User talk:Pzavon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Pzavon, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Alhutch 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston University

sorry to be slow in responding to your message, but I was at class for a while. I'll take a look right now.--Alhutch 17:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you in this case, and I have reverted to the previous version of the introductory paragraphs. I'll drop a line to this user on their talk page and let them know why there's a problem with their version of the intro. Sort of sound like someone in the BU administration wrote those paragraphs. Keep up the good work, and let me know if there's anything else I can do for you.--Alhutch 17:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been several months now and I (and apparently Pzavon, as well) have stepped away from this debate to allow things to cool for a while. Unfortunately, I still disagree that there is a "Graduate School of Management" at BU, and I believe the facts support this assertion.

Please understand, no one is contending that the graduate programs at SMG are not referred to as belonging to the "Graduate School of Management." I myself have heard people refer to it in this way, and in fact many University systems do the same. For example, the Student Link[1], when looking up classes, requires you to select "GSM" to view classes in the SMG graduate program, just as you say. However, if you look, you will also see EOP (English for International Students), OTP (Officer Training Program, ROTC), PDP (Physical Education Classes), among many others. There can be no valid argument that any of these are actually colleges or schools of their own; they appear in the registration system separately as an organizational demarcation (English for International Students) or because there is no other logical place to put them (ROTC).

Again, to reiterate, no one is contending that the term "Graduate School of Management" is not used or that it does not appear on official documents. However, this usage is merely to distinguish the graduate program from the undergraduate program, and also likely because people think that it adds prestige to have a separate graduate school as opposed to having the undergrad and graduate programs in one school (in my opinion).

Nonetheless, I must once again make my objection known to the "Graduate School of Management" being referred to as a separate school.

I propose the following compromise: The article Boston University Graduate School of Management be reverted to its status as a redirect to Boston University School of Management, and a significant mention of the fact that the graduate programs are often referred to as the "Graduate School of Management" be placed in the introductory paragraph of the SMG article.

-Pjorg 17:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite tell who is saying what in the 3 Oct 2006 contributions to this discussion, but the proposed compromise seems reasonable to me. Pzavon 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] occupational hygiene

your interest in streamlining text is laudable; however you have removed some important elements from this article:

1. removed a wikilink to noise health effects, where the reader can learn much more detail about some of the occupational risks of exposure to elevated sound levels, which risks are substantial.

2. removed the meaning of indoor air quality, by coining it not a "hazard". indoor air quality consists of all exposure to gaseous chemicals, many of which are toxic and some carcinogenic. see for example radon, benzene vapor, phosgene, etc.

3. removed important detail from the illumination discussion. in particular you have left no reference to the effect of incorrect spectra, which has also been linked to cancer incidence.

i would invite you to address these omissions. one needs to be very careful about removing substantive information from an article. thank you for your attention to this matter Anlace 04:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of the detail elements you are focusing on may have some value here, but not, in my opinion, in an introductory overview, which is what the first few paragraphs ought to be. Those detailed items belong in more specific sections, which I've not had the time or energy to try to outline recently.

With regard to "incorrect spectra," I find that an extremely wide, potentially frightening, and, as a result, misleading thing to say all by itself that way. Certain parts of the UV region produce melanoma. But I've been an occupational hygienist for about 28 years now, and I would NEVER be so general and non-specific as to say that "incorrect spectra" in a workplace is a significant workplace hazard because "it has been linked to cancer incidence."

This belongs in a specific discussion of the hazards of electromagnetic radiation, or of the agents that can cause cancer, not in a general explanation of what Occupation Hygiene is. All known hazard categories will never be successfully listed here. The best we can do is explain what OH is and include links to more specific articles. In my opinion, this article needs more details about the methods of OH, less enumerations of what hazards are.

Pzavon 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your responses...you have alluded to several different issues. lets take them one at a time and see where we find agreement.

the intro section. yes lets agree its not a place for any detailed discussion of health effects, but surely we at least want to list the main topics that occupational hygiene addresses:

airborne contaminants, sound levels, etc. lets not forget most readers dont know what an occupational hygienist addresses.

incorrect spectra. let me agree with you that references to cancer may not be appropriate here, as long as we can link to relevant fuller article descriptions of risk.

regards Anlace 03:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link in Poison

I have responded to your comment here. Were you looking for any other information?
Thanks -- Argon233 ^T C _{_@ ¶} 18:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No. I saw your response and the later follow-up. I've not had time to check out the web site in question myself and so decided to leave your edit without further question.

 Pzavon 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbert and Sullivan

Progress has been made on many of the G&S-related pages. See what you think. I think we are getting close (not yet, but close) to the point where the page might be nominated as ...what can you get nominated for? Featured article, or something like that? Regards, --Ssilvers 03:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the G&S talk page. By the way, I have put up a lot of new G&S personalities' bio pages. Click on the links and see if you can add anything. It would be good for more people than just Marc and me to have contributed to them. -- Ssilvers 17:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Sam. I've not been much oriented toward the personalities, so I may have little to contribute to those articles. Also, I have a large project outside Wikiland to complete before I can allow myself to drop deeply into this stuff, so I may not spend much time on this for a few more weeks. Pzavon 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Marc and I started a formal Project on G&S. Please add yourself as a participant at WP:G&S.Ssilvers 04:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new and third article on Legionaires' disease

I am writing to you because, in the past, you have contributed to the article Legionellosis and might therefore might be interested in the following:

Wikipedia has had two existing articles for quite a while named Legionella and Legionellosis. About a month ago, User:Noigel2000 started making changes to both these articles with no prior discussion on the talk pages. When his changes got edited, he became quite perturbed. After quite a bit of discourse, (during which his need to use proper Wiki syntax and guidelines was pointed out to him), he became even more perturbed. He made a number of derogatory remarks about other editors and about Wikipedia, and kept insisting that his Internet website (devoted to Legionnaires' disease) was the best source of information and better than anything in Wikipedia.

Finally, Noigel got tired of having his edits to the two existing articles corrected and of being admonished for some of his remarks. So he wrote a third, completely new article entitled Legionnaires' disease. It is composed entirely of material taken directly from the many pages on his Internet web site. He made absolutely no attempt to "Wikify" the article. There are no references, no external links (with one exception, a link to his web site), no embedded Wiki links, poor organization, no use of Wiki section headings, etc. In my opinion, he is using Wikipedia as a billboard for his web site (and I admit that I am biased, because I do not like his attitude).

Here are two of the pages on his website: [2] and [3]

Here is a direct copy of his self-introduction from his User talk:Noigel2000 page: "Who am I or what am I. Some call me a Legioneela Advocate, Others a Legionella Nut or Legionella Fan some stronger than that."

Do you think that this third article by Noigel is really needed? Please let me know what you think. - mbeychok 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ergonomics

Thanks for pointing out my removing the external links, claiming they're linkspam. My mistake. I should have written "per WP:EL & WP:NOT" and made a note on the talk page. I'll rectify. Basically, we're not going to list each and every ergonomics-related research group [4]. If there are exceptional ones, they should probably discussed first on the talk page. --Ronz 04:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your understanding, for inserting a citation needed tag versus removing a valid article passage outright. The page it is hyperlinked to needs to be updated and has been tagged so for a long time, so hopefully this will produce results. I don't often look at the page sans violation concern... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BU's religious affiiliation

On 6 February 2007 you removed categories related to BU's Methodist affilliation from the main Boston University article because, as you said "BU no longer maintains any religious affilliation." BU as a University has not had a Methodist affiliation for many years. In fact, from the 1869 Charter I believe no part of the University other than Theology had a formal religious affiliation. I believe the School of Theology has maintained its affiliation from the beginning, thus making those category links appropriate. Pzavon 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're correct about STH having an affiliation, but the template and categories suggest that the school as a whole is affiliated, which it is not. If there is a separate article for STH then I think the category would belong there. Pjorg 15:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The word "only"

From Merriam-Webster:
on·ly
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English AnlIc, from An one -- more at ONE
1 : unquestionably the best : PEERLESS
2 a : alone in a class or category : SOLE <the only one left> <the only known species> b : having no brother or sister <an only child>
3 : FEW <one of the only areas not yet explored>
— Walloon 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Only" can mean few as well as just one - e.g. "there are only 2,000 pandas left in the wild". While British usage prefers "one of the few", it is quite common for Americans to use "one of the only", contrary to your "correction". Rodparkes 23:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"One of the only people who..." is a modern degradation which I will always change to "one of the few" or something similar. While "There are only 50 remaining ..." is a correct construction, being "one of the only 50 remaining..." uses unnecessary verbiage and is better changed to "one of only 50 remaining" in almost every situation. Pzavon 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of style I entirely agree with you that "one of the few" is preferable. I merely intended to point out that modern usage guides do not consider "one of the only" to be incorrect English, whereas you flagged the change as a correction. Rodparkes 01:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not modern. I cannot accept "one of the only" as not being incorrect, with the exception noted above regarding constructions like "one of only 50 remaining." Pzavon 03:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Mikado

May I ask why you reverted my edit? I would like very much to see an article on the Off-Monroe Players. I'm sure you had a good reason but it wasn't in the edit summary.. EDIT: I have reverted it for the moment, but you can change it back or I will if you have a reason. -- Zalethon (Talk) 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdominal thrusts

Hi there,

i noticed that you reverted my redirection of abdominal thrusts to choking. I have to strongly disagree with the reversion, which was done after some consideration. I can't see any reason to have a separate article on abdominal thrusts when it sits very well within the overall choking article. The procedure is not used for any other reason, and you end up with two articles with very similar content (which is a bad thing, as updates come at different times, have different edit styles etc.)

I've put some more reasons on the talk page for abdominal thrusts, so please let me know why you feel that it deserves a separate article. I have also edited the article down to be in line with Wikipedia policy on not having how-tos - this is essential maintenance in either case.

Please feel free to leave messages on the ab thrust talk page, or directly on my personal talk page, and let's see if we can reach a logical agreement

Owain.davies 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, given the 100% support from other editors, unless you have a compelling reason, i'll redirect abdominal thrusts to choking this weekend. Please comment on the talk page if you have a major objection! Owain.davies 05:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pzavon, I'm just letting you know that I've redirected and temp protected the redirect of abdominal thrusts to choking. This is because there were some problems with the page over the weekend and this seemed to be the best way to sort it out. The other editor who opposed this redirect has now withdrawn from Wikipedia and so you appear to be the only editor opposed to the move, so, while there wasn't a complete consensus, there was quite clearly stronger support for redirecting to choking than any other option. I don't have a horse in this race and am happy to follow whatever you guys decide to do, so I encourage you to continue discussions and, perhaps, arrive at a clearer consensus. By the way, are you aware that people have been leaving messages for you on your userpage User:Pzavon? If you would like me to delete the page, just let me know. Cheers, Sarah 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you protected the unilateral change. However, I find I have little continuing interest in the specifics of this issue. I was following the page on the Heimlich Maneuver for personal reasons and have little interest in the broader article on Chocking, per se. The prime mover for merging into Chocking does not appear to be open to alternative arguments and in a merge/no merge question there is not much opportunity for compromise. So I am walking away from this for now. I have UNWATCHED Abdominal Thrusts and will probably do the same to Chocking this evening.

As to knowing that messages are left for me on my talk page - certainly. Wikipedia raises a red flag when I log on and there is a new message - and I have my Talk page set to "Watch" so changes bring it up on my Watcklist. Pzavon 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I undid the unilateral move and protected the page on the option which had clear overwhelming, though not unanimous, support on the article's talk page. Thanks for letting me know your position. I shall pass along to the other editors that there is no longer any active or actionable opposition to the merge/redirect.

In response to your comments re messages left on your talk page, my original comment was regarding your userpage here, not your talk page. People have been mistakenly leaving you messages on your userpage instead of your talk page and I was unsure if you were aware that there were messages there for you. Sarah 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Tastykake

I noticed you removed the cleanup tag I placed, saying that I never discussed why it should be cleaned up/rewritten on the talk page. I did in fact mention it on the talk page; here's the diff. It needs a thorough rewrite to avoid the slight advertisey tone and to better fit the MoS. Krimpet (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanics

Hi. I've explained here that while the site is a useful resource, there are potential conflict of interest issues. I left most of the links intact, since the site otherwise meets WP:EL guidelines. — Feezo (Talk) 01:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think so. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the site, and it's a nice plus that it's hosted by a university. Still, the editor's behavior was rather spammish, and I wanted to make sure it didn't slip in without discussion. — Feezo (Talk) 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discontent with sourcing of the Explosion sculpture

I'm not certain what you want on the Metcalf Science Center for Science and Engineering article in terms of a citation. The fact that there is a sculpture there that says "Explosion" on it, is Common Knowledge, since it's a plain sight observation that can be made from public property. Was there something more specific you were objecting to?--Loodog 03:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pzavon

Bu CFA is not the oldest music school in the USA. Oberlin 1865, New England Conservatory 1867, and others. BU CFA is hardly conservatory in any respect other than music is offered. At a conservatory you are not required to take anything outside of music. Additionally their study abroad program is not unique. NEC just down the street has the exact exchange, as does juilliard, and every other major music school. the only thing unique about it is when you attend the program you are forced to take architecture and other course outside of music. Again destroying the conservatory line. BU CFA has a distinct history of inflating their programs and quality. You should not contribute to that.

On 10 October, you had some substantial things to say (above) about the article on the Boston University College of Music. If you had said even a little bit of that in the edit summary when you made the changes under discussion, I might not have reverted them. Discussion and explanation goes a long way here.

However, the article calls CFA the "oldest degree granting" school and that is different form being simply the oldest. And the assertion, per the citation in the article, is from a BU CFA site, not from me. Without any explanation from you, I saw no support for your changes.

By the way, it is also nice if you sign your contributions to Talk and Discussion pages. Pzavon 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous Goods

Sorry about that revert. There was some vandalism I was reverting, and I didn't look into that one. I agree with your reasoning about primary v. secondary hazards; I once had to take apart someone else's lab-pack of waste oxidizers to get a container of thorium nitrate out. Glad you were watching too, and caught my mistake. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HVAC

Hi Pzavon, a number of engineering disciplines contribute to HVAC. The best place to add these categories is in category:HVAC. Some categories - like mechanical engineering - will become very big, if all related articles are included. Inwind (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pzavon, I prefer to continue this discussion, where it started, i.e. here. Template:catdiffuse is a good starting point to look into categorization philosophy in Wikipedia. Inwind (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I NEED HELP

Hi the wikipedia user Haydocca has beeen constantly vandalizing the cincinnati page.I was wondering,because you are an administrator that you could block him/her. Meckstroth.jm (talk)

Sorry, I am an editor, like you, not an Administrator. There is a page where you can call such things to the attenditon of an Administrator willing to take a look, but I can't recall its name at present. Pzavon (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gilbert and Sullivan

Regarding your comments at Talk:G&S, I have made an RfC to put the distinguish tag back and I would like to hear your comments. Reginmund (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Peter. Is this all the assistance that you can offer to the G&S Project? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xerox Star - source for Displaywriter used 8086 CPU

Thanks for your edit and comment about my citation. I've added the following to the Xerox Star discussion page: User:Pzavon makes a fair point about 'I personally attended and heard this' being almost O.R. I was thinking "I'm sure this is true and somewhere I'll find confirmation, so this was just a placeholder". I am still searching for a verifiable source for the assertion that the IBM Displaywriter used the 8086 CPU. IBM UK said this at the launch and plenty of sites say so too, including Intel 8086 article here on Wikipedia with no source cited (I've now marked that 'fact' to encourage others to find a source). BTW I've looked through much of the IBM Journal of Research & Development vol 25 issue 5 (at http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/rd/255//ibmrd2505B.pdf thru http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/rd/255//ibmrd2505ZI.pdf) but no luck so far. Pointillist (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human Factors

Thanks for quite correctly moving the links for Ergonomics Sociey and EAAP from agencies to organisations. I suggest that CREE and IEA, which I guess are also both organisations, should also be added. (But maybe I am getting a bit lost in the great "Ergonomics vs Human Factors" debate, and we need to avoid duplication I guess) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati

Sorry, but the current Cincinnati Reds are NOT descended from the original Cincinnati Red Stockings. They are a separate club. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That is so substantially contrary to common knowledge that I think you had better provide a verifiable source for your assertion. Pzavon (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you need to prove your assertion. There is nothing on the Reds timeline that you linked to, that states the current Reds are descended from the 1860s Red Stockings. Notice the gap between 1870 and 1876. They left out the part where the Red Stockings disbanded and their best players re-formed in Boston... as the Boston Red Stockings Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, from your latest comments on the Cincinnati talk page, that you have discovered some of the self-contradictions in the MLB.com website. I've added some more explanatory notes on the talk page. If you want to find out a good deal more about it, you may find this writeup of interest: [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It begins to look like a matter of interpretation, but this is the sort of citation that you need to provide in the article, not in a user talk page. In the article talk page you might provide more specific links or discussion than simply pointing to a long general history. Pzavon (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs is correct. I have done research on this and have been to the Reds Hall Fame a couple of times. --Cincydude55 (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it would be hard to find something in which I have less interest than baseball, but as a former resident of Cincinnati I was exposed to most of the "common wisdom" about the history. Whether Baseball Bugs is correct or not isn't really all that relevant, it is? The important thing was that he was making assertions of fact that were not consistant with broadly held understanding and was offering no citations to support his assertions. Finally, he has begun to provide those citations, so the process can proceed more normally and is less likely to continue as an edit war. In my opinion, most of this coversation ought to have been in the Article discussion page. Pzavon (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I added some comments to Talk:Cincinnati, Ohio. If you want me to move this entire segment there, I will do that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the slippery slope of "common knowledge". It's "common knowledge" among baseball historians that the current Reds are not the 1869 club. Citations, as you say, are a "must", especially for the general audience. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the links already posted, I've been reading Lee Allen's 1947 book about the Reds (which I suspect was a source for the links). Definitely different teams. Allen was a Cincinnati native, and it's amusing to read about their post-1880-season expulsion for selling beer, an expulsion engineered by the Worcester team. There's a degree of "gotcha" in his writing, as he points out that the current Reds have been around since 1882 (in the AA until 1890, then in the NL) and Worcester has not seen a big league ballgame since that same 1882 season (in the NL). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I have NO interest in baseball. As the issue of citations for the date of the founding of the current team has been dealt with, I would ask that any further discussion on this topic be taken to a place other than my user talk page. Thank you. Pzavon (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Esquire

I tried to leave a link in the edit history to support my removal of the name of the Esquire from the Clifton article, but I screwed it up. I meant to link to this , which addresses exactly this sort of situation. Thanks for your time Beeblbrox (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pressed for time just now, otherwise I would want to discuss the possibility that The Esquire might be considered "notable" in the context of WP:travel and the Cincinnati community. There are certainly an lot of similarly specific mentions of business names in the articles about this and other Cincinnati neighborhoods. Pzavon (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] they are laser pointer in that higher classes, too.

example: http://www.vavolo.com/productdetails.asp?mode=1&ProductID=3822 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdig (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See the the section just below the table in the article in question. The laser you reference has no safety interlocks and is not legal for entry into commerce in the US, those that do are not true laser poinetrs. I'm reverting also because asterisked comments are inappropriate at that location. Put such commentary, where approriate, in a footnot with the other footnotes. Pzavon (talk)

an example of legal one (title of page is "Green Laser pointer Titan 300mW"): [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdig (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is not a "pointer" as defined within the article. Pzavon (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grater's franchisees

Are franchisees people or things? That is the root difference between "franchisees whom" and "franchisees which", right? --DAW0001 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A franchisee may be a person or corporation. If a person, "whom" is correct, if a corporation, "which" is correct even though a corporation is a legal individual. However, it is the franchise, not the franchisee, that makes the stuff, so "which" is the correct word, in my opinion. Pzavon (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worth Hamilton Weller

Hi, is there any chance you could let me know what the yearbook says about him? There might be something I could add to the article. And thanks again for spotting my mistake. Doug Weller (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not say a lot about him. He was in the "4-year General Course". There were also members of his class described as being in a "5-year" and a "6-Year General Course." This may relate in some way to a transition the school was going through at the time. The school had recently changed from being a standard district high school (housing the usual grades 9-12) to being a Classical High School with a college preparatory program housing grades 7-12 and drawing students by examination from throughout the city. We would now call it a "Magnet school" but that term came along much, much later.

The yearbook does show he was a member of the French Club during grades 10 and 11; and of the Latin Club in grade 12. I know Latin was a required subject then (it still is in that school) and I think Greek may have still been required then. That is actually a relatively short list of extracurricular activities, compared to most of the other members of the Class of '31, and suggests either someone who was not a joiner or someone who was primarily interested in things outside those offered within the school. (Although there are some with even fewer activities listed.) There were quite a range of other activities available to him. I can transcrbea list if you want it.

It was customary to include a senior class prophecy in each yearbook in those days. This was written in the form of a dream or vision, usually finding a way to suggest the future of several students in one scene or image. The relevant portion here runs as follows:

From the door came the sounds of an altercation. Chief of Police Wulfeck investigated and found that the two house detectives, Vogt and Brancamp, would not admit W. Hamilton Weller, author of "Life and Habits of a Paramoecum," and who made a habit of carrying live specimens on his person.

I note that there was no zoology or similar club at the time, possibly explaining his short list of extracurricular activities.

It was also common to list "Senior Statistics", a table of sometimes humorous tidbits about individuals. Weller's nickname is given as "Buzz", his favorite expression as "But Miss Curtis." He was "usually found" "Talking". His weakness was "snakes" and his asset was "brains." His greatest fear is listed as "History". (A. Gurtrude Curtis was one of four history teachers in the school in 1931, so I presume that ties in with his "favorite expression.")

The Senior Directory at the end lists his address at graduation as 851 Glenwood Avenue. I am pretty sure that street still exists, but I no longer live in Cincinnati so cannot check.

It was not usual in those days for relatives to place adds in the yearbook congratulating individual students on their graduation, so I can find nothing further in the book about Weller.

I don't think anyof this will feed to the article, but I hope some of it is of interest to you. Pzavon (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)