User talk:Rmhermen/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Detroit[edit]

There already is a fairly well-populated Category:Detroit, Michigan. Is another category needed? Or were you planning on moving the one to the other? olderwiser 13:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No I just found the orphan Category:Detroit, not linked from Category:Michigan. I don't think Category:Detroit, Michigan was linked from there either, though. I have no idea which is better. I see Category:Chicago and Category:New York City. Rmhermen 13:44, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I see. Either name is OK with me, although I'm not inclined to go changing the categories for a bunch of articles right now. Category:Detroit, Michigan is a subcategory of Category:Cities in Michigan which is itself a subcategory of Category:Michigan. I can see some reason for adding the Detroit category directly under Michigan, but then again hierarchy purists sometimes object to such recursion. olderwiser 13:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I am one of those link-mad anti-hierarchicists myself. I don't care which category stays as long as it is consistent with other similar categories. I mentioned the problem at Categorys for deletion. Rmhermen 14:03, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

I've replied at User talk:Matt Crypto. — Matt 14:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So much of the Chicago article was lost in the last week or so, it seems to have happened somewhere around 10/18. I don't believe it is due to vandalism but rather because the page hit the 32k limit. Numerous attempts at reverting failed. I'm not trying to piece the article back together from recent versions. In order to avoid the same problem I'm removing many lists and putting them into their own articles and doing things like keeping the extensive history section but moving the "Important Dates" section into it's own article called Chicago Timeline. It'll take awhile to get it back together.

  1. Jason 19:37, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Friuli[edit]

Thanks for correcting the text I added to Friuli, my english is not very good, I should probably study more ;). By the way, could you also have a look at Friulian language? Thank u very much --Klenje 15:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dot Project Maps[edit]

Hi. I watch Seth Ilys' pages and I'm working on the Dot Project. I thought I would give you my opinion of your question to him, if you don't mind.

I typically don't look at individual locales before I create maps. It's been extremely rare up to now (maybe once or twice in 2000+ maps) that there already is one there, and those weren't standard Dot Project maps. I believe I left them alone and also added a standard Dot Project map.

As far as I know, no one has asked until now to do only some communities in a state, but I've expected it would occur eventually. The Dot Project is a big task and only a few of us have tackled it. I've done Missouri, Arizona, and Ohio, and am pretty far along on Louisiana. After that, I would like to do Kansas and then, I'll probably stop, at least for awhile. If you would like to do maps for Louisiana and/or Kansas, I guess I'd welcome the assistance.

It would be nice in such a collaboration to have a way to find what maps have been generated for a state (eg 'show me all instances of "LAMap*.png"'), but I understand that we can't query for images this way in Wikipedia. If you're only doing a few in each state, the way I create my images isn't very time-consuming. Hitting one occasionally wouldn't be a bother. I usually generate them alphabetically by county/parish, getting all the cities, towns and unincorporated areas in a county/parish before moving on to the next. If you were going to focus on the larger cities, that would work too, as I could preview them easily enough. If it was 'scatter-shot', it would be nice if you could leave a list in some logical place. I could then scratch the completed ones from my to-do list.

Of course, I don't speak for Seth. Outside of Louisiana and Kansas, what happens with the Dot Project might not affect me. I'll be interested in seeing Seth's response to your question. Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks Revisions[edit]

Hi! Thanks for taking notice and reverting the changes I made to the 9/11 attacks page. I think that my edits were correct, though so I thought to send you this explanatory note. I tried to condense this page at the suggestion of the edit warning: "WARNING: This page is 39 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB."

  • The edits to the death toll are to maintain consistency with the Casualties page

One or both of these pages is wrong. They can't both be right!

  • The "Earlier Revelations" section is too long and rambling. It can be summarized easily so I moved the existing content to "Osama bin Laden Fatwa" and "Osama tapes" pages. I will add a direct link to the "Osama tapes" on the 9/11 page. Thanks again. Alberuni 15:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You took out content and cliamed to be putting it in Osama bin Laden Fatwa which you did not do. So I restored it. If you put the content somewhere else, please link to it. The numbers on casualty were out of date. I updated them after I updated the main article. Rmhermen 15:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick response. What is your source for the casualty figures? This source claims 2996 and this wiki page claims 2995.
      • The BBC and AP news stories on the 3rd anniversary commemorations. See [[1]]. (remebering that the hijackers are not counted among the victims but are counted in our total dead.) The second one you list is just derived from our earlier out-of-date number. Rmhermen 17:00, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

TSS[edit]

Man, I was still in the process of creating the TSS article and you were right there! Are you following me? 8^) - Marshman 04:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Danton[edit]

Why did you just erase the page at Danton, instead of correcting the redirect? There are still 3 articles linking to the blank page. Anyway, I have added a redirect, now avoiding the double redirect. olivier 08:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Because I didn't want to be forced to make a sub-stub article "Danton is a 1983 movie." which is what those remaining links are about. But you forced me to. Rmhermen 13:10, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Travers Harris[edit]

Did you mean to say that he was tried at Nuremburg? Rmhermen 17:16, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, no, of course not, only German crimes were tried in Nuremberg. As far as I know the German bombings of civilians were not tried either. Get-back-world-respect 15:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of Greenland - detached from Denmark[edit]

Please see that page's discussion page. Paul Beardsell 04:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles - J[edit]

Halló Rmhermen! Thanks for the answer! I placed the doubles Juan Luis Vives and Juan Luís Vives at Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles - "J". Do you know how to directly acces letter "J" in a link? I made additional comments / questions there. Regards Gangleri 00:36, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Programme[edit]

But programme and program, whilst being homophones, mean two different things. The former is used to denote a schedule or event (e.g. television programme, the outline of a school sports day, etc.). It is a noun. The latter is used to primarily in the IT industry to denote compiled, executable instructions. It is both a verb and a noun, and the two are not interchangeable. I was correcting the usage, the matter was not a international english vs. american english consideration, Wikipedia's policy on which I am quite aware and abide by.

Here are the entries from my dictionary (OED 3rd Ed.):
program n. series of coded instructions for a computer. —v.t. (p.t. programmed) instruct (a computer) or express (a problem) by means of this. programmer n.
programme n. plan of procedure; list of events or of items in an entertainment; these events etc.; broadcast performance.

This is a British English distinction, not an American English one. Program is used in both senses in American (and often in Canadian). Rmhermen 13:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
In that case the only unambiguous usage is to use both terms as outlined above. As an silly analogy, how about if someone from Boston moved Truck to Ladder (vehicle) citing that all trucks are also called 'Ladders' in Boston. It is not better to use the least ambiguous, most common definition? As an administrator you should be aware that it is official Wikipedia policy not to use the language the original author wrote in as you cited when reverting them, but to favour more common spellings over less common ones. Nicholas 16:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In American English, as far as I understand, there is no distinction. See the various entries at [2]. However, I think it may be appropriate to use "programme" in the title of this article, iff British English is taught and used more than American English in China. — David Remahl 16:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I doubt there is much confusion of meaning between these to spellings. As to which is most common, note these uses:
  • "Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Program" Australian Department of Immigration [3]
  • "Canadian Program Certification" from Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
  • "program of overseas aid" from Amnesty International (which was started in Britain)
  • "embark upon a program of enormous reformation" New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
  • "REFORM PROGRAM OF WEST BENGAL" from India's Ministry of Power

Rmhermen 17:47, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can find typos to support their cause. Do you want me to produce a longer list from more official sources? That would be a silly exercise. Wikipedia has the following existing traits which I have observed since you started this dispute: All US programs are spelt the american way. All non-US programmes are spelt the international way. Go look for yourself. China, not being a part of america, should follow the latter policy. Do you still disagree? Nicholas 18:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in here, but I think you are misinterpreting the Manual of Style guidelines. It says "For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English (American, British, Canadian, and others). However, there is a certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia". One of the principles of ettiquette is "Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country (for instance the British "Labour Party"). A reference to "the American labour movement" (with a U) or to "Anglicization" (with a Z) may be jarring." There is no reference to "International English" as you put it. And barring any further evidence, the type of English used in China is as yet undetermined. As such the guiding principles are 1) "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings (it can be jarring to the reader). In particular, for individual words and word-endings. For example, don't use center (American) in one place and fibre (British) in another." and 2) "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)", which essentially privileges the style of the person who first drafts the article. olderwiser 18:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
I am glad, Nicholas, that you like British spelling. However these examples are not typos. One of the oldest rules on Wikipedia is that we respect the first author's choice of spelling. It vastly cut down on the edit wars we used to have. Now this debate is moving back to the everything "not about America must be British" form of anti-Americanism -- we had this debate years ago -when we formulated the rule. Rmhermen 19:02, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
I stand by my dictionary and what I consider to be common knowledge that the two words have different meanings and are not interchangeable. One cannot be replaced by the other, so changing between the two or discussing it as a british vs. american thing is a void argument, akin to saying Pear is the american word for Apple and insisting all apples be called pears, in addition to the fruits already known as pears. This was honestly not one of those cases (in any case I would only revert changes from english to american, per WK policy, though I don't recall having done this in a single instance since I've been on here, 3+ months continuous, and about 18 months sporadically). I intended no anti-americanism in this particular matter, I would piss off far too many of my friends if I were anti-american :-). On another matter, since you just said above "One of the oldest rules on Wikipedia is that we respect the first author's choice of spelling" why have you moved pages I created which used programme? This contravenes your own principle. I am going to write a series of summaries covering indian, chinese (already begun), pakistan, us, russian (already begun), european, japanese and brazilian national space programmes (maybe others if I can get the info) and intend to have spelling consistency across the series. Nicholas 21:22, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The two words clearly have different meaning to you. However in American English, programme is not a word at all so it cannot have a separate meaning. From the MOS (which we wrote when we started getting too many rules to carry around in our heads): Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country (for instance the British "Labour Party"). A reference to "the American labour movement" (with a U) or to "Anglicization" (with a Z) may be jarring." The American spelling is program, not programme. It also looks like that one may be merged into NASA, although I think its existance could be justified if it also covers private and commercial space efforts (satellite launchers and SpaceShipOne) Rmhermen 21:29, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

In American English, it is always spelled "program". The word "programme" does not exist in AE. It only exists in BE because of the development of computer science in the US and export to Britain. Otherwise, it would be the same as colour v. color, a difference in spelling and not meaning. --Jiang 02:36, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quillaia[edit]

Hello,

I just thought I'd suggest that you copy your answer on WP:RD#Quillaia to Quillaia. (Assuming you didn't intend to do it anyway, and aren't in the process of doing so as I'm writing this.)

Cheers,

-- Itai 14:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Frank Abagnale[edit]

Thank you for your answer in Reference desk. I'll introduce your answer to questioner in ja.wikipedia. - Sketch 06:54, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Merging grape articles[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you have been merging articles for various grapes. I'm not certain this makes sense, particularly for grapes like Pinot Gris / Pinot Grigio. The style is so wildly different that I think it might make sense to keep them separate, which is the practice of the Oxford Companion to Wine. Maybe keeping them separate doesn't fit with the Wiki style (I'm a relative newbie). But even then I'm not sure how to choose which name. For what it's worth, OCtW says Pinot Gris is a French variety. Regards, Wnissen 20:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They are genetically the same grape; they simply have different names in various countries that they are grown in. We have no reason to worry that these articles will grow long even if we include all styles and if we split by style, we will end up with separate articles for Schwarzrieling, Müllerebe, Pinot Meunier as champagne, Pinot Meunier as red wine, all for one variety. Some varieties have over 40 different names and so presumably a large number of styles. Other names can redirect to the article. Rmhermen 22:23, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Where possible I've been avoiding having several articles for the synonyms of the same grape, but for some examples I thought the distinction is sufficiently clear in their usage to warrant at least acknowledgement of that, in the same way that most wine encyclopedias I've seen do. For example, I'd agree that Pinot Gris / Pinot Grigio have essentially separate existences, whereas Schwarzrieling / Müllerebe are just local dialectal names. Still, I guess I'll leave it with you as it makes no odds to me, but note that you haven't merged Garnacha / Grenache for example. Nor have you removed the red links to synonyms of varieties whose main name already has a page, which merely tempts someone to write an article on it. Apologies for the Alvarelh%E3o error though, which was me blindly following the existing error linking it to Alvarinho. Let me know if you believe my contributions to the varieties are deleterious and I'll leave you to it. Smb1001 22:44, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the reply. Just an idea I'd run by you; the Category:Oenology page needs a bit of a cleanup. Firstly how does one get rid of Category:Vititculturists as it's clearly a typo? I assumed it would vanish if nothing linked to it any more. Secondly, do you believe there's a distinction between Category:Vineyards and Category:Wineries? It seems pointless having Yquem in both for example, as I was about to add a link to the Château Lafite-Rothschild article I just did. My preference is for Vineyards to remain and Wineries to go. Smb1001 16:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents[edit]

As you've protected it, please mark List of terrorist incidents as protected, otherwise it is almost impossible to tell that it is protected, and an admin could easily edit it unknowingly. Jayjg 17:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. First time I have protected a page. That really should be done automatically like Category:Speedy deletions. Rmhermen 17:54, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, now it's easy to tell. And you're right, that would be quite convenient. :-) Jayjg 18:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II[edit]

I have just invoked Goodwin's Law which does not supprise me :-( I suggest that you put in you two pennys worth on you options in the protection section, then I prepose we vote on it. I doubt if he will agree to a accept the majority view, he does not seem the type to do so. But at least, his more extream bits can be cut, arguing that the poll justifies it without having to engage in a semi-irrational discussions.

To see what I mean by a vote have a look at Talk:Unlawful combatant#Poll: Illegal, Unlawful, or Unprivileged? Philip Baird Shearer 13:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please cast a vote in the straw poll. BTW I suspect that at least 2 of the people involved in the dispute are one in the same. It will be interesting to see if they both vote.

Detroit, Michigan[edit]

Hi there. I'm the user formerly known as 68.41.175.119. Yesterday I did considerable work and cleaning on the Detroit, Michigan entry, which had been something of a mess and lacked some essential context. You later went in and altered a few bits, in most cases improving the entry but in others making disputable eliminations and additions. I see that you are a veteran user here, and I submit this note with great respect for your Wikipedia contributions.

-- Regarding the roster of "Notable names," I'm curious about the rationale for reverting to the previous, three-column format.

I understand that a single column, such as the one I devised, makes for a longer-looking list. However, in its prior incarnation, there were a couple of problems: (1) The names were ordered alphabetically from left to right, row to row. This is not at all intuitive; conventional lists are ordered vertically, and that is how readers are accustomed to processing them. (2) More important, any user wishing to add names faced an extraordinarily cumbersome task. For each new name, a user was forced to reconfigure every subsequent name and line break in the list to ensure the three-column structure remained intact. This surely discouraged contributions, which seems to run counter to the fundamental idea of Wikipedia.

Also, by reverting back to the older list, you nuked several new folks I had added, all of whom are widely known personalities and thus merit inclusion on a list of notable Detroit names.

The decision to go to the three column format was made on the talk page -see the discussion there. I have altered it to an easier to edit format. This section is also supposed to include those who lived or were born in the city which was its previous section name - not Metro Detroiters. Rmhermen 16:24, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I see the new formatting you've set up. Thanks. That's a major improvement on the old format AND on my single-column setup. Semolina Pilchard 18:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- Additionally, I have tweaked a couple of the changes you made to the copy. Most notable was the information regarding Devil's/Angel's Night. You rewrote a sentence to say that volunteer patrols have "ended the arson." That is not accurate. Though Devil's Night arson has been substantially cut back, it has not been ended. I have added data from the past two years to support this assessment.

I left the data in. However if there are less suspicious fires before Halloween than there are on an average day from any time throughout the year, it seems difficult to assign the few remaining fires to Devil's Night-inspired arson. How do you known that they are not everydday arsons? Rmhermen 16:24, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- The conclusions are those of police and fire officials, based on their analyses and reported in the Free Press, News and Michigan Chronicle. (Archived stories found via a Nexis search.)Semolina Pilchard 18:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- You also altered a handful of sentences to explicitly distinguish "Detroit" from "the suburbs." That seems OK in instances that specifically involve place identification (DTE Energy Music Theatre, for instance). It is also important in the context of racial/political division.

Elsewhere, though, it feels superfluous and even somewhat judgmental. I do know there is a Wikipedia entry on "Metro Detroit." But such a distinction feels like unhelpful hair-splitting. The goal of Wikipedia, or of any reference source, is to provide thorough and relevant information to readers seeking knowledge. By actively restricting Detroit information to stuff that happens to sit inside the city limits, readers would be denied a full and accurate picture.

"Demographics" contains a good example. Writing that the Downriver and Macomb communities are comprised of "groups" that "left the city of Detroit" is an inexact assertion. Now, there's no question that these areas include residents who once lived within the Detroit city limits. But these communities are also packed with people whose families settled there upon arrival decades ago. Places such as Taylor, Lincoln Park, Mt. Clemens, etc., were once filled with first-generation Southerners. And these communities are part of Detroit. They are not isolated villages that happened to spring up where they did.

No, the purpose of the encycledia is to present accurate information. Therefore an article on Detroit deals with information about the city of Detroit and information on the Detroit area goes in the article on the Detroit area which is Metro Detroit. Lincoln Park, Mt. Clemens, etc. are not part of Detroit. Rmhermen 16:24, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, of course the purpose of the encyclopedia is to present accurate information. And that's why, when describing Detroit to the world at large, Lincoln Park et al. are part of the deal. That's not to say these cities don't merit their own entries as well, entries that can allow further elaboration of their particular characteristics. But in an encyclopedia entry on Detroit, abruptly halting at the Detroit city limits betrays the way Detroit actually exists -- and it certainly doesn't reflect the way large cities are viewed in general. Imagine an entry on Los Angeles that deliberately avoids mention of the film and TV industry simply because Hollywood and Burbank are not inside Los Angeles proper. That kind of hair-splitting serves neither readers nor reality.
This a is the article on Detroit the city, a legal defined, culturally and historically rich but limited area. Rmhermen 13:10, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- There's a reason places such as Lincoln Park are described as suburbs of Detroit. They are DETROIT'S suburbs. To so deliberately separate these parcels of land from land that happens to be circumscribed by the city limits strikes me as making a loaded social statement; it is to reveal, depending on one's viewpoint, a contempt for the suburbs or a contempt for the city.
Your statements reveal to me the hubris of a city trying to claim as its own everything in a vague undefined area outside of itself. Rmhermen 13:10, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- That said, an explanation of the tension and differences between suburban Detroit and the City of Detroit is merited. It is a key part of the story; it is a legitimate topic. What I think is not legitimate is unilaterally deciding that that suburban Detroit is not part of the discussion at all.
Agreed the city-suburb debate needs mention. However the city is the city, not the suburbs. I have in-laws who haven't set foot in the city since the riots 35 years ago. That sort of thing is very atypical. I was very confused when I came from the Chicago area to college in Michigan. People from Chicagoland describe themselves as "from Chicago" as much as, say 60 -70 miles away. In college I never knew where anyone was from, either they described themselves as from a town or a neighborhood (never mentioning what city it was in). I only met one person who "admitted" being "from Detroit". Rmhermen 13:10, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- For the purposes of this encyclopedia, I think it is unreasonable to expect the typical reader to conjure up the search term "metro detroit" out of thin air. The typical reader will search for "detroit" and expect, understandably, to find comprehensive information there. The reader would be poorly served by a Detroit page that omits Elmore Leonard as a notable name simply because he lives in Oakland County. I see, for instance, that you've vanquished Madonna from the list. She is one of the world's most high-profile celebrities, and for two decades she has quite publicly emphasized Detroit as part of her life narrative. Odds are high that a knowing reader who sees Madonna left off a list of notable Detroiters would question the reliability of the entire page.
Metro Detroit is mentioned in the first or second paragraph, no conjuring necessary. Madonna has never lived in the city nor was she born here -that section used to be called "People born or having lived in Detroit" - as is the standard in other city articles. Los Angeles only list those born in the city, New York has two categories those born there and those who lived there, Chicago had a "Important Citizens or people born here" section. Rmhermen 13:10, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- This is, at heart, a matter of semantics -- namely, "What is a 'city?' " I am contending that to accurately describe a large metropolis such as Detroit, one cannot limit oneself to people, places and events that just so happen to exist below 8 Mile Road. Semolina Pilchard 18:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The state has already provided us with a definition of city. When only have to report it. Detroit is a city (or metropolis). Metro Detroit is a metropolitan area - not a city. Rmhermen 13:10, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

-- On that same track, I am perplexed by your decision to remove a reference to the 1967 riot in the paragraph involving Detroit's population decline. Your revision eliminates this crucial piece of context, leaving a paragraph that merely notes "a painful decline," without any explanation. Are you contending that the 1967 riot did not prompt a significant number of Detroiters to leave for the suburbs? Yes, flight from Detroit proper was underway well before 1967. But it kicked into high gear after the riot, which is why my clause was cast as "...particularly following the 1967 riot..."

Perhaps the identification of these people as "white" caused concern or made you uncomfortable. If so, I can say only that it is a disservice to historical accuracy to skirt around the reality of social circumstances just because they happen to make us squirm today.

That said, I've restored the riot reference but omitted the description of "white" residents moving to suburbs. If you can provide your reasoning, I will look forward to giving it thought and seeing if we can both reach a final decision on this front -- a decision that best serves readers.

I have left the riot information in the last version. However I disliked your removal of the general crime and redevelopment sentences which I replaced. I still think it gives to much prominence to a single event, and not enough to general economic decline as a reason for the population loss. Rmhermen 16:24, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't remove the sentences about crime and redevelopment; I simply consolidated and grouped the information to create a logical flow. And I don't know what you mean by giving too much prominence to a single event (i.e., the riot). As my original paragraph read: "...Detroit has endured a painful decline over several decades, and the city's crime rate has at various times led the nation. As population plummeted, particularly following the 1967 race riot that drove many white families into the suburbs, large numbers of buildings and homes were abandoned... ."
- You went on to extract the "crime rate" clause and stick it into the middle of the Devil's Night stuff -- creating an odd and awkward intrusion in a passage about a very specific topic. Semolina Pilchard 18:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Best to you,

SP

If you have made an account, you can use ~~~~ to sign your name. Rmhermen 16:24, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Ahh, thanks for the tip. I'd missed that one.
- Again, I appreciate your work here, and I certainly respect your picky attention to detail and meaning -- because it's obviously a trait we both share! Semolina Pilchard 18:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Detroit responses[edit]

I am moving my latest Detroit responses to the Detroit discussion page, so as not to continue clogging your personal talk page. - Semolina Pilchard 14:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WMD template[edit]

I responded to a cleanup request to convert it to a footer; I had forgotten to move the template in all pages in which it appeared. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:01, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Wikifun[edit]

please don't post your own tasks perhaps you overlooked this paragraph: There can be more than one individual to answer a question, as the first may be wrong. Remember to place your timestamp to ensure your place. When the last task time frame is closed, the winners will be posted in chronological order (that is if their answers are right). The individual with the most correct answers will be contacted and asked to assist in the next task line-up. i hope this doesn't seem rude but we will keep your as it has already been answered. --Larsie 15:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) (larsie)

Kingdom or city or whatever[edit]

The wording you deleted on New Mexico local government was more or less a direct quote from the executive director of the New Mexico Minicipal League (which page I shall soon create, meanwhile see http://www.nmml.org/). You have removed a real point that you might wish to express another way but if it's just a knee-jerk reaction I'd like you to think about it. Or propose another wording. ;Bear 19:19, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

It didn't have any encyclopedic wording. If you are using direct quotes, you need to credit them properly. Rmhermen 20:11, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, bullshit. If you don't like the wording, change it, don't just slash and bash. ;Bear 05:07, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Park categories[edit]

Well that's a good question, about the categories. Personally I don't know enough about what those classicfications mean to have any deep opinion right now. I've been doing this all with state parks in an ad hoc fashion. I guess the trouble will be those one-off categories, as you say. Maybe things will get clearer as time goes by. A couple days ago after creating Lowell National Historical Park, I created Category:U.S. National Historical Parks, since it seemed like a distinct thing with many examples that already had articles. Also it's nice because it can have Category:United States history as a parent, which probably would not be appropriate for national parks as a whole. As for the others, like Rec. Areas, I don't know what the distinction is yet, so I can't say. I don't know what the difference is between a National Monument and Park, except that the former is (or at one time, was) created by executive order, rather than by Act of Congress. With state parks, it seems pretty straightforward, in that usually the distinction is just a matter of nomenclature or convention in what the park is called, depending on the state (i.e. a state park vs. state historic site vs. state rec. area, etc.), but with the federal government, perhaps there is a more meaningful distinction. What's your opinion? -- Decumanus 06:45, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

National Monuments are still (basically) made by Presidential proclamation and the most recent batch is managed by the BLM, not the NPS. National parks are supposed to protect several different features while National Monuments may only include one but I don't think that distinction has really been followed with recent national parks.
I would suggest that National Historic Sites, National Heritage Corridor, National Historic Trails, National Historical Reserve could all go into the U.S. National Historic Parks category as they are essentially the same things. Then perhaps a National Memorials category and a National Battlefield category (which could even include National Cemeteries or they could be a third category.) National Recreation Areas are managed for recreation before conservation (and some are BLM or USFS units, not NPS) would need a category. I would combine National Seashores and National Lakeshores in one category. Then categories for National Trails and National Parkways. And a "Other U.S. National Parks" category. Also National Conservation Area and Wilderness Study Areas for the BLM. USFS has National Volcanic Monuments, National Scenic Areas, and National Management Emphasis Areas. That is 13 new categories which seems like a lot.
Also there are one-offs for BLM: Cooperative Management and Protection Area, Forest Reserve, Outstanding Natural Area and from USFS: National Historic Landmark and Scenic Recreation Area which would need to go somewhere. National Historic Scenic Areas on the USFS site seems to be a mistake. Rmhermen 14:42, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Well that sounds good, all in all. Absent other information, I like the idea of putting the Historic things in one category, unless there are a substantial number a particular type which could be meaninfully classified on their own. I suspect there aren't that many, however, with the exception of National Historic Sites. I've been to some of them, I think, and I think they are a different animal, all in all, than the Historical Parks, which are much larger and more comprehensive, like an actual park, whereas the sites are often simply a house or something like that. There could be so many of them that the larger parks get lost in the crowd of the category. I don't 13 categories total is so much, all in all, since there are potentially so many articles on such diverse things. One more category is National Estuarine Research Reserves (I created a few of the articles related to them. There are about 25 of those, at least. They are NOAA managed, if I recall correctly and with a completely different kind of mission. -- Decumanus 00:09, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

Northern Samar[edit]

About the section lines going into the infobox for the provinces. It's a problem with the new Wikipedia default style sheet. Previously, the section headings did not have the bottom border. So all the infoboxes for the provinces had transparent backgrounds. But because the new styles had those borders, the borders spill into the floated infoboxes (which is the correct CSS behavior). But obviously, it doesn't look good.

I remedied this by using Wikipedia's new template utility to recreate those infoboxes (now having white backgrounds to cover the lines). Approximately half the provinces now use this new template (e.g., Rizal and Ilocos Norte), while the rest used the previous markup. I haven't the time to change all the provincial articles to use this new template. All the provinces in Luzon were changed, more than half in Visayas are also corrected, while none of the provines in Mindanao have been updated, I think.

--seav 07:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two Medicine River[edit]

Thanks for the heads up about that. I probably never uploaded it, but made a link for it. The article itself has no map. You're right, though: I've noticed that escaped image links always are blue. -- Decumanus 07:25, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Snowshoes[edit]

1911 scan problems in Snowshoe fixed, per your request, also moderniized information as it happens I go snowshoeing quite a bit. Ortolan88 20:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re your Message[edit]

Our denomination (church) is not a member of any international bodies as yet. We are an indipendant church. If you go to our article again you should find it deleted - as we have claimed back copyright. We have no need to justify ourselves here. This space only gives a very geeky eye on the world. user:OFRC Article

Re Sarangani[edit]

It should mean "maize". Latorilla 19:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re Canadian provinces and territories[edit]

Enjoy. - Montréalais 23:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A simple misunderstanding, you see[edit]

I'm more misunderstood than you could possibly imagine. More misunderstood than the long-term effects of the Punic Wars. More misunderstood than Pink. If only you saw how misunderstood I was, maybe you would show more restraint before deleting my article on Steve Bong. I think we are all entitled to our little place on wikipedia, don't you? I certainly do. And I don't think this point will be misunderstood by you. Misunderstandings are avoidable. I think we should both do our part in the future. Thank you, good day, and keep up the fight against real patent nonsense that threatens the future viability of Wikipedia for our children. We have no other choice. We must move onward. Nothing will stand in the way of creating the best copyleft encyclopedia that our collective energy can create. Nothing will stop the brilliant prose that flows from our keyboards into the collective consciousness of the internet and the minds of free people worldwide. Nothing will end our fight against censorship in Russia and the Baltic States that keeps Wikipedia from them. We will prevail, once we are able to identify who the real enemies are in Wikipedia and fight them with all of our collective might. We will prevail through rollbacks, good editing, expedient blocks, collective arbitration, fairness, and most of all, reason. I know that you know this. Since you know this, certainly you should be willing to reconsider certain viewpoints. Creativity has to be fostered, truth has to be created where once there was none. If this is not to be done by us, it will not be done. If it is not done by me, it will not be done. If it is not done by you, it will not be done. Done is done, and it will be done or it will not be done. And when it is done, we will all be thankful that it is done and will feel foolish for ever standing in the way of it being done or not working hard enough to make it done. Done will be such an obvious conclusion that we will question ourselves why we never thought of it before. And after our conclusion, we will be done. Done will then be done. Done.

128.196.194.167 04:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copland River[edit]

Do you have any evidence about the proposal to link the Hermitage with the West Coast, New Zealand via a tunnel? I wrote a satirical Letter to the Editor of a Christchurch, New Zealand newspaper suggesting just that.

That line was added to the article by User:Grutness. You should ask him. Rmhermen 13:36, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Native American Singers[edit]

I have edited the section on Native American arts and culture. There was some jibberish there about Cher being Native American. Cher admitted many, many years ago that she was NOT Native American. She is Italian. Many, many people over the years have seen Cher in her Hollywood-style Indian dress and have heard her sing "Half-Breed" that they are convinced that Cher is Indian. But she is NOT.

Now, I pointed out, correctly I might add, that Shania Twain, Robbie Robertson, Rita Coolidge, Wayne Newton and Leon Redbone ARE actual Native American artists, but I noticed that you deleted this information.

Are you Native American? If you are, then what tribe are you? Do you have some advanced education in Indian history or Indian arts and culture? If you do, then where did attend school, what program, and how many years ago?

Just so you know: I am Indian. I am an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and I have taught at Indian schools and I have worked with Indian tribes for over twenty years. Since you are forcing your opinion on Cher and Indian music on the world, I thought maybe you could provide back-up for your expertise.

Your text was:
"Cher is NOT a Native American performer. Who writes this stuff? Shania Twain is a Native American performer--who just happens to own the most sucessful solo female album of all time!!!!!!! Rita Coolidge is a Native American performer. Robbie Robertson is a Native American performer (formerly of The Band). Leon Redbone is a Native American performer. Wayne Newton is a Native American performer, but CHER IS NOT A NATIVE AMERICAN PERFORMER. SHE HAS EVEN ADMITTED AS SUCH. IT WAS A JOKE."

with exclamation points!!!! and CAPITAL LETTER SCREAMING. This is bad manners in letter writing and simply incompatible with encyclodedia writing. While I instantly recognize that some of the individuals you listed are natives, this must be presented in a proper manner. As for the Cher claim it is repeated on numerous websites that her mother was Irish, English, German and Cherokee. I have no other sources. There is certainly potential for confusion with her song "Half Breed". Rmhermen 20:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

For the record, the part about Cher was added in March, 2004 by User:Bird, not me. And you have not presented any evidence that it is incorrect. Rmhermen 20:40, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

United States Army Reserve[edit]

Sorry about that edit I made. Must have been an edit conflict or something. I was trying to fix this. anthony 警告 13:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 20:28, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India[edit]

You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Alfonso XIII[edit]

I haven't seen Mountain of Names. I first noted that the Snopes article linked to from the Pedigree collapse page said ten, not eight, gggparents. I then found this page: [4] which showed a full pedigree. It shows his father had 4 ggparents and his mother had 6 ggparents. (Of course, his father, Alfonso XII, had no more than 8 gggparents by this reckoning.) -R. S. Shaw 21:55, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

That is probably where the problem is. I will change it to Alphonso VII instead of Alphonso VIII. Rmhermen 00:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Infoboxes[edit]

I couldn't help but notice that the WikiProject Protected Areas tables are buggy in Firefox, sometimes overlapping text and causing other problems on the page. The WikiProject Mountains infobox doesn't seem to have this problem. Any ideas? --Viriditas 06:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why and I don't use Firefox. I'll ask at the Help desk. Maybe someone will be nice and make us an updated version. Rmhermen 06:16, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, but no need. I can probably figure out the problem and fix it. I was just wondering if there was history to it, as there is on WikiProject Mountains. They apparently ran into a buggy problem, but they fixed it (see the link above). I was thinking I could apply their fix to the current table, although they seem to be working from or have worked from templates. I'm definitely interested in working on WikiProject Protected Areas, though. Have you thought about setting up a task list on the talk page so that people like me can address specific tasks? --Viriditas 09:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
FYI, I did get a chance to look at both tables. The Mountain infobox uses a {{subst:Mountain_box_begin}} template, while the Protected area uses table code. I'm going to play around with it until I resolve the problem. --Viriditas 10:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ok, it seems to be working fine now, and I haven't done a thing. It might have been a problem with Wikipedia itself, who knows. I'll keep an eye on it. --Viriditas 10:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It depends on how strict you want to be in adhering to the defintion of a City. If you follow the strict definition, then the closest "city" is Kahului, Hawaii, however, Pukalani and Kula are closer to the park. Pukalani has somewhere around 400 more residents than Kula, but Kula is the closest. I think your designation of Pukalani as closest city is probably correct for now, but in about five years it will most certainly be Kula due to the growth in that area. Neither of them can be described as "cities", however. Kahului is the only true "city" on Maui. --Viriditas 01:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Infobox description[edit]

Go for it. I'm just trying to clean up the U.S. protected area categorization, and U.S. National Parks are a specific classification of protected areas of the United States. Didn't realize you were trying to segregate types of protected areas on an international basis. jengod 01:44, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


Federation of Expellees[edit]

You've reversed my changes to the article. Do you know of any documentation that confirms the assertion in the article, that the German parliament had decided to erect this center against displacements in Berlin. As far as i know it has not. This piece of information is false.

Landsmannschaft has nothing to do with territory association. The "landsmann" is a "countryman".

I find the term "Federation of Expellees" inappropriate. I think "Federation of the Displaced" would be more accurate, since i believe people driven from their homes in war are usually called "Displaced" and not "Expelled".

--Neil Jonsson 18:37, 06 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wesley A. Clark[edit]

I used the "Wesley Clark" form deliberately because the initial was already given in the article title, and it sounded clunky (he's usually referred to as "Wes Clark", actually). If you can dig up his full middle name, I would like to see that there, actually. Noel (talk) 12:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Wolfj[edit]

Hey, I noticed that you edited my Talk page. I didn't see WHAT You changed. Could you please tell me what you did so I can be clear on that, 'kay?- Wolfj

I moved the information from the deleted article Wolfj to your talk page. You can see what changed by using the diff buttons after hitting the history tab on the talk page. Rmhermen 18:59, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Transwiki deletion of recipes[edit]

Could you please update links when you delete pages that are moved elsewhere? This way there won't be red links to pages where there used to be information. Thanks, Dori | Talk 19:11, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

List of British English words not used in American English[edit]

Hi, thanks for your emendations on this article.

From your deletions, I'd just like to confirm whether 'coriander' is used as a synonym for 'cilantro' in American English, as I was under the impression it as not. Similarly, is 'gooseberry' well understood in American English?

Finally, are you removing 'cop', because the idiom is "not much cop", and this is a list of words, not idioms?

WLD 20:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Wikipedia logged me off while I was composing the edit above)

These could go on the words used differently in British and American English page, if confirmed. Coriander is the seeds of Coriandrum sativum while cilantro is the leaves. Gooseberry is a kind of fruit. Cop is a police officer or used in the expression "to cop out" Rmhermen 00:01, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. British English (as far as I know) uses 'coriander' for both the seeds & leaves, so American English has a useful distinction that British English has not. Duh! of course 'gooseberry' is a kind of fruit - whoever put it on this page wasn't thinking. Cop has many meanings in both verb and noun forms, so it'll take a little sorting out, but I aim to put idiomatic phrases into Britishisms. WLD 00:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Courland/Tobago[edit]

You listed Tortoise shells as an export from Tobago under the Courlanders, and I was just curious as to whether that shouldn't be turtle shells (as in sea turtles) rather than tortoises. To the best of my knowledge there never were any large tortoises on Tobago. On the other hand, if your source is clear that it was tortoise and not turtles, then I would be even more interested. Guettarda 23:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My source said tortoise but much of this information is fragmentary and third-hand. Turtle and tortoise are often used interchangeably and it quite possibly refers to tortoise-shell, the material which was often made from sea turtles. Rmhermen 23:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Guettarda 00:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)