source. The usage of the word "circumlunar" in that source is, despite it being NASA, erroneous nontheless. Circumlunar does mean "around the moon," you are absolutely correct in that; however, it is not used synonymously with "Lunar Orbit."

Instead, this term strictly denotes going around only once, in a Figure 8 trajectory, completely encircling the moon, without achieving orbital injection and capture by the moon.

The following link is not NASA, but is a reputable source that uses the term "circumlunar" in the same sense as it is commonly used in practically all other reputable sources, including NASA itself (where consistent): http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/manlunar.htm

That said, however, please note that debating the definition of "circumlunar" is beside the point: Since you do not prefer the term, I'll gladly concede as use the same phrase used elsewhere in the timeline, "flyby and return," which is unambiguous.

However the term "circumlunar" is used in your source, the objective historical fact is that Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 achieved Lunar Orbital Injection, and at no time ever flew a free-return trajectory, never flew a Figure 8 pseudo-orbital geometry, and Apollo 13 was the first mission to "accomplish" this (albeit due to a failed landing mission), but a noteworthy first nontheless. Any implication or insinuation to the contrary is, with all due respect to the NASA document, false. One need only examine the detailed NASA, NSSDC, or Encyclopedia Astronautica articles detailing the facts of those missions.

I appreciate your thoughtful contribution, and will gladly discuss any disagreement you have toward my recent edit.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still don't agree with your definition and can find no dictionary that does either. HOwever more importantly I don't really see that as an important first - going around the moon once after men have already landed on it. Rmhermen 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian pop and Contemporary Christian music

Hi I'm interested in talking about the differences :) Just to make sure, you're a Christian right? Anyways, I go to Koorong and stuff and Word and I have never heard of the word 'Contemporary Christian music'. like i have, but that refers to old stuff by stuff that my dad listens to *gulps*

Stuff that I listen to like Bethany Dillon, Joy Williams, KJ52 I would never classify as CCM because that terms sounds so like old school! Christian pop is so in, and CCM is so out! What do you think? I would be interseted to discuss bout this.

Btw how do you talk so that every time i reply it indents? thanks :) Candice Candice Coppins 15:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

CCM may refer to a light pop style of music but previously it was more ambiguous. When I was in high school, I could read reviews of punk groups or rock groups in CCM (magazine). In fact I see that the current CCM has a review of Kutless: "one of the top-selling hard rock bands in Christian music"[13]. Our CCM article follows this generic usage to describe the entire musical movement arising out of "Jesus music", gospel and hymn singing - and including all sorts of music styles from light pop to rap to metal but which are Christian and contemporary. See the bands mentioned in the article and in the List of CCM artists. Rmhermen 16:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay. cool. thanks for the link to the CCM. So does this mean that Christian pop is a subgenre of CCM? because i thought Christian contemporary music was like contemporary adult music (secular) which means soft rock, whereas Chrsitian pop is like pop rock kinda thing (secular). as in the secular equivalentz.

im not familiar with the term CCM. would you like to keep the list of CCM artists or would you consider them christain soft rock artists? and would you agree that my fav artists like bethany dillon, joy williams, kj52 and stuff are christain pop artists? or are they ccm artists? its really confusing because theres no countdown for christian artists, but where there is, for example www.hot25.com.au they just say the 'hottest christian music' not the hottest ccm music, or christian pop music, or anythin glike that. but then there is stuff like www.therockacrossaustralia.com

you gotta admit, christian music influence is in its revolutionary by hillsong, if you know them. so its still being developed. thanks for helping me out :)

Regarding Hillsong, I think you need to investigate the old revolutionaries of the Jesus Music movement of the early 1970s. As for the three artists you mention: it seems to me, based on online soundclips, Bethany Dillon would be billed as pop or CCM (as our article does call her), Joy Williams would be billed as country or Christian country in the U.S. although a number of her chart positions are on Adult Contemporary, and our article on KJ-52 says he is a rap artist which Christianity Today review also calls him[14]. From your changes to the Christian pop article you seem to be making that into what the CCM article already covers. From that article: "Christian pop includes many Christian hip hop, Christian rap, Christian metal, Christian punk, Christian rock, and Christian worship music, it is reasonable to say that "Christian pop" is a loosely defined category. It may also be classified as Christian soft rock or Christian pop rock." I don't think this is a good definition. Rmhermen 17:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Apple computer pranks

Hi Rmhermen! You deleted Apple computer pranks without giving a reason. There was an AfD underway for it that will need closing, but I'm unable to provide the reason for deletion in order to do so. Can you let me know your reasoning? Thanks ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have said vanity although I see on review that that is limited to persons. Next time I won't be so quick to delete. Rmhermen 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Longest Ballad

I think Akilattirattu Ammanai with more than 15000 lines is the longest ballad form of literary works in the world. Does you have any objections? Please respond in my talk page - Vaikunda Raja 00:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you have posted on the wrong user page. I haven't edited that recently. Rmhermen 01:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No I just asked your opinion in that matter. Thats all.What do you think?. - Vaikunda Raja

Well, apparently the name means "ballad" whether the content and style match the definition of a ballad I couldn't say. Rmhermen 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'am sure that the definition match to Akilattirattu Ammanai perfectly. But here the matter is 15000 lines. Do you think there is any another longer than this. - Vaikunda Raja 19:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you know? {{prod}} can have a parameter.

Hello there. You have proposed the article Ricky Ricotta's Mighty Robot Astro Activity Book Of Fun for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 14:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

camp cooking

"Pitch your tent 100 yards uphill from the area where you're cooking and storing food, if possible." Do you really walk 100 yards to cook food? I've never seen anyone go to that extreme. I think that's a bit overdoing it. Most of the page you ref is fine, but this one's overdoing it. This ref also seems focused on places like Yellowstone and Yosemite. Bears in most of the rest of the country are much more timid. Perhaps the paragraph article should reflect that. Rlevse 18:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference is from a Idaho national forest, not near either of those parks. While the exact distances vary somewhat by source, the article never states an exact distance. The important point is don't cook or eat near your tent. In fact Yellowstone does give the same 100 yard figure. This Canadian source gives 50 m for cooking and 200 m for garbage! Rmhermen 19:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I still think it's a bit far. I've never had my bear bag hit by bears, but it has been hit a couple of times by raccoons, so I'd like to add a bit about that. Rlevse 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also possible that the 100 yard advice refers to areas with brown bears, who are much more aggressive than black bears. The Yosemite bears are clever and persistent enough to foil almost any bagging scheme, and even improperly-closed bear cans. Yes, raccoons are often a greater threat to a food stash than bears. -Will Beback 22:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

However, hungry bears are more of a threat to you than hungry raccoons. Rare as they are bear attacks are worse than raccoon attacks. It is too simple to say that brown bears are more aggressive as more deaths are caused by black bears (and more per capita, that is per black bear "capita"). Rmhermen 03:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Move proposal, List of "British" words

Hi Rmhermen--- yes, I was a tad verbose, but I guess you utterly, totally, and completely misunderstood the sense of my proposal; the page will indeed accommodate all so-called Briticisms, no matter if they are used in Australia or elsewhere; read Boothman's comment, and think it over! Thanks, --JackLumber 19:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC) I replied. --JackLumber 20:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hermen, I felt free to stroke out your initial comment on the Talk:List of words mainly used in Commonwealth English page, as it can't actually account for your vote---so either come up with a different reason, or (better) a different *title*, or just... jump on the bandwagon, there's lots of room ;-) Jack