Hey Rmherman, I started making changes to some National Monuments which were very similar to your goal for your National Parks Project before I actually stumbled across your project page. I would like to continue your work, in a slow fashion, with some of the National Monuments.
The real topic for discussion, however, is dates of establishment. Your tabular format of your project lists a date of establishment, which appears to be the date of an area's most recent designation. I feel it is very useful to see the whole history, for intance to see that Congaree National Park was protected by the NPS first in 1976 as a National Monument, and then in 2003 as a National Park. Knowing that the establishment of the area happened in 1976 is at least as important as the fact that it changed designations in 2003. I have amended several of your pages to include this.
Do you have any opinions about standardizing my idea for your project?
Hi, I noticed that you moved the proofs out of the article on Mobius transformation. Why? This goes against the current style guidelines established for proofs. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs if you think the guideline should be changed. linas 01:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The article on the Naval Historical Center ([1])states that evidence of a mine or other methods of sabotage is slim and unlikely. Due to Anti-Spain sentiments at the time, it was easy to jump to the conclusion that the Spanish sabotaged the ship. Any sabateur would have to work a con right out of Ocean's Eleven. Reems of armed guards were on duty and lookouts were posted to watch for waterborne sabateurs. While the cause is disputed. It is extremely unlikely that sabotage was to blame and the dispute is often between two accidental causes.
(By the way: your talk page is 87 kilobites long! Might want to archive some of this stuff)
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 04:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback and updates to the Muir Woods page. I will spend some more time reviewing the style guide to ensure that future articles meet the standards of the site. I am aware of the date convention. I apparently missed one of the dates while making my changes.
You asked if I made the map. I did. Is there an issue that needs to be addressed on the map?
Epolk 16:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You wrote:
Someone just created several pages like Lord Lieutenant of Argyll and Bute -that one with just one unwikified entry. I thought you would be the one to know if they are useful or improvable. Rmhermen 13:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think that these can be improved, if the full list of office-holders is added. Otherwise, of course, the articles are of no use at all. -- Emsworth 22:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey,
I've linked directly to most numbered regiments on that page because i'm hoping that articles will be created for each individual regiment. I fear it won't be complete until about 2020 :-(
Most of the British infantry regiments on the British forces in Revolution page were merged with each other in 1881 so, in my opinion, the numbered ones do deserve their own page. The ones that weren't amalgamted should, unless they've had a history longer than the current EU constitution or just deserve their own page, be made redirects to whatever they are called now or what the used to be called until they too were merged. Meh, the history of the British Army is so damned inconvenient at times.
I've probably made all that sound disjointed. The approach looks something like this:
I got the numbers from Wikipedia itself: there is a surprisingly convenient list of Michigan locations by per capita income that I was hoping to find on Wikipedia before but it's buried but among the per capita income articles and not among the Michigan articles. I figured it's incorporation in some way to at least one Michigan article was important and otherwise would have gone to waste in some way. I also added the list and the notes at the end of the subsection to clarify some of the colloquial and misconstrued ideas about Michigan's richest and poorest cities. Since the numbers come from the US Census Bureau, I suppose that's the source. I've updated the Michigan page to reflect this, along with the year in which these numbers were calculated. Gsgeorge 17:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Forgive me if I get a little crude, but
Why do you insist on reverting my edits to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham article? Only overzealousness and aloofness could explain your restoring the phrase "French and Indian War (US)" to the battlebox given my entry in the talk page. Also, my changes to the opening paragraph eliminate two redundant words and are no longer grammatically ambiguous - again, you revert without reason.
I'll desist from further editing until we've reached some understanding, of course. Albrecht 01:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Rmhermen, at the moment there is a poll taking place on the Macedonian Slavs talk page to which you could make a significant contribution. Thank you in advance for your participation. Ivica83 13:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering why you moved the page because Controlled Combustion Engine is a name and not a description eg. the FBI page isn't Federal bureau of investigation. - Diceman 16:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great job in adding glacial grooves information on the Kelleys Island page. How did you manage to do it so quickly? I put in a suggestion for it on Sunday night. On Monday morning it was done.
Is there an appropriate way to have "Glacial Grooves" or Glacial Grooves State Memorial/Park" show up in a search? Regards, DD
I just took a shot at adding Glacial Grooves myself - before I saw your note above. Hope it's OK DD
Thanks for expanding the list of Mississippi state parks. The state's website says there are 28 parks, but I can only find 24 named there. The current wikilist is 25. What was your source for the list of parks? Thanks. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:14, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
Hello --
I'm trawling for smart people with an interest in American Indian affairs, and if you happen to have anything to contribute to the Peter Matthiessen article, or know someone who does, I think that would be great!
Best,
Ben-w 08:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In a bleary-eyed state early this morning I added a reply to your comment on my talk page on your user page instead of here. Apologies. Anyway, guess you'll see it now I've added a message here - SP-KP 17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi
Just to explain: this phrase simply means that I am currently in the process of creating the article or series of articles but that it/they are too long to key in in one sitting; likewise sections with "to be completed" in them. The purpose is to signify to other authors that the article is a "work in progress" thereby letting them know that someone else is working on sorting out the incomplete bits so they don't have to. When I'm comfortable with my contribution I will go back and remove the phrase, so I'm not creating work for anyone else, unless I get run over by a bus. I realise that in a sense *all* Wikipedia articles are "works in progress", but I feel there is a distinction between an article that is obviously in mid-stream, and one which the origniator is happy with but which others may add to. So no need to worry on this one (but happy to listen if you can think of a better way of achieving the same end result). -SP-KP 06:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks - I will add one of those to the pages you spotted, and a couple of others which I am actively working on
- SP-KP 09:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.
Eric 19:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Rmherman,
I read your comments on my talkpage but don't understand a word you're saying. I haven't changed anything at William of Orange (disambiguation) and I have redirected William of Orange not to William the Silent but to William of Orange (disambiguation). It was directed to William III of Orange which obviously is not correct (as you point out). Chardon
Please visit the page [3] and its talk page Talk:William of Orange - a vote ongoing. Arrigo 20:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the following without discussion:
I believe that this statement is more NPOV than the present version you have included. It is an argument not a fact and to include a reference to recent studies, which in-fact do not support the argument is in line with NPOV. I feel that at the very least something like this should be put to discussion.
If you feel my edit was inaccurate please say so and cite a reference to back it up and we can reedit the section to reflect this. - Solar 8 July 2005 18:57 (UTC)
Please note I did not say you removed the links I said you moved them (see above). I feel the best thing to do is see if anyone replies to the points on the CP talk-page about links. As I feel it is very important to have research listed on the issue of deterrence I will add it to a neutral area and then link to it from the pro area, I think this is the fairest I can be as the evidence needs to be included. I feel that if there is evidence pro or against an argument it should be included, ideally both angles if such evidence exists. - Solar 8 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer at WP:RD about country music in Britain. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking July 8, 2005 20:53 (UTC)
Hi, Since you created the link to Noric language at Celtic languages, can you provide some sources for it? I already asked Pasquale, who made the red link blue, but said he just filled it in because it was mentioned at Celtic languages. As I mention on its talk page, none of the sources on Celtic languages I've consulted mention it. Is it actually attested, or does one simply assume that the inhabitants of Noricum must have spoken something, and that it was probably Celtic? Thanks, --Angr/tɔk tə mi 9 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought I had gotten all of the vandalism. Silly me. -Harmil 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I noticed you restored an image to the 8th Duke of Wellington Article, that had been removed as it is marked for deletion from wikipedia. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation#Request_from_original_uploader_to_delete_copyright_images and the bottom of the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington . 62.252.96.16 13:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rmh. I note you reverted my edit to the Moon rocks article intro, without comment. I left a note about it on Talk:Moon rocks a couple of days ago and receiving no reaction, inserted my version which is demonstrably far less verbose and to the point. Also you have reverted to a version which inconsistently uses "lbs." for pound but "kg" for kilogram. I would like to revert to my version, but if you have a serious objection, let's discuss it. Cheers Moriori 22:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to request with respect that you please stop reverting my additions to the Capital Punishment article. I feel that we have been here before and it is becoming a problem, as you seem unwilling to properly discuss your changes. I feel it is fair to add further detail, cite sources or generally put your opinion across whilst maintaining a balanced article. But to simply delete any addition outside of the against section that undermines a pro-Capital Punishment position is extremely problematic. In the future I would ask that you involve others in such changes by democratically discussing the issue on the talk page. I would also ask that if you feel the information is misplaced or should be part of the arguments against section why not move it or elaborate from your sources. Just because a fact or survey may undermine a given argument does not make it POV, in my opinion you should simply offer other sources, if they exist, giving greater depth for the reader. Please see Talk:Capital_punishment#Pro_Death_Penalty - Solar 14:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Operation Enduring Freedom could be a subcategory of the War on Terrorism, since you say it is Afghanistan & the Philippines only. What do you think? Copperchair 19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi there, I am very new to Wikipedia and I am trying to do my best to make a few contributions without any problems. I see the newest page I created was tagged with possible copyright violation. I have made additions to Philippe Kahn, added Fullpower and Sonia Lee Kahn. I would just like to have these pages not challenged and available. I have done a lot of research, put in time and effort and even gotten permission from them directly. They have been pivotal in the world of wireless, are well known here on the central coast (california) and I believe there are many others out there interested in their contributions, especially in the world of technology. I welcome any help in how I can structure these pages or others so that I won't run into this problem. Thank you Athena :) 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC) BTW, it would be helpful if you could provide details as to why what I did is considered a copyright violation. Thank you
How would I post that I have this permission? Thank you. Athena :) 22:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Also, what would I need to do to post something that can't be edited?
So now how do I get these three pages changed from copyright violations? It took me forever to get it removed for fullpower the first time. If I post the email permission rcvd on the talk page will this keep it from happening again? The most important thing is that I get all three pages removed/changed from copyright violations which I do not fully understand and would really appreciate your help. I tried to follow all of the steps the first time with fullpower to no avail. Eventually it was just deleted and I got to re-add it. I certainly don't want to keep enduring this battle and would rather contribute the information for the benefit of others. Thank you Athena :) 23:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Greetings. Why do you capitalize "Blacks" (as in the Sabha article)? Just curious. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I come from german wikipedia. My question is: you has insert in the article James Island (The Gambia) the first name of St. Elizabeth Island. I fond nothing in the web and nothing other literature. But i found the Name Jakob Island from Courland's Duke, Jakob Kettler. Before the name is Isla de Andrea or St. Andrew's Island from the Portuguese. What is your source for St. Elizabeth Island? --Atamari 00:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
May I ask why you removed the comparison of lavash thickness to cotton fabric from the lavash article? Do you believe the comparison to be incorrect, inappropriate, misleading, or perhaps, not in keeping with good prose? Just wanted to know your reasoning before I either revert the edit or write a better description of its thickness. Thanks. --Aramգուտանգ 21:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:William of Orange 217.140.193.123 11:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I'm leaving this message because you're one of the people who supported (in full or in part) the Table namespace proposal. I've entered a feature request for the first part of this proposal, under Bug 2194. It would help draw some attention if you could enter a Bugzilla vote for it.
This particular feature request only covers three specific things:
[[Table:World population by country]]
[[Table:Chart of test symbols|right|framed|This would create a right-floated table with a caption and frame around it]]
Any other changes like the dedicated table editor will be brought up at a later date (since this would need to be implemented first, anyway). If you have any comments or concerns you could leave a message on Bugzilla or on the proposal page. — Omegatron 01:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I like your edit to the native american section of Glacier National Park. I'm not Indian but am well versed in issues regarding them, especially in the northern Rockies region. My edit was kind of political sounding and yours is better. The truth is that the Blackfeet were not allowed into the parklands due to treaties they didn't understand and with the establishment of a mission at St. Ignesius in the west and at Browning in the east, they became dependent on the more easily accessed food supplies of a permanent settlement...wards of the state essentially. Impoverished, they agreed to sign over their rights to the area that then became Glacier. They were actually paid well compared to many tribal groups of that era.--MONGO 17:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hi would you please give some sources for the following change apparently made by you (?) to the Beauvoir/Biloxi article?:
PLEASE NOTE*** Early reports stated that Beauvoir had been destroyed. We know now that Beauvoir is still standing, but was severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina. At this writing, it is not known if the structure is salvageable, but reports have confirmed that many artifacts are intact. According to the most recent reports, 65% of the house remains standing on its foundations. The porches, columns, doors and windows are gone, and there is major damage to the front part of the roof.***
-- I am on a bunch of library & book-collector & Southern Stuff etc. lists, and the reported news of Beauvoir's "complete destruction" is echoing around there now, upsetting lots of people. I have posted the above note to them, with a Wikipedia reference, but it would really help if I could assure them more: are you in Biloxi & did you see this yourself? if not how & where did you get the info?
There is particular concern for the collections: any way of verifying that they are ok? Is the roof of the structure ok, for instance? Any way of getting a curator's or librarian's statement or of contacting them?
Much appreciate any verification or other info you can offer. Hope I'm right that it was your addition.
Jack Kessler, kessler@well.com (please respond to my email address if you can, altho I'll check back here too.)
I have responded to you at Talk:Native Americans. You sounded a bit upset, and I hope that you understand that no one is trying to force a re-definition of any terms, only disambiguation. -Harmil 18:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Penda foes.GIF. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use ((gfdl)) to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use ((fairuse)).) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. --Secretlondon 18:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Why was this deleted, please? from the part I can read under deelted edits, it doesn't seem to fit any of the WP:CSD. I found it on new page patrol, so it must have been a pretty quick deletion. DES (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
As a little project I have been creating stubs for red links I found on the list currently called "List of U.S. National Parks Service parks." I had my own template of sorts, that I have been using, however, I may start to utilize the Protected Area Table that you helped develop. The thing is, I have no background in applying the IUCN categories. I have my own ideas about which ones to use, but if you have a few minutes, I would like your opinion on how to categorize various kinds of sites. Thanks. — Eoghanacht talk 14:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
For sites that do not have a category in the IUCN database, I am just going to take my best guess based on the description of each and state something like I did at: Roosevelt Campobello International Park. (That article is my first attempt at the table, and if you have any comments, let me know now before I start revising several of my stubs.) Generally I think all historic areas would fall under cat. III.
Also, under its talk page, I have a proposal to move the page (yet again, although other moves were not by me) List of U.S. National Parks Service parks. — Eoghanacht talk 15:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
2 Items:
To see both of these in action, go to Ford's Theatre and click on edit for the code. Thanks for your help. I think I am on my way now. (FYI, I am going to place several comments on the park list talk page.) — Eoghanacht talk 15:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
FYI, I placed some suggestions for modifications to the Protected Areas Table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected Areas/General. — Eoghanacht talk 15:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
You originally created this as a redirect to Kelleys Island, Ohio; I have replaced it with a stub article now. I thought it'd be appropriate to inform you of it. Mindmatrix 00:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
FALSE
Drowning in Numbers Letter by Steve Parsons, July 2002
In a review of Antony Beevor's 'Berlin: The Downfall' (June SR), mention is made of 'the greatest maritime disaster of all time', the sinking of the Goya by a Russian submarime with the consequent drowning of 7,000 refugees.
However, a disaster of even greater magnitude took place on 3 May 1945, when the RAF bombed and machine-gunned the German luxury liner, Cap Arcona, in the Baltic in the bay of Lubeck, south of the Danish island of Lolland. On this occasion 7,700 died, and what makes the incident even more grotesque was the fact that the victims were concentration camp prisoners.
At the close of the war a determined effort was made by the Nazis to kill the surviving concentration camp inmates by commanding them on forced marches away from the advancing Russians--the infamous death marches. Ten thousand prisoners from Neuengamme, a camp in the vicinity of Hamburg, ended up in Lubeck, where they were then ordered aboard the ship Cap Arcona, and fully expected to meet their deaths by being sunk by the Germans. Sighting British planes they were overjoyed, believing they would now be saved. Of course the British airmen did not know the ship was full of prisoners. Yet their fate has been allowed to disappear from the general historical consciousness, and instead it is the Russians who are given the responsibility for the world's 'greatest maritime disaster'.
Steve Parsons
Denmark
I see you notated that Location Maps had been uploaded for a number of national parks that didn't have infoboxes yet...I went and did them on my own but could you link me to where the upload page is where the originals were put? Thanks.--MONGO 18:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I know you sometimes edit articles on Michigan-related items. You might be interested in the new wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan. Cheers. older≠wiser 20:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
... at Talk:Provisional designation of asteroids#Approval. Given that you participated in this discussion, previously, you may wish to vote. Thanks! -- hike395 02:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
2005 North India earthquake --pradeepsomani
In response to your Bible history comment, I was hoping no one would notice the work-in-progress of the Bible translation articles I've been contributing to. It started as a reorg of Bible translations (where I'm importing most of my data from; see its history page) and has turned into a makover of several articles! I'm currently working on updating History of the English Bible#Middle English translations, moving incorrectly placed info from the History of the English Bible#Christian Translations section.
If you don't mind waiting another day or two to let me finish working out the article, it would probably make things much less confusing. If you'd like to collaborate more or disagree with anything, you might want to try a speedier form of communication! I'm rockofvictory on AIM or e-mail me using the toolbox link in standard left column of my User page. --J. J. 17:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Please start a discussion before removing something. Close-mindedness is not good for wiki
Hello, just wanted to let you know about the recent edits we were both performing on the Zilwaukee Bridge article. I had removed the statement regarding the congestion caused by the old bridge because when I first read it, the sentence seemed to imply the old structure was causing congestion on the river itself, which was not the case. After contemplating your reversion on that, I figured you were likely referring to congestion on I-75, so I reworded the sentence to get that point across. It's a bit wordy as it stands, but I wanted to remove any potential confusion.
Also, I noticed you reverted the clarifications to the external links I added. While I did not re-add the clarification to the second link, I did put one back for the first one. I did this to reduce any confusion that the report mentioned in the link was actually hosted or placed online by the Michigan Department of Transportation. While it was MDOT who originally issued the report, the transcription of the text, digitization of the photos and creation of the online site was done completely independently and is hosted on a private website. I hope you agree with these changes for the reasons I've stated above. If not, I wouldn't mind discussing it with you! Thanks! CBessert 03:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi:
I used wikipedia just a couple of days ago to help describe to a friend the prase "all your base are belong to us".
I saw the term "snowclone" and then tried describing THAT to a different friend. I don't think I did a very good job of it though and I would like to forward the information on because it made sense READING it but I apparently do not explain it very well.
Imagine my surprise when I realized that the entry had been deleted!
I was hoping you could re-post the explanation or forward me your info. I think this is a great site and your entries are very imforamtive and articulate!
Thanks so much for your help! Rachel (Minneapolis, MN)
There is a discusion of this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Non-standard ordinal abbreviations. I'm with you, but apparently, the Army and US government standard is actually 82d (which I find ugly and unread-able). Your comments would be welcome there, of course. --Habap 18:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.army.mil/cmh/lineage/branches/div/082abd.htm This is the official lineage website for the 82d Airborne. Unfortunately, the 82d Airborne Division website does not use the official name for thier division, but never the less that is how they present themselves. As for a wiki version, I am of the opinion that the official name should be used, just like you would list President John Kennedy as John not Jack as his family called him. My two cents. EagleWSO 14 Dec 2005