User talk:David R. Ingham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, David R. Ingham, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 21:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cars with unusual handling problems

Hi David,

This is probably mainly for the talk page at Talk:Car_handling, but I'm a bit confused, the section 'Gzuckier (→Cars with unusual handling problems): Porsche 911' appears to be asked and answered by yourself. Did the original question come from somewhere else? -- Solipsist 18:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Gzuckier added to (→Cars with unusual handling problems). I am questioning his being so hard on the Porche 911. Maybe he will tone it down a little. Otherwise his contributions seem valuable.

--David R. Ingham 19:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - I see it now. Yes the comment does sound a bit strong. In situations like this, it can be a good idea to introduce the comment on the talk page with a diff link. Something like;
In a recent edit Gzuckier expanded on the handling on the Porche 911 [1]. I think this is a little extreme...
I can see now that you were more or less saying this with the talk section title, but I didn't quite catch on.
Mind you I can sympathise with Gzukier's comment on the Suzuki Samurai (or Suzuki 4x4 as they were in England). I've driven one of these off road on a Welsh mountain at angles that destinctly felt like it was about to roll over.
On the similar note, I was thinking I might be pulling my punches a bit too much on the Mercedes A-Class. Wasn't it the case that number of these did actually rollover irrespective of the bad press from the Swedish motor magazine's moose test.
I was very much in two minds about splitting off the examples into a section about cars with known handling problems. On the one hand I thought that the previous placing of the Porche 911 and Triumph examples were introduced too soon, before we had really managed to explain normal handling. On the other hand, moving the examples into a separate section was always likely to be a carte blanch for people introducing annecdotes about every car they didn't like. With time, this section will probably grow to the point where it should be split off into its own article. -- Solipsist 20:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Discussing individual cases quickly looses sight of the fact that it is safer (as well as causing less global warming) to have a small car to drive when one is not carrying enough to fill up the SUV or pickup. --David R. Ingham 21:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree. But car safety is a matter for a different article. We must have one around somewhere
There is an irony in the fact that Volvo have pioneered so many safety features, such as three point safety belts, seat belt pre-tensioners, ABS, side impact protection and I think air bags, meanwhile they have also been producing some of the heaviest cars on the road. From simple billiard ball classical mechanics we have long known that most of the energy in a collision is transfered to the less massive body. This is all good for the driver of the Volvo or SUV and helps to account for their better crash survivability statists. However, over the past fifty years the mark 1 pedestrian has hardly changed at all. So not only does the pedestrian have to absorb most of the energy from an impact, but because the Volvo/SUV driver feels safe, they are probably driving too fast, and putting more energy into the crash.
I don't know who first introduced the idea, but I've long had sympathy for the concept that you could improve overall road safety by removing all the air bags, seat belts, etc. and replacing them with a large, sharp, metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel. That would help concentrate the driver's mind and make them a lot more cautious in so many road conditions. -- Solipsist 21:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Vandalism

Eh, bored at work. I have Friday's userpage set to watch, as I'm still a bit of a wikinewbie. (I like to shadow people, I have a bunch of sysops and WP:AN under watch.) Just found it a bit funny that someone editted his user page and not the talk...checked the contrib history...and found the vandalism. Toffile 15:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electromagnetism and Reciprocity (electromagnetic)

The electromagnetism category was disorganized and there were requests to reorganize it. So I did so, populating more specific categories with articles that had been placed in the general electromagnetism category. Reciprocity (electromagnetic) discusses nothing but antennas, so I placed it in the antenna category. {Also please sign your posts, thanks) Salsb 00:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It should be in a more specific category, or categories, than [Category:electromagnetism]. Prehaps [Category:Antenna terminology], and [Category:Radar], which are ultimately subcategories of electromagnetism. Salsb 00:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creeping wave

Do you mean "ground wave", like, LF, or something else? Thanks Dysprosia 22:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you did answer it. I just recently archived my talk page. Thanks Dysprosia 08:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

Hi there, and welcome. You were wondering about correct capitalization (probably after I made a few changes to your edits). Standard wikipedia style is not to capitalize article names (and links to them) unless it's a proper name. So Gaussian optics is capitalized but physical optics would not be. I know that's not the way most textbooks, etc., do it, and it took me a while to get used to it myself. Also remember that you can do stuff like [[physical optics|Physical Optics]] to link to a non-capitalized article, if you really need the link to appear capitalized for reasons of clarity. See also here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Hope this clears it up, and welcome to wikipedia. -- DrBob 21:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intra-wiki Links

Hi David, I really like your additions - I think they add depth and knowledge to articles. However, it would be most helpful if you could include inter-wiki cross-reference links in relevant non-trivial places, to improve reader understanding. For example - your mention of Fock calculations in Radar could really use a link to the relevant wikipedia page, and similarly for other terms (fiberglass, isotropic, impedance, Ohm, cross section, numerical analysis, boundary condition etc.). Note that it is customary to only link the first mention of a term in an article. Some terms may not be there yet (e.g., Leontovich, creeping waves) - that's ok: they'll probably be added by somebody in the future, so don't hesitate to link to something if you feel it desesrves its own wikipedia entry. Adding links is easy - simply enclose the term in double-brackets ([[term]]) - see details here: Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Wiki_markup. -- altmany 22:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation of quantum mechanics

I've added a bit to Interpretation of quantum mechanics. I was hoping that you could look at it and view the talk page, and offer an opinion on what information we should present in the article, and how this information should be organized. Thanks for your time. RK 15:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for information

I repeate here what I asked on the rfd page. Please respond. Did you possibly mean the passage in Messiah, I, p. 143 f.? P0M 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to rush you, but it has been since 11 August that I have had Messiah's book, and I'm pretty sure I mentioned the problem to you even before that. I have your e-mail to me of 18 August. That's two and a half months at least during which I have spent a great deal of time trying to track down your sources for myself. P0M 08:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reciprocity theorem

Hi David, I independently wrote up Lorentz reciprocity theorem and belatedly discovered that you had also put a lot of work into Reciprocity (electromagnetic). Since I think my version is much more complete, I've redirected the latter to the former; let me know if there's anything you think I left out. —Steven G. Johnson 20:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lens

Do not replace disambiguation pages with redirect links, when there are many entries on the page. It doesn't matter if "lens" has only one common use. The word has other meanings and uses, and it is useful and necessary for Wikipedia to have a page that provides links to these other uses. The main purpose of this is that someone writing an article about plants, or geometry, or French geography may use "lens" with another meaning and link it without thinking about it. The disambiguation page deals with this. It would be possible to rename the article Lens (optics) to Lens and move the disambiguation page to Lens (disambiguation) and fix all the links and redirects appropriately. Simply replacing the disambiguation page with a redirect is harmful.--Srleffler 12:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not recognize that the other meanings needed to be linked to easily. Most of the "meanings" were just special cases, and the others seemed unusual. For example, the first thing one needs to read about the lens of the eye is that it is an optical lens. Otherwise, it is hard to understand why its loosing flexibility or becoming cloudy affects vision. Maybe I should have put them at the top and bottom of the Lens page. Please work on it if you have time. David R. Ingham 16:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That's OK. It looks like you misunderstood "disambiguation" pages. The page Lens is a special kind of page, called a "disambiguation page". This is not an article, but rather a navigational aid. When someone wants to link to one of these meanings of "lens", they are supposed to link directly to the particular article they want, whether it is lens (optics) or Lens, Belgium. People don't always check their links, though, so a biologist writing about lentils might make a link to lens by mistake, when he/she means to link to the article on the genus lens, which is Lens (genus). Disambiguation pages help users navigate through these erroneous links, by providing a list of the articles the author might have meant. Ideally, no pages should ever link to disambiguation pages, and no reader should ever end up there, but these mistakes happen all the time. Anyone who means to talk about optical lenses should link to lens (optics). The link can of course be formatted to read simply lens.
About lens (anatomy), etc. I'm not quite sure what problem you are trying to solve. It's OK for there to be separate articles for different subtypes of the same thing, as long as there is enough to say about the subtypes for them to merit their own article. Anatomical lenses and gravitational lenses are important enough to merit their own articles, separate from Lens (optics), which is why they are separate. Someone who wants to talk about these types of lens should link directly to those articles, not to Lens (optics). I added a link to Lens (optics) in the introduction of Lens (anatomy), since that may help clarify how the lens of the eye works. I also added a link to Lens (anatomy) in the "See also" section of Lens (optics).--Srleffler 18:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand disambiguation, but from software experience, I am interested in simplifying interfaces and re-using content. Everyone using the word "apple", for example, should not have to specify that he did not mean a computer. In that case, there is a link on the page about the fruit to a disambiguation page. That is less trouble than having to select the fruit from the disambiguation page every time a link is followed or changing all references to refer to apple (fruit) or apple (tree). (Of course these problems are not as serious here as in computer programming, because we assume the user is a human.) In the case of "lens", my feeling was that the meanings that did not depend on knowing what an optical lens is were so few and unimportant that no disambiguation page was needed at all. That appears to have been incorrect.
The point that I tried to make above is that a reader should not be lead to bypass the article on optical lenses on the way to the lens of the eye or to camera lenses, because the specific information does not make sense without the general information. Reproducing or re-writing the general information, like explaining focusing in the camera or eye article, is a maintenance problem because when someone makes a change or correction he won't be able to find all the places to make the change. David R. Ingham 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. There seem to be two issues here. Regarding your first paragraph, nobody should have to select the fruit from a disambiguation page every time a link is followed because no page should ever link to a disambiguation page. Links to disambiguation pages are always an error. If the disambiguation page was at "Apple", then the correct solution would be the second one you mentioned, to edit all references to point to either apple (fruit) or apple (tree) or apple (computer). This is the current status of Lens. All links should point to one of the specific articles, not to Lens itself. The other possible solution is the one taken with the actual page Apple. That article deals with both the fruit and the tree, and the disambiguation page is at Apple (disambiguation). We could do this with Lens, although it would take some work. The process would look like this:

  1. Check every link to the current page Lens. Ideally there shouldn't be any, but there are actually 212 right now. Fix each to point to the appropriate article, except for those that should point to Lens (optics).
  2. Ask an Administrator to move Lens to Lens (disambiguation), and Lens (optics) to Lens.
  3. Fix every redirect that points to Lens (optics) so that it points to the new Lens article.
  4. Ideally, other links that point to Lens (optics) should also be edited, but this is less critical since the move will leave a redirect to the new location. The redirect links must be fixed, because the software does not allow redirects to point to other redirects (to prevent accidental loops).

So, what you want can be done, but it takes some work and requires help from an Admin. I don't think this is necessary, personally. Lens (optics) is the most commonly linked of all the pages, but it is not overwhelmingly dominant. It has a little over 300 links, compared with about a hundred each for Lens (anatomy) and Photographic lens, 70 for Gravitational lens and 55 for Lens, Pas-de-Calais.

Regarding your second paragraph, it's up to the writers of articles that refer to lenses to guide the reader to the appropriate references. To the extent that one needs to know about optical lenses to understand the lens of the eye, the latter article needs to either explain optical lenses or refer the reader to the existing article or other articles on this topic. Whether Lens is a disambiguation page or the page on optical lenses should be completely irrelevant, since the links in an article talking about the eye should point to whatever article has the appropriate information.

In summary, changing the disambiguation article as described above would only serve one purpose: it would save a bit of typing for editors writing articles about optics, because they would only have to type "[[lens]]" instead of "[[lens (optics)|lens]]". There would be absolutely no effect on the reader, since all links should point to the appropriate article regardless where the disambiguation page is. The disadvantage of changing the disambiguation article to Lens (disambiguation) is that if an editor makes a link to Lens by mistake when talking about the eye, herbology, French or Belgian geography, etc., a reader who follows that link ends up at completely the wrong article, instead of seeing a list of possible pages that the editor might have meant.--Srleffler 00:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

...

I understand. You've raised a good point about the structure of Wikipedia. It's not necessarily always going to work well from a pedagogical point of view. --Srleffler 04:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

Thanks for your contribution. However, we have a special sister project specially set up to hold quotations. Please add them there. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum darwinism AfD

I see that you have added an AfD heading to Quantum darwinism, but not completed the process by creating the entry for Wikipedians to review the article. Please follow the two remaining steps listed in Template:AfD in 3 steps (for which there is also a convenient link in the text you added, shown as "How to list a page for deletion"). Otherwise, we will need to remove this AfD tagging of the article. Let me know if you have any questions about the process. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] faddeev equations. your post at WP:SPLICE

don't know if this can be helpful. try WP:RM to ask for help in moving an article to a location which has prev history, making it unable for moving an article there by normal procedure. HTH. Regards, --Pournami 10:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

problem seems fixed now, bye. --Pournami 09:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Mandelbrot Pachyfractal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mandelbrot Pachyfractal.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. cohesion★talk 09:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Your" edits of Schrödinger's cat

I am hereby removing my "test1" warning here. My apologies, I was completely in error.

Dr. Ingham, you appear to have a malicious stalker. Check out this guy: David R. Ingharn (talk | contribs). Note that his user name ends with "RN", not "M"! That's why I gave you the errnoenous test1 warning: your and "IngaRN"'s edits of Schrödinger's cat were intertwined. You were doing good edits, he was doing vandalism: vandal 1, vandal 2, vandal 3, vandal 4. Also in Suspension (vehicle): vandal 5. I didn't notice the "rn" (RN) vs "m" (M) difference and clicked your name and gave you the erroneous warning.

If you check this guy's user and talk page he has even copied your pages to himself. Pretty nasty! I'll look to see if I can find a Wikipedia policy to get him banned ASAP. I think there is a clause about impersonating another user. Weregerbil 10:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the admins blocked the impersonator. I'd suggest you keep an eye on the edit histories of pages you edit for a week or two in case he comes back with another user name. If he does come back you can ask the admins to do an "immediate permanent block of an impostor" on the admin quick alert page; it is Wikipedia policy that clear cases of malicious impersonation can be blocked on sight without warning. What a positively odd thing this person is! Weregerbil 11:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked the impersonator. Sorry for mistakenly block you for a couple of minutes abakharev 11:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

David, hi, The perp was also into Copenhagen interpretation. I caught the change and put Fred Bauder and Ed Poor onto the case. S/he had substituted a really gross image URL for the URL of one of the articles cited. Hopefully they can trace this guy's IP. Didn't you have a tiny revert war on that page with an unregistered user? P0M 01:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC) This vandal is pretty sneaky. I've updated your WP:VIP entry and moved it to the top. - mako 21:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, I do so see a certain amount of humor in cyber graffiti. Some graffiti on walls are considered artistic, in some circles. They are the expression of people with few other artistic outlets. But this is my real name. I hope no-one continues to think I posted these things. David R. Ingham 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ingharn" is acturally a name. I find Ingharn County on Google. David R. Ingham 04:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

He said "show a time of vandalizing that would have been long before the last edit.", bragging about how long his vandalism stood. David R. Ingham 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Car diagram.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Car diagram.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|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, please check 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) 17:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for calling this to my attention. I had noted the copyright status but not in Wikipedia standard form, because I had not yet learned how to do so at that time.

Also, "This media may be deleted". is poor, though common grammar. If "media" referred to the drawing itself, then it should be in the singular "medium". Of course a drawing is not a medium, it is in a medium. If it were possible to delete a medium or several media, there could be no further drawings in those media. David R. Ingham 04:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work on Suspension (vehicle)

I just wanted to thank you for all the good work on the Suspension page. It tends not to get covered well; you're making the Wikipedia page a standout exception.

By any chance to you have a copy of the classic Costin and Phipps Racing and Sports Car Chassis Design ? While somewhat old, it has an excellent coverage of most of the major features of suspensions and body construction, much better than the newer works I've seen looking at the topic as an interested amateur. If you don't have it, I recommend finding a copy. It's one of those classics of a field. Georgewilliamherbert 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My userspace

I am officially allowing other users to create my subpages. If you want you can now. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace ☢✍☎☺) 23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] atmospheric diffraction

thanks for the nice edits on this article. looked like a fellow physicist at work :) cheers Anlace 01:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PNG carvings

Hi, thanks for your work on the Culture of Papua New Guinea page.

I think having 3 photos of carvings on that page is probably too much, given that "Visual Arts" is only a short section of the text.

There is a great deal of scope for material about visual arts in PNG, both textual and photographic.

May I invite you to create a new Visual Arts of Papua New Guinea page? That way we can have several photos on the Visual Arts page and just one on the Culture of Papua New Guinea page.

Indeed, we may end up with a specific page for "wood carvings of PNG" as well as one for painting, etc. But first things first.

Wantok 05:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. Maybe next week some time. The tall carved poles (although appropriate for Palo Alto, California) are hard to photograph. The light increases with hight and there are branches in the way. I am still working on it. I am thinking the pictures should be linked to Stanford University also? David R. Ingham 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, nice job with starting the Visual Arts of Papua New Guinea page. I've just done an edit to move the 4 images into a "gallery" section... it seems a neater and more appropriate way to handle them. I think that 4 pics of one group of subjects, as main article images, would be a bit unbalanced, given the broad scope of 'visual arts' - I imagine that several other images will be added to the article to illustrate the range and diversity around: contemporary painting, traditional Sepik masks, Trobriand storyboards, etc. Indeed it may eventually better to move all but one of the Stanford pictures to a specific page. Wantok 08:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venn diagram restoration

If you want your venn diagram restored to physics then go and say so, and I'll back you up. --Michael C. Price talk 16:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style note

Hi. Just a note; one should not put links in section headings per style conventions. I fixed that at complex number. Thanks. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diffuse sky radiation

Hi. Back in March you added the following paragraph to Diffuse sky radiation. What is your source for this? I am not familiar with this explanation, don't fully understand it, and don't see how it fits with the more common explanation of the blue sky in terms of the fourth power variation in Rayleigh scattering with wavelength. Perhaps this paragraph should be removed or made clearer?--Srleffler 05:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Individual gas molecules are too small to scatter light effectively. However, in a gas, the molecules move more or less independently of each other, unlike in liquids and solids where the density is determined by the molecule's sizes. So the densities of gases, such as pure air, are subject to statistical fluctuations. Significant fluctuations are much more common on a small scale. It is mainly these density fluctuations on a small (tens of nanometers) scale that cause the sky to be blue.

[edit] The Road to Reality

I think it is probably more suitable for you to put your review on a subpage of your user page (eg. User:David R. Ingham/The Road to Reality review), and then link to that on the article's talk page. This is only because talk pages are meant for discussing the article itself, not the topic, and your review takes up a lot of room! I am sure it would be fine to link to your review on there. Just a suggestion :) Remy B 03:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you missed my point. The talk page for an article is for discussing the layout, structure, wording, etc. of the Wikipedia article - not to discuss the topic at hand, like you would on a forum. Remy B 07:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Mechanics

You've got some great ideas, be BOLD. Make the changes yourself. Make the article better. McKay 06:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mandelbrot Deep Re-Twisted.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mandelbrot Deep Re-Twisted.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum theory

Please withdraw the AfD -- there was no such consensus to that QT is a subset of QM. --Michael C. Price talk 05:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Old English table knife.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Old English table knife.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 22:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Appears to be some sort of butter knife.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Appears to be some sort of butter knife.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDavid_R._Ingham_0382.html"