User talk:Pschemp/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi

Thanks for your additions to the Turkish Van page. If you want to help out with the cat breeds project, please check out the cat breeds project page and the associated talk page. And so you know, the {{GFDL} tag for images only needs to be on the image's page, not in the article itself. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 03:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TV and Oriental Shorthairs photos

Do you mind if I crop the photo of your two cats in the window and the pile of OSs, and replace the originals with the cropped ones? I think it would look better if the cats were a larger portion of the picture. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 14:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From an Oriental Shorthair owner - what a lovely pile of cats! My Loki is the other picture on that page. —Morven 17:42, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Purebreds

Actually I had just left my opinion on the purebreed page when I got the note that you had left me a message on my talk page! Thanks for pointing it out, though. Elf | Talk 01:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spunbond

Hi! I saw your modification on the nonwovens page, but I think that spunlaid is a more general term than spunbond. For instance, spunlaid + thermalbonding = spunbond, while spunlaid + hydroentanglement = spunlace. Hugus 18:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Image:SEMexample.jpg

Cool image. I added it to a few more articles (Fiber, Polyester). Since you have access to a SEM, do you have any other images of other fibers/stuff that you could release as GFDL? Doesn't have to be feature material, but I think there are a lot of articles that would benefit from a reeeeaaaly close look. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 01:08, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Tableloom.jpg

Is that your loom? Lovely work! [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heartful Thanks

Pschemp, my heartful thanks for the pictures you found about the martyrii in the Romanian Orthodox Church article. They are superb and you are nice! - irismeister 18:47, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Whisker

Hi, P,
While the rich lore of cats is not one of my interests, i know there are three things WP thrives on: diversity among editors, expertise, and the diversity within each editor's ambit that always results from each specialization being related to a surprising number of other areas of knowledge. So i say that each colleague is more than just another colleague: rather, a nearly inevitable future collaborator.

I don't even remember how i happened to take an interest in Whisker, but in any case i want to offer a few pieces of WP lore:

• Actually, WP prefers a sober everyday term over a technical one, at least in article titles.
• Titles should be singular noun phrases rather than plural, in the absence of strong reasons to the contrary.

(With regard to both of those, i'll repeat Meelar's welcoming counsel to you,

Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.

bcz when you get into MoS, you'll come upon Wikipedia:Naming conventions which explicitly covers both of those principles.)

• I haven't yet sorted out the history of the article you moved/renamed, and probably someone before you did it wrong: the measures you used for renaming may have been perfect. (Article names should be changed using the "Move" or "Move this page" tool, which is linked by the screen you are reading and, i think, every inprotected editable page in WP.) But it's a common mistake, and the tool has multiple steps to keep you from moving a page before you are sure you want to, so just click on that link and carefully read its instructions -- unless you seriously studied and understood the cautions already. (If you're interested enough, see also Wikipedia:Move.) In any case, please don't try to reverse what you did or fix the prior damage; it will take admin action, and further non-admin moves could just muddy the water and complicate the recovery.

I know you'll work out the balance that's right for you between boldness and RTFM, and i look forward to our inevitable next collaboration! [smile]
--Jerzy(t) 19:19, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Thanks for your reassuring response. I'm not sure where we'll end up with it, but it's good that you're more sophisticated about the issues involved than i realized.

And thanks for explaining that you merged, rather than bungling a move. It is not at all unusual to find such a merge needing admin attention, because the subject of merges is a lot more esoteric than that of moves; oddly enough, it's discussed at Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves (and its talk page). Although i think there was a proper move done once, the need for an admin-fix started at the point when both versions had been revised at least once (or when the second was created, if its content was not that of any of the existing versions of the first). Your overwriting of one version with a redirect was natural, and at worst went against an especially obscure piece of info. And your attention to the redirects is admirable and was no doubt adequate.

I'll try to say this without taking unfair advantage of it: your misspelling the singular, twice, in your reply suggests the kind of barriers against access to the material that IMO the guideline is intended to avoid. Let's talk some more about that; we'll work something out without going away angry.

As to the content, the only question i have there is about recasting the language about the sensory role from singular to plural. I originally changed it to singular, not bcz the article was then plural (tho it may have been), but because of logical errors inherant in the plural version i found, and i want to see if you managed to avoid reintroduced similar misstatments -- i haven't yet studied your wording. I would certainly want you to collaborate in my search for wording that is accurate (and hopefully less awkward than my original version), to benefit from your greater technical background.

Oh, yes, almost forgot: IMO "true whiskers" vs. whatever sounds like a good aspect for the article to discuss, maybe as separate sections. Imagine the article discussing what the average cat-naive reader would be intending to include, in saying "whiskers". Could i be right in imagining that content would justify to you having the article title being Whisker or Whiskers (with Vibrissa and Vibrissae as redirects)? And maybe "Non-sensory whiskers" or "Non-specialized whiskers" as one section, and something like "Vibrissae: true whiskers" as another? IMO that distinction is encyclopedically significant, if i am grasping at all what you've said.

It still probably will help for me to merge the histories before we try to perfect the content, and i won't do any content changes in that process.
Thanks,
--Jerzy(t) 00:16, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

My guess is that Mozilla may be to blame for your crash, but i was also having trouble in this time frame: i couldn't get a copy of my talk page's history that was up to date and got some no-answer screens , so for the bad data i think we can blame the server; probably a developer doing what hardware guys call a smoke test.

Re the above strikeout: Duh, i had a my-contribs window open, and didn't notice that it was my 2nd-most-recent 50 edits. [blush]

Now you've embarrassed me by being the first to say the truth so clearly: the exact title isn't very important. Still, i think, tho it isn't worth fighting about, we should try to come up with the best title, and (besides my feeling guilty if end up with the sense of having browbeat you into doing it my way), i hope you won't completely fold!

BTW, let me emphasize that including non-vibs is not a ploy to finesse the title question: it's only a good idea if it adds to the article; your initial take was that it detracts; and i trust your final opinion on that more than my own. If you weigh that proposal and it looks better than you thot it would, let's talk it thru; if not, i consider your original argument to be awaiting better counterarguments than i've offered yet.

I misspoke when i said Whisker, bcz IMO that should remain a dab, with its plural probably redirecting to it (per principle of minimum surprise). If Whisker (mammals) stays a redir, you're right to the extent that it would be better for it never to have existed. But one of the reasons that WP:RfD doesn't have its job done on WP:VfD is the principle that actual harm from a Redir has to be shown in order to delete it, since any title that lasts a significant time (and i've never heard a lower limit mentioned!) can become the target of a link from outside WP (probably within a Web-search engine that crawls WP at the right time), and we want to keep such links from turning into dead links. (And a few of even random links are actually considered a good thing, unless the result is badly misleading.) So i'm almost certain that all of these titles are around to stay, mostly as redirs and in some cases perhaps redirects that are monuments to cluelessness.

Hey, i look forward to the vibs of Phocidae and manatees, about which i am even more ignorant!
--Jerzy(t) 04:31, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say the article on cats' whiskers is very interesting (no matter what the title ;) -- Tarquin 11:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yawning cat

Hi, I've uploaded your picture of the yawning cat to commons, just thought I would let you know. Great picture, by the way. Pilaf 02:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Manx (cat)

Good to see you're working on Manx (cat). That article has been the subject of a long dispute on its talk page; please try to consult what's been discussed before making any controversial edits. Cheers. The JPS 21:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read the hideous editing history and am trying to make the article clear about what does and doesn't happen. Much of the English uses poor grammar which I think contributes to confusing statements and obscured facts. I'm sure that my edits will be considered controversial by those with much emotion invested in the article, however, I am trying to make it neutral and factual. It needs help. Pschemp 21:54, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The article does attention. The bad English is a concern; I've always been aware whilst I've been moderating this discussion that POV could be disguised within ambiguous, poorly constructed sentences. If you can make it neutral and factual, that's excellent. The core of the dispute revolves around the need for verifiable sources, rather than personal experience. The JPS 22:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have you working on the article. This article really needs more users working on it. I liked most of your changes, however, not all. For instance, the word tailless is used way to much. Becomes very repetetive to read it all the time. And by the way, you had lots of typos yourself :) Either way, you're welcome.

EliasAlucard|Talk 02:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

My issue was with the grammar (word choice, order etc..), not the typos (spelling). I have never claimed to be a great speller. Also, tailless is used in the phrase "mutant tailless gene" and others and is not any more repetative than the word Manx. Its a moot point. Pschemp 00:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(discussion moved to article talk)

BRAVO!

A big thank you for all the time and work spent on the Manx cat article. It's nice to have another cat breeder/exhibitor join me there. I hope we can make plans to meet at the Annual or at a show sometime soon.

06:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Romania and show cats

First off, hi! To answer your question on my talk page, my first trip to romania was as part of a church group (well the first few trips). The longest was as an exchange student. I speak romanian pretty well though written it a much harder for me. In regards to the Show cat article, I think you misunderstood what was in the article originally and in my modification of it. The higher rate of specific helth problems in some cat breeds is a fact of science. This is not to imply that pedegree cats are unhealthy as a rule but it is something that breeders have to spend a lot of resources on and so it is very relavent to the article. I think yoru vet friends probbly ment that the helth problems are managable and that most of the unhealthy animals are not keep in the population or sold as pets. I have included a list of specific problmes by breed on the talk page and will not change the article back untill you have had a chance to look at the list. My problem with the article as it stands (othr than it being factually incorrect with the use of the word misconception) is that it reads like an advertisment for people to get into purebred cats, brushing the concernes away as a just a misconception. Dalf | Talk

Removing pictures...

I can't help but disagree with your assessment of my photographs. I believe the cat depicted is on-target for the breed standard. Certainly his vet's expert opinion supports my own layman's opinion.

I also wanted to apologize: I do not yet understand 'ownership' and 'sharing' in Wiki articles. Maybe you were offended that I just leapt in and added the pictures without asking first; I'm sorry if I missed a cue for etiquette there.

I do highly recommend adding my photographs back to your article. They are richly colored and, again, I think they illustrate breed standard fairly well.

Thanks! Auliya | Talk

11:45 PM - Sunday, August 07, 2005

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

The quotation you altered is found, both on the web and in print, in both versions -- "seldom" and "rarely." I haven't tracked down either original quotation -- but suspect she actually said/wrote both versions in different venues. Can you think of any reason to prefer either version over the other? Comments welcome. WBardwin 07:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed it because the seldom version is the one I have printed on my bumper sticker that is copyrighted by her. It says "copyright Laurel Thatcher Ulrich 2004" underneath the quote. Also, I took a look around at all the web sites actually written by her and it says "seldom". Pschemp 15:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your wholesale reversions at Maine Coon and Maine Coon/gallery

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a storage bin for pet snapshots. On its own, Maine Coon/gallery is not an encyclopedic topic. (See WP:NOT.)
2. Subpages (or psuedo-subpages) are not used in the main namespace.
3. If it is decided that there are too many pictures in an article, which is perfectly valid, then the images can be stored on the Wikimedia Commons and linked to using the {{Commons}} template, as I explained in my edit summary. (In the mean time, including them in the article is superior to this archaic gallery on a seperate page. Personally, I don't find eight images to be a problem when the gallery function is used.)
4. The next time you decide to revert someone, please check the diff to see if they made any other useful edits besides the one you are reverting for.—jiy (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. The gallery was created as a compromise to a real problem we were facing, so it's good that people like you are there so that others don't come in and undo everything we worked hard to create based on their interpretations of policy that must be enforced at all costs. Maybe he should have looked at the discussion first as much as you shuld have looked at the diff (which I am sure you did).Gator (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

There's some discussion about this issue on the Maine Coon talk page. Your input would be appreciated.Gator (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Gee jiy, I think that you completely violated the agreed upon consensus and therefore don't deserve this vitrol. Throwing policy at people won't win them to your point of view. Pschemp 23:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please reread point four to get a sense of where the vitriol is coming from. Wholesale reversions that destroy edits unrelated to what you are reverting for is offensive. For instance, you reverted my lowercasing of the "Health Considerations" header, an edit I made based on a well-established Wikipedian guideline, and for what reason did you revert it? I was fully aware of the talk page discussions when I boldy made my edit. Did you even attempt to understand what I meant when I said "if there are too many pics use the {{commons}} template" in my edit summary? Obviously I knew of the consensus concerning the number of pictures in the article, otherwise I would not have thrown that in there.—jiy (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Your continued help is apprecaited as jiy doesn't seem to want to let this one go no amtter what consensus is. Policy has been iterpreted differently than he'd like and he just doesn;t want to accept the consensus here. Thanks for the continued help.Gator (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My lesson is to go directly to AfD instead of trying to reason with the article owners who brand you as a terrorist and organize a two-man posse when their precious "consensus" is challenged. You telling me to be polite is the pot calling the kettle black.—jiy (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have freely and previously admitted I was impolite in reaction to your impoliteness. YOU could have edited in a way to avoid the whole conflict, but you did not. In the future you may want to keep this guidline in mind: (quoted from be bold)"In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily.

If you expect or see a disagreement with your version of the article, and you want to change or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references." Pschemp 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read and understand WP:BOLD. Please don't quote it out of context. That passage is specifically referring to text within controversial subjects like abortion. Neither of which this article falls under. I read the talk page discussions on Maine Coon before my edit and didn't find them to be particularly arduous, and I considered posting to the talk page before making my edits, but based on past experience didn't believe it would garner much input. My edits were made in the spirit of be bold in updating pages and remain in that spirit. I didn't think my edits would be this controversial, thinking of them more as janitorial than a major edit, even when taking the talk page discussions into consideration. I was wrong. There are plenty of things we all could have done to avoid the whole conflict, but hindsight is 20/20. I'm sorry for my mistakes. It's time to stop mulling over the past and move on.—jiy (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pomseeds2.jpg

Hi Pschemp. I'm considering adding this image to aril after seeing it at pomegranate. Right now, the image has a GFDL license tag on it, but there's no additional source information. I was wondering if you could add that in; is it one of yours? (For the future, you can tag images that you created yourself using the {{GFDL-self}} template rather than the less-descriptive {{GFDL}} template.) Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've updated the info on the picture. Pschemp 17:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for updating that, and thanks for all the other great pictures. I had been wondering how you created that image—I'll have to remember the scanner trick. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well met!

Hi Pschemp, good to talk to you and thanks for the Wikilove! I hope we'll meet again. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 04:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

from jayanthv

thanx,i dont know wat a admin does anyway.but please dont block me.--Jayanthv86 14:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)I withdraw. Hello everybody,thanks for opening my eyes.I am such a loser,I dont even know what a admin does and i have nominated myself.from now on,i will leave edit summaries.I am barely two months old in wiki and i was audacious enough to ask for adminship.Sorry for wasting your time.--Jayanthv86 15:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

???????????? Pschemp | Talk 17:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks!

Hey, I never thought someone would take items on my todo list, but thanks. I'll put that one away. And it was fun finding out about Thorpe - I actually hadn't come across him before, but he now has an article - thanks to you! :) - Samsara _contrib ^talk 05:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, Pschemp/Archive 1
	for voting in my RFA. It failed with a result of 31/11/2. I hope you consider me a better user after a few months work. If you have any comments, please say so here.

Please edit more carefully

Please edit more carefully. There is a warning when you go to save an edit that will interfere with another current edit. Your edit on User talk:Paper33d (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paper33d&diff=36783192&oldid=36783055) clobbered another user's edit and I had to restore it. Hu 13:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but as I didn't get an edit conflict message, there is no way I could have known that. Pschemp | Talk 13:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be something funny happening with Wikipedia at the moment. I accept your explanation, and attribute no lack of attention to you and that it was accidental. There seem to have been a series of accidental clobbers on that page. Hu 13:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Give him a bit of space

there's no need to have half a dozen people warn him. Morwen - Talk 14:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry, just trying to help. Pschemp | Talk 14:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In case a random reader is wondering, we were talking about this guy. Pschemp | Talk 14:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not wondering at all.. Paper33d 14:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You aren't a random reader :) Pschemp | Talk 14:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Hurrah. Morwen - Talk 19:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Turkish vans

I was quite fascinated with your article on the Turkish Van breed of cat. I've never heard of it before. I have a feeling my cat is a "Vanalike". He looks extremely similar to the picture of the cat in the sink on your page, a white/cream colour with reddish tabby markings on his head and his ringed tail. Our cat (he was a stray who wandered into our life, so no idea of parentage) is a largeish (~15 lbs) male our vet called a "siamese cross", and he's extremely vocal like a siamese so we never questioned it. He has blue eyes but isn't deaf, his coat is extremely soft and rabbit-like, he's a powerful jumper and he's extremely attention hungry and needs to be around us all the time. As the article said, he plays hard and sleeps hard, and is still very kitten-like at roughly 4 years of age. He doesn't like to get lightly sprayed with water, but is indifferent to rain and is fascinated when we run the tub.

Probably too much detail for you, I was just fascinated by the article and finally having an idea behind all the odd things about our cat, especially his fur.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dharmabum420 (talk • contribs).

Not too much detail! Thanks for the comments. Pschemp | Talk 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Can't believe I forgot to sign. Funny, I just realized that I had heard of Turkish Vans before, in a blurb in my newspaper last week I thought you'd be interested in:

Turkish cat keepers sequester rare breed amid bird flu scare

Agence France-Presse

Friday, January 20, 2006

Guardians of a rare Turkish water-loving cat are taking no chances with the outbreak of deadly bird flu. The virus, which can spread to humans who come into contact with infected birds, poses no known threat to cats. But veterinarians in Van, eastern Turkey, at the centre of the outbreak, have closed the doors of the city's Cat House, home to the protected species with white fur, auburn markings and different-coloured eyes. The 100 animals will be kept indoors to prevent any possibility of becoming infected. "Van cats are ... part of our natural heritage, but their existence has come to the point of extinction through urbanization and improper breeding," director Zahit Tevfik Agaoglu said.

© National Post 2006

I'll drop you a line when I get around to uploading a picture of my cat for my talk page. - dharmabum (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Succesful RfA!

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Page move

It is not necessary to vote on a page move. Only an admin can move a page, and the page move request page is there so that non-admins can request them. Yours is the first time I've ever seen a vote taken, and I've been around a few years. Denni ☯ 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. I am a non-admin, so I requested the move at the page move request so the talk histories could be combined because of this statement ""The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move." The intended target, Lead crystal was already occupied with a redirect. The procedures at Wikipedia:Requested moves say put a comment (support/oppose)section on the talk page of the proposed movee, so I did. How is this wrong? I'd really like to know to make sure I understand what goes on with page moves. Pschemp | Talk 04:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled here totally by accident *innocent look* but saw a bit of a clanker above and thought I'd ask: Has anyone made this more clear? Anyone can move a page as long as there isn't already something there. I do it all the time. The support/oppose idea is usually for page moves that might be contentious, like moving Fang Fang (terrorist) to Fang Fang (militant). If there is a redirect in place and the move is a sensible one, just about any admin on IRC will do it for you. (I know, I know, off wiki talks, etc.) That's because they must delete the existing page, not because there is anything special about the moves that they do. Any clearer, or worse? - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

um yeah, stumbled. right. there was something at the target page, so I could not move it there. And then I got the response from that guy saying it didn't need an admin, but I think it did because there was a redirect at the target name. His response then made it controversial so then I thought a politle request would be in order. Pschemp | ^Talk 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Archaeological sites in Italy

Oboy, you should probably rethink that category very carefully, or at least the places you put into it. In my experience, it's not useful. There are thousands upon thousands of places that can be so classified, many of them not usefully. While Rome, for example, is undoubtedly an archaeological site, what there is at Fano in the way of actual archaeological excavations is fairly minor. Every one of the 92 comuni of Umbria includes archaeological excavations — and not only one, but several. I mention Umbria merely because it's the part of the country I know the very best, but the same applies for the other 19 regions. Bill 18:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the category exists and is useful for the larger category of Category:Archaeological sites by country, but I agree it is better for the major sites. If any I marked are insignificant, feel free to remove them. I'm just going through the lists of anything marked already in parts on the archaeology category. Pschemp | Talk 18:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Valens aqueduct

Hi, Pschemp. I realize that you have just categerozied "Valens aqueduct" into "Archeological sites in Turkey". I am not sure whether this is useful and correct. The aqueduct stands just in the center of the city, and as far as I know, no archeological study has been carried out or is being done on the site. Reconsider your edit please. CeeGee 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going through lists in the archeology category to fill out the categorization scheme - if you disagree, change it. I won't be hurt. Its a large scale organization project, so mistakes will ineveitably be made. Pschemp | Talk 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Cats

Please don't add the Category:Women scientists to women scientists already categoried in their relvant field as women eg Category:Women physicists, it is useless over categorisation and blows out the size of the parent category.--nixie 04:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The way Category:Women scientists was organized made it hard to tell which direction it was going with the scheme, a lot of names were double listed. I've fixed the whole thing now, not just the women physicists. Pschemp | Talk 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Neat, thanks.--nixie 05:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Hey, no problem! Say, how do you do that popups thing? Do you still have to go through all the articles, or is it similar do what admins can do? --Khoikhoi 07:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes you still have to go through articles, it is only marginally faster. I tried to revert from the contrib list, but couldn't. If you want to get popups go here: Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups It is most useful for previewing wikilinks. Pschemp | Talk 07:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Pschemp/Archive 1, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Haji Piyada

Hiya, I listed this article for speedy deletion because it was empty except for a stub template. Please (and I know this sounds patronising) list the article at requests for new pages rather than creating an empty article. Thanks. haz (user talk) 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This was created to preserve a red link so that the List of archaeological sites sorted by country can be merged into Category:Archaeological sites by country. There are just a few red links on the page and otherwise the list is redundant. I don't normally create empty articles, but this one is needed. Pschemp | ^Talk 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, no probs. haz (user talk) 19:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks!

Okay, this is perhaps a bit overdue, but thank-you for your interest in my recent RfA. I passed with a final vote count consensus of (82/1/0). I appreciate that you honestly voiced your concerns through your oppose vote, and I hope that we'll meet each other again in a productive context soon. In the meantime, if there's ever something I do wrong (or don't do right), please feel free to spit in my general direction. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambig using popups

Hi...I saw you did a disambig with popups. I've got popups but can't figure out how to do that. Could you tell me? Sorry if this is a silly request but I reallly would like to learn. Thanks Pschemp | Talk 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem explaining. I added the code

// User:Lupin/popups.js
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
            + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js' 
            + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupFixDabs=true;

to my monobook.js. (The trick is, you need to set the flag to allow dab functions.) Then, when you pass over a link to a disambiguation page, you get the choices at the bottom of the popups. The trick is, it only works if something is in; it seems as though subcategories, e.g. don't work right. Let me know if you have any more questions with this. --Deville (Talk) 22:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I got it to work...very neat. I am so not code literate so I really appreciate the help. :) Pschemp | Talk 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, again. I sort of had to figure the code myself by trial and error (you can see the long, long history on my monobook.js file ;P). But at the very least, the more people are using this tool, the better, at least for the DAB effort; it really makes the process much, much quicker. Anyway, have fun with it! --Deville (Talk) 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sofia won!

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Sofia was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

Hi Pschemp!

Hi there! I'm sorry about the belated reply, as I was going through a short wikibreak due to work, and I found your message too special to be answered in a hurry. Reading about your knwoledge and experiences with my culture was beautiful and inspiring. It is rare indeed to see someone as versed as you in these matters, and I have the feeling that we will surely collaborate in the near future on related articles - and if we don't then I hope at least we get to talk more about them. Please allow me to ask you, as I see that you mention our common interests, have you researched on the history of the Comanche, and perhaps other tribes? I ask you this because I've been thinking about creating a Wikproject on Native American resources, but the enormity of the task has discouraged me a bit - maybe sharing the idea with another person with deep knowledge on the subject could actually get it going someday.
Dear Pschemp, thank you so much for your beautiful words and sharing your anecdotes with me. I must tell you sometimes I've felt rejected in rl because of my ancestry, but I've grown to become proud of it thanks to people like you, who can appreciate the beauty in our customs and our culture. A big loud Oklahoman kiss to you, and please, drop by my talk page any time you wish. Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 02:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Libel / Defamation

You know, accusing people/sites of spamming is a very serious offense, which is considered libel and defamation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Npgallery (talk • contribs).

A question is neither libel or defamation. I would lovingly urge a person in your situation to consider Wikipedia:No personal attacks Pschemp | ^Talk 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping getting it resolved! Now I / we have to go through these pages to remove the links. Nationalparks 08:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best to make it "we". Pschemp | ^Talk 08:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

All done!Pschemp | ^Talk 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Village pump discussion.

Another similar discussion.

"Spam" site, my talk page

Thanks for the fix; I couldn't fix it myself, of course. I saw that message, and posted a request to have that very useful site removed. To judge from the many other instances of useful sites falsely marked spam, that blocker is more trouble than it solves.... Bill 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It must have been just recently added to the block list and so that's why the sudden problems. Pschemp | ^Talk 17:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

US National Parks and spam

Village pump discussion on this topic.

External links discussion.

What do you think of www.untraveledroad.com? There are links to it from many of the national park articles, for example Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and it is supported by ads and links to hotel sites. The site has been added by User:KelvinSmith. If you look at his talk page, revision before he blanked it, there's a discussion about whether the links are spam, and the decision at that point was not to remove them. Kelvin's blanking of his talk page since then is unfortunate; I'd find it easier to assume good faith if he'd left the discussion there.

Kelvin has made some contributions to Wikipedia besides adding his links, whereas I don't believe User:Npgallery ever did. Also, there is some very interesting material on his website, although you have to click the pictures to get to the virtual tour, which I almost missed. On balance, I think his links are worthwhile.

Yeah, I looked at those last night some. I saw that the terragalleria.com pics were much nicer and without adverstising, so that one doesn't bother me. It would be nice to get lower res ones on commons though. The untraveledroad is at least clear in explaining what it is and who owns it, so I'm ok with that one too. For now. Future spamlear proliferation treaties may change my mind.

What policy is there against advertising? This is NONE. And terragalleria.com is a COMMERCIAL site that sells photographs. How can you be so hypocratical? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Npgallery (talk • contribs).

Actually, Npgallery did contribute a very little other content, but it mostly was making stubs about parks with NPS verbiage, presumably so he could add a link to them. Pschemp | ^Talk 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, adding new pages to Wikipedia has no value? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Npgallery (talk • contribs).

Another common link on the US National parks pages is www.terragalleria.com. These are very high quality photographs, which the website author is trying to sell, but there are no ads on the pages. I think this is an example of an external link well worth having. The pictures were added by an anon; see User talk:66.218.46.99. For those national parks where we don't already have good pictures (if any), it may be worth asking this anon if he'd like to contribute a medium-resolution photo or two to Wikipedia under a CC-BY or similar licence, which would give him credit for the photo, and would be of lower resolution than the ones he actually sells.-gadfium 18:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy against a site having ads Npgallery 21:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is, if they are mostly advertisement, a vehicle for purley for advertisement and not exeptionally useful. If you choose to interpret policy in a manner contrary to the community that is your right, however, do not be surprised when the community disagrees. Pschemp | ^Talk 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the user behind terragalleria.com is User:Luong, and he has already been asked about contributing photos. It may be worth asking again, specifically pointing out that we don't need his highest resolution pictures, that one of the CC licences may suit him better than GFDL, and he may have reconsidered his position as time has gone by.-gadfium 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that Npgallery was comparing his low res pictures to those from terragalleria. The terra ones are much, much better. There are plenty of parks that don't have pics, so it would be great if they'd let us use some. As far as www.untraveledroad.com, it's somewhere in between. It has lots of ads, but a bit of content. Nationalparks 19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There you go again with your false assertions about les res pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Npgallery (talk • contribs).

Please refrain from Personal attacks. Pschemp | ^Talk 21:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And now User:Npgallery has started this: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-06 Pschemp for my questioning of the links. Another blistering personal attack. I love you Npgallery. :) Pschemp | ^Talk 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't worry about it too much. Thanks for your help, and sorry you are involved in this. Nationalparks 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not and I'm not. Especially as this issue lists dangerously closer to comedy. Pschemp | ^Talk 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Hey man, thanks for the kind words :) also see my note on the talk page. My version actually addressed your concerns, but I think there was some confusion. See this diff. I added my version then reverted myself because I didn't want to seem like I was making big edits without consensus. - FrancisTyers 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at that diff, just backwards. Sorry!Pschemp | ^Talk 15:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke's RfA

Hi Pschemp, thanks for your support in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Hi, just wanted to thank you for voting on my RFA, which went through with a count of (58/0/1), far better than I'd expected. I intend to take things slowly and start using the extra abilities gradually, but if there's anything I can do just leave a message. Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Horace Mann

What were those strong reverts all about? David D. (Talk) 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User adding lots of unencyclopedic topics like proposals about school lunches. Pschemp | ^Talk 19:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...it looks like an unannounced edit conflict on the talk page. All I did on the discussion page was add a template unsigned. I didn't get an edit conflict message but it looks like there was a giant one as you were editing at the same time. I didn't remove any discussion, but the unnannounced edit conflit must have. Sorry about that. Pschemp | ^Talk 19:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(from User talk:Daycd)That makes sense. Looking at your previous edits it seemed that something strange was occuring. David D. (Talk) 19:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand why you were editing HM. You were in the process of reverting edits from 207.76.182.20 (talk • contribs). That is the classic school IP number. Sometimes you get really good editing from it and then wham, its vandalism and school trays. Sigh. David D. (Talk) 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA header

Thanks for checking my work. I caught it but you were faster! -- Cheers, Cecropia 04:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your fellow Texan support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.

Adminship Vote

I want to sincerely thank you for voting on my successful adminship nomination. Whenever I mess up, please let me know. I want to learn from my mistakes so they don't become patterns. Superm401 - Talk 07:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Archaeological sites categories

I see from your extensive reorganisation of your user page that you've been creating/maintaining these categories. Can I suggest that you put each category into a suitable category of its home country as well as under Category:Archaeological sites by country. For example, I've put Category:Archaeological sites in New Zealand into Category:Science and technology in New Zealand.

Having categories under Category:XXX by country but not in the main country tree can be confusing for people trying to categorise articles.

Unfortunately, there's no standard category it will fit under for each country, so you'll have to do a bit of searching, but if you just put it under the country main category, someone will move it if need be.

Nice photo of you on your user page. The one of your outside, I mean. :-) -gadfium 09:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a great suggestion. The categories were pretty neglected, (Except for Italy - it has its subcats in a row) and I was wondering what to do now to make them more useful, since the cleanup phase is mostly done. I'll get right on it!Pschemp | ^Talk 22:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yay!

Lol, Pschemp hun, ok... make yourself comfortable in the wagon, cause I can't predict how long you'll have to wait ;) I think yours will be the last request I'll accept for a while... I had no idea how popular Phaedriel Design Inc. would get! Plus, I'd hate to stall the WikiProject for long, now that I have the fire to get it going burning inside. Please, just give me a couple of days, both to give you a preliminary design for your userpage and for a formal invitation to join the project. Sounds good to you, my dear Longhorn? A big, loud Sooner kiss! ;) Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no rush...Don't put a bit of pressure on yourself to get it done. Seriously, my page has had a long and proud history of crappiness, so it can stay that way for a while :) pschemp | talk 01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)