User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive 2

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Chrysothamnus / Ericameria

Hi Walter - this looks to be a fairly complex one, and probably open to dispute. It seems that some botanists have transferred some, or all, of the species of Chrysothamnus into Ericameria, but that not everyone accepts the move(s). The original references are cited on the New Mexico Botanist website (google cache with the names highlighted); I don't have access to the paper, but Phytologia is not held in the highest regard (it isn't peer-reviewed or only minimally so), so it may well be premature to follow it without further research. AFAIK, Great Basin Naturalist is peer-reviewed, though I don't know the calibre of their reviewers; still, it isn't in the same calibre as e.g. Am.J.Bot. or Missouri BG's publications. The USDA appear to have accepted part of the transfer, but not all, retaining some species in Chrysothamnus (tho' not C. nauseosus). Conversely the Univ. of Brit. Columbia have not accepted the move, despite being aware of the proposals (Botany Photo of the Day 14/9/2005 and 3/12/2005).

Of the USDA Plant Profiles, I'd say they're usually fairly reliable, but I'd not consider them any more authoritative than several other sources; I've certainly found a number of differences between them and some others (compare e.g. their treatment of Abies or Quercus with that of the Flora of North America) (unfortunately, FNA haven't done Asteraceae yet).

My overall feeling is to retain them in Chrysothamnus at least for the moment, but that the question of transfer to Ericameria should be mentioned (and also make a stub for Ericameria with species that have always been in that genus). I'll drop the UBC people a line and ask what they think. If you've got easy access to Phytologia and GBN, have a read of the papers and see what they say.

Nice one on the Bushtits, they're nice birds, related to our Long-tailed Tit (which I saw a few of today!) - MPF 14:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Michael! Sorry to be so slow. I had two or three days without recourse to the higher thought processes. It was a virus or something, I suppose.
Thank you for investigating the Chrysothamnus / Ericameria issue. I looked up the call numbers for the two journals. I'll try to stop by the Natural Sciences Library at the University of Washington tomorrow. If it isn't a lot of material, I'll scan it and email it to you, if you like. Do large files do vex you? Have you heard back from UBC?
Thank you for your thoughts on what to do about the articles. Your suggestions make sense to me, but it will be a day or two longer before I can get to it.
Yesterday I was crossing a footbridge in Ravenna Park (Seattle) and saw a mixed flock of Black-capped Chickadees, Golden-crowned Sparrows, Winter Wrens and Ruby-crowned Kinglets moving up the ravine. From my vantage point, I had a good view of the otherwise elusive birds directly below. Your May photo of the Long-tailed Tit juvenile is lovely. What a fine bird. --Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Walter - sorry to hear about the virus, hope you're well now! The people at UBC are having a look into it, but haven't replied yet (you can follow progress here, scroll down to the comments section). I've got broadband and can take files up to about 10 MB, so if you want to send, by all means (tho' it isn't a group of plants I have great interest in pursuing the taxonomy of, so don't go out of your way). Saw all of those birds except for Y-crown Sparrow on my trip; Winter Wren is also abundant here (the only species of wren outside of the Americas, so we call it just "Wren"). Thanks for the photo compliment! - again, a tame juvenile I got to within a metre or two of. L-t Tits are super birds, the best ones are the Scandinavian/Russian race with pure white heads pic at Netfugl website (Denmark) - stunning! - Regards, Michael MPF 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a notice of this discussion. I think it is not really necessary to search for the old papers from Phytologia. Probably more relevant is the following paper: Roberts R.P. & Urbatsch L.E. 2003: Molecular phylogeny of Ericameria (Asteraceae, Astereae) based on nuclear ribosomal 3 ETS and ITS sequence data. Taxon 52 (2) - see Abstract. The journal "Taxon" is peer-reviewed and has a rather good reputation. I do not yet have the paper from Taxon. However, there is no reason to think, that the content is much different from the dissertation of the first author. Cheers --Franz Xaver 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; looks like it stays in Chrysothamnus on the basis of the abstract (unless it is one of the "species transferred from Chrysothamnus including E. albida"!) - MPF 22:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably you did only read the abstract of the Taxon paper. You should also have a look at the phylogenetic trees on pages 57, 59, 62, 63, 66 of the dissertation and read the first sentence on page 69: The present investigation and that of Ericameria (chapter 3) support Nesom and Baird's (1993) transfer of Chrysothamnus nauseosus .... to Ericameria. --Franz Xaver 23:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, true - I tend to shy away from large pdf files as they're a bit of a pain to download and plough through. I've taken a look now and agree that those phylo trees do show it to be an Ericameria after all - MPF 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I will make the move (if it hasn't been made) and copy the relevant material above to the Ericameria discussion page, if no one objects. Splendid work! Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps leave out some of the less relevant remarks about pdfs in the copying across :-) Worth citing that dissertation in the ext links on the page, too. Annoying that Taxon are such a money-grabbing lot that they won't allow free access the way e.g. Am. J. Bot. do - MPF 00:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Inline links

Hi Walter - just happened to look at your contribs to see if you'd started posting yet today, and saw your edit summary on inline links - I'm proposing a change on this preposterous wiki advice, you might want to look in on Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources#Inline_links - MPF 22:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Shoshone National Forest

I'm working hard on this article and would appreciate feed back. I have some tidbids to add to most of the sections and I have to make it more readable, but there is a great deal of expansion that needs to be done to the biology section. Anyhow, if you get a chance, have a look and add what you think it needs either to the article itself or to the talk page. I'm hoping to get it up to Featured Article status. Appreciate your help.--MONGO 01:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Really appreciate your imput..I made some comments in regards to your questions on the talk pages there.--MONGO 07:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hopton Incline

Walter, thanks for the message. Not a Problem! (It will be nice when there's a bit more to add on the Pennine Bridleway, but it may be several years until it's all designated officially. They've been some 30 years on the Cotswold Way)) Linuxlad 19:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Polar bear

Thanks for warning me about the capitalization of common names for species; I didn't even know there was any controversy. Do Canadians really capitalize it "Polar Bear"? I was just going by what I read at Talk:Bear#Caps. —Keenan Pepper 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Walter - "BTW, do either of you object to putting a copy of this discussion on the Polar Bear talk page where it might be found more easily?" - No problem! - MPF 09:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bug 4161

What was the end result of your comment on the bug regarding infobox space when no edit disclaimers are used? Also, I am almost finished up with Shoshone National Forest, yet still haven't had the Forest Service get back to me on # of glaciers. I added a couple of audio links to images in article, ran it through spell check, etc. Have a looksie if you want.--MONGO 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I just got off the phone with the public affairs rep for Shoshone National Forest and he told me that he was sure that the actual number of active individual glaciers is 156 in the Wind River range section of the forest, primarily in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness section. There are one or two more in the Beartooth region, but they may actually be snowfields. The rep told me that they have 16 named glaciers and 140 that are unnamed. He agreed that the glaciers in Washington state are both thicker and larger but many of them are combined. He also stated that the glaciers in the forest are generally receeding in size. Finally he stated that the best way to word it would be to state that the forest has the most glaciers in any forest in the Rockies...but to continue to use the figure of 156 for a total number. Pasting this also on the talk page for the forest.--MONGO 16:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way... I mentioned that I had read that they had "discovered" new glaciers in Colorado over the past few years...here's an article that may have been where I heard it in case you are interested...[1] dates from 2001 I think, so they have probably already melted by now.--MONGO 18:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

user boxes, etc

Hi Walter - hope you had a nice christmas! I've just been making one or two new userboxes, if you want this one: {{User birder}} (I also made {{User conifer}}!) - see what they look like on my user page. Also take a look in on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Concrete capitalisation rule if you want to contribute to a new discussion there - MPF 00:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a dilettante at birding; when I was in Oregon on Monday, I realized that I have been misidentifying Regulus satrapa as Zonotrichia atricapilla. What a dope! Still, I saw 22 species on my trip including Cygnus columbianus at the Ridgefield NWR. While I don't collect cones, I take pictures of them, so that will have to suffice for moment. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Have to confess that sounds an improbable confusion pair! Have you checked Hutton's Vireo? - that's the one usually cited as a confusion species for kinglets). Two days out birding got my '06 yearlist up to 72 (yesterday) and 105 (today), some crackers today including a Peregrine taking a Bar-tailed Godwit, and an Avocet [Pied Avocet], quite a rarity this far north; also got some photos of some Brent Geese [Brant] and a Merlin, but not sure they're good enough quality to be worth uploading - MPF 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Hutton's Vireo tip. I wouldn't feel so stupid confusing that one with a kinglet. Congratulations on your birding successes. In late summer, I saw a bald eagle take a murre chick from a seastack at Yaquina Head. Such sights are to be savored! I looked up Pied Avocet. What a striking bird that is. It's hard to get good bird pictures. You have my sympathy. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The common name issue is troublesome. I like your suggestion of using scientific names. It exploits one of Wikipedia strengths in that the common names can be trivially redirected, and since referenced scientific names can be linked to the relevant article (as in the paragraph above), the common name is easily found. But, I'm sure that I am not alone in thinking that it makes the articles a little less accessible for many people. Also, I've been editing forest articles, e.g., Shoshone National Forest, (as you know), where readers are likely to expect common names and may find scientific names opaque. I suppose that scientific names could be confined to biological articles, but defining boundaries is not easy. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd doubt the sci name title would be too much of a problem, as long as the main common name is mentioned in the first line or two of the article. I'd agree that common names would be better in the Shoshone article context; not difficult with redirects and piped links. - MPF 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are good points. I think the guidelines should be reasonably easy to interpret and consistent with practice outside Wikipedia. Your proposal satisfies those criteria, it seems to me. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

One problem that I find a bit vexing is that the WP:MOS is redundant and inconsistent. A solution, in my opinion, would be to turn the MOS over to a small number (five or fewer) individuals (senior editors), but I don't think that is a Wikipedia solution. It seems to me that it is inconsistent with the culture, at least as I understand it. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

An interesting idea, though I think you're right that it wouldn't be consistent with wikipediism! - MPF 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Have I just invented a new word there? PPS Happy New Year! MPF 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a good neologism that is not yet in Wiktionary, surprisingly enough. Thank you for the new year wishes. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Shoshone National Forest

Just so you know, I posted a response on the talk page there to your latest comment...I may have to leave out the number of glaciers and simply state that the forest has the most in the rockies.--MONGO 00:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I reedited some of the info on glaciers, emaphsizing the rapid retreat of them as intro...it still needs more and maybe even a subheading. Do you think the article needs info on water quality and or pollution? I've been looking but I don't find much.--MONGO 11:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, good edits! Thanks for doing that. I wonder if instead of a subheading, geology (including glaciology) should have its own heading, separate from geography. I think the wording on global warming could be improved. I think it is particularly important to mention (briefly) that glacier thinning is a part of a worldwide pattern. Effects of global warming says that the total surface area of glaciers worldwide has decreased by 50% (about the same as in Shoshone NF). Global warming discusses glacier wasting in the Himalayas. I may give it a go later today. If you haven't found much on water quality or pollution, I don't think it belongs in the article. To include it risks being vague and uninformative. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that...I'm signing off for about 14 hours soon so anything you have to add is welcome. I think the section on the retreating glaciers could use some more and I think it does deserve it's own subheading since there are numerous glaciers and there seems to be ample and easy to locate supporting sources. The pollution thing may go somewhere...all I can find is that Lonesome Lake in the Cirque of the Towers is not fit for drinking...not much. There are virtually no factories or anything of that sort anywhere close, so I believe the air quality is some of the best in the U.S., but that may be my opinion. I'm trying to stay away from the global warming thing, but only because some people seem to think it is a myth. I am about 90% true it is happening but I still think some of the effects may be related to a non manmade general warming trend...but the fact that the planet has been warming overall since the dawn of the industrial revolution sure does seem to indicate that we are greatly contributing to this warming trend. Really appreciate your help and for correcting my too frequent typos!--MONGO 13:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

electric kool-aid . . .

no, not at all- that's very strange. even if i had seen it i wouldn't have pasted over your comment! very bizzare, i've never had that happen on an edit . . . --Heah ^talk 06:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it may be a software bug, then. It is troublesome because it could acerbate conflict between editors where such is already present. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, i just reported it- Wikipedia:Bug report#LACK of edit conflict --Heah ^talk 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Purshia

Hi again! I'll do one tomorrow - MPF 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done! - MPF 23:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Re the Ericameria v. Chrysothamnus question, I had a look through them, but with it being a group of plants I'm not familiar with, I don't feel competent to decide whether the articles are right or not (it looks very much like it could be a matter of opinion to me), so was wanting to wait until the UBG people had commented. I might give them another buzz soon - MPF 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish lists and categories

Hello, I have made a compromise proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession#Proposal_to_make_Jewish_lists_and_categories_historical_only. Regards Arniep 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you very much!

I appreciate your kind comments -- I have just started to contribute to wikipedia and already many people have been so encouraging and helpful. Thanks again! --Elizabeth of North Carolina 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Article improvement

Another editor has nominated Wilderness for article improvement drive...care to join in? [2]--MONGO 04:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a well-defined enough topic to mesh with my interests, but thanks for thinking of me. I was going to ask you if you noticed Mount Rushmore on Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW? BTW, I asked Dr. Pelto to comment on the glacier issue via email, in case you were curious about how he came to join the discussion. He's a big help, even if he just helps us understand what to emphasize and with sources. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering where he came from...he has been a big help and I do appreciate it. I'll look at the Mount Rushmore thing now.--MONGO 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello Wsiegmund. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right

Traffic congestion - thanks for pointing out: I have restored the edits. In fact, you could have done that, dropping me a line. You are really nice person. --Bhadani 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually while reverting, I was in doubt: but we have different rules at different places, and I was caught in the Traffic congestion. Thanks for taking me out. --Bhadani 16:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adi Shankara

Thanks for your message and suggestion: I shall gladly do that. Please also have scans, from time to time, of my "creations' to correct syntax, grammar, and choice of words. --Bhadani 06:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 10:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim Nussle

An admin has vandalized the site and extirpated all references to his sordid adultery-drenched divorce and the bribe he took from Jack Abramoff. This is a Sullivan case where all the s--- flies, and the truth triumphs. --FourthAve

Pic from Railroad Grade

Nice pic! Thanks for adding it to Mount Baker Wilderness! -- hike395 06:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Hike395; Thank you for the kind words. I wasn't sure whether to keep the USFS image, or not. The subject is excellent, but it is low resolution and the shadows detract from its appearance. BTW, I clarified its identification. Maybe, I can get a high resolution image this summer.
You might look at Glacial recession. It is a unofficial project to add this neglected topic. Your help would be welcomed! Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for the welcome back; I'm going to be trying to ease myself back in slowly, with the hope that I can keep from getting overwhelmed. Wish me luck... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Moderation in all things is advised by some. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Aspen

Yes, go ahead! (perhaps better, something like "of the section Populus sect. Populus") - MPF 14:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck with the moth larvae! Just done a page for Rubus leucodermis (splitting it out from the Rubus occidentalis page where it was previously just a subsidiary para), can you find a pic for it? - MPF 14:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting Rubus leucodermis on my to do list. Thank you for the suggestion and wishes. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with pic hunting! No edits from me for the best part of a day from now, off on a bird race tomorrow - MPF 23:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bear

Thanks for the note! I've moved it back (not least since he hadn't bothered to think about resolving all the double redirects his move had made!) - MPF 23:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ramyakrishna.jpg Comments

Thanks for your message, I would surely add comments on any image i'm uploading hereafter. I shall replace the existing one and will upload a 'free to use' image.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by M.arunprasad (talk • contribs) 06:22, 16 January 2006

Splendid! Thank you and best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning,

but what you fail to realize, is I am Paul Jaworski, the Second Coming of Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulwithap (talk • contribs) 02:23, 17 January 2006

Re. Duel

I added Phantom vehicle to Duel because the film involves a mysterious vehicle (which is the truck).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm05 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 January 2006

I loved your flattery!

Well, my dear Walter, this serves us "never" to assume anything , because I'm completely free to stick my fingers into your user page at will ;-) I'm absolutely flattered that you liked mine, btw, and I'll be even more flattered if you like what I've prepared for you. As a matter of fact, I found your page to be already well designed in terms of spacing and sections, so I only saw fit to generally beautify it without actually designing an entire new layout. Of course, if you want me to do it, just whistle!

I've made four different versions of your user page with assorted collor themes (albeit I must confess the first and third ones are my favorites - can you tell my preferred color is blue?). They're all yours to pick the one you fancy the most. Remember to let me know if you want some more enhancements on any of them. Hope you like them, and kisses! – Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Glacier National Park (Canada)

I thought that Glacier National Park (Canada) was in Alberta too...and I worked at Glacier National Park (US) for a couple of years, so I should have not thought that. We always told confused visitors that came to the U.S. park that we were the Glacier National Park that didn't have any glaciers...they always seemed confused that the park was primarily a place to see the effects of glaciers as it has so many well defined U shaped valleys, cirques and remnants...soon it appears, even the remnants will be gone. Just for the record, this has been the balmiest January I have ever seen in Omaha...we haven't had any snow and it has been 15 to 20 degrees warmer than average here since the middle of December. The rest of this month appear to be continuing this pattern. Portions of the Rockies have the lowest snowpack they have ever had for this time in the season.--MONGO 19:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, were you commenting on my changing "In" to "in"? [3] Alberta was added in an edit by Peltoms. [4]
This winter has been very good for the North Cascades so far. We have consistently had high temperatures in the 40s F in Seattle. That corresponds to a snow level between 3 and 4 thousand feet, near the optimum to maximize snow fall and minimize melting above 5000 feet where the glaciers are. January 15, 2006, was noteworthy because it was the end to 27 consecutive days of rain in Seattle; 6.78 inches of rain in January so far. It was a brief respite. The rain resumed early the following day and it rained every day since, I think. Outside of minor mudslides and mild flooding, the impact has been small. We have had no warm (~60 F) rain that is detrimental to the glacier accumulation zone. Last year was disasterous by comparison. In March, I hiked to the summit of Mount Defiance, 5584 feet. Outside of snow around Mason Lake, 4200 feet, the ground was bare whereas 3 to 4 feet would be expected in a normal year.
I'm sorry to hear of your warm weather. I hope your planned trip to the Wind River Range is not spoiled.
Last week, I warned User talk:Ranch 80 and User talk:Charleswestbrook about link spamming. [5] [6] Perhaps you could take a look and if you agree delete their spam (if it is true that you can do that easily as an admin; otherwise let me know and I'll do it).
BTW, having your talk page on my watch list paid off big time. I love what User:Phaedriel did for my userpage. Your page turned out great too. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my bad...I didn't look close enough at the diffs to see what province was put in by who, but I wasn't chastizing anyway, just mainly comparing the two Glacier Parks. Sounds good for the Cascades this year...'bout time...I'm not sure what the Wind River Region is like as far as snowfall levels for this year...maybe if it is low I'll be able to get up in there earlier like late June instead of Late August. The first link you provide appears to be linkspamming to a degree, but it's far less blatent than the second one who is obviously pushing his book...or his/her publisher is...they are not (yet) notable as a book, did we query the author to see if they have written anything else...I'll check back later as I gotta run now. Wikipedia has an article...Charles Westbrook, but not sure if this is the same person.--MONGO 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find any indication on Google that Charles Westbrook (author) or his books are notable. He does not seem to be the same person as Charles Westbrook. I agree that Ranch_80 is less blatant, but seems to be pushing his/her photography. The one text contribution seems constructive (though I haven't tried to verify it), but that which doesn't duplicate content in Loretto Chapel would be better placed in that article. [7]

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Hello. I don't know what I'm doing yet. Could you please tell me why my Rhode Island vote has been crossed out? Thank you. Ajs555 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sup Walter! =)

My dear Walter, let me tell you you sure know how to make me blush - and that's no easy task, believe me! ;) I'm so happy that you liked my small enhancements to your page; for some strange reason, I happen to dislike the appearance of pictures inserted in the traditional way over a colored background (can you tell I'm a maniac?) Of course you may swap images, hun; if you need some help inserting them properly, as usual, just whistle =) And no, Walt; there's no way in hell I'll ever sign my work, lol! You don't know this, but I strongly dislike being on the spotlight - a pat on the back, a kiss and a thanking hug from my friends is all I can ever ask for. Do we have a deal? =) Kisses! - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 04:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates

Peltoms definitely has say as far as the title of Glacial recession, as does Connelly. I'll look at the Rfa you mention too. Phaedriel is like a dream compared to a lot of folks around here...I hope she continues to enhance this place with her kindness as it would be a loss to see her bail...and yes, your userpage is really nice now, thanks to her. I simply don't have much skill figuring out some of the templates and have very limited computer skills...everything I do at work with the Feds is done on forms saved to the servers, so my need to be very computer literate is low, so it was wonderful that she went out of her way to fix my userpage. I've been real busy at work this week so my presence has diminished a bit but I'll see if I can dig up more stuff for Glacial recession. I figure that is a long term work in progress and at some point we may even split off some of the sections into their own articles as I am sure the information is out there.--MONGO 00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Shonshone is still over at peer review and I only got two folks who have chimed in, but their suggestions were helpful. I haven't decide when it should go to FAC...it looks pretty close to me, but may need some corrections yet...be my guest of course. I may try to finalize it over the weekend and send then nominate it. I haven't added an edit there in a week I think. Peltoms is a great contributor and I kind of started that article just to give him something to add to this project (and out of my own personal interest too)...he seems to enjoy it, so the more the merrier.--MONGO 03:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Walt! =)

Now "that", is news to me, Walt... yet, I still can't figure whether and epitaph would fall under the same category as an anonymous work susceptible of being published. The incredible amount of books, graphical reproductions and quoting it has received throughout the years (as early as 1921 in local newspapers, to the best of my knowledge) lead me to be somewhat sceptical as to whether it would qualify as such. That Bigfoot thing is making me curious - what exactly's going on with that article? I see Mongo's getting nuts fighting to keep it POV - maybe I should help there! =) I'm so delighted that you like your userpage, dear - whenever you feel it's time for a renewal, let me know and I'll experiment some more. Kisses! - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 01:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

A barnstar from you means a lot to me. You're one of the best contributors I know and it is a pleasure working with you.--MONGO 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The pleasure has been mostly mine, I think, but I appreciate your kind words. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter Deunov

Thanks for posting that solid message on the talk page of Peter Deunov. I was procrastinating about doing the same thing, and it was much easier just to write an endorsement of your comment. I'll take a look at the other pages. This is not a topic of interest to me (I can't even recall why Deunov ended up on my watchlist), but the basic principles are the same for any article. Yes, I've found that Sam Spade is a helpful contributor and has been willing to help when asked. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

HI. I was looking at the new articles and fixed Tibetan prayer. Then Tibetan prayer flag...then Prayer flags...and they all look like the same article. Should two of them be deleted? I hope you don't mind my asking here, I just aske people I come into contact with who seem to know these things and I hope I'm not making work for you. Thanks. --ShadowPuppet 21:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Now there's also Tibetan prayer flags! --ShadowPuppet 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And now prayer flag! --ShadowPuppet 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hit the panic button. I've been introduced to the idea of the humble "redirect" and informed that we can simply redirect them. blush --ShadowPuppet 22:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to help (when I know the answer). Redirect is very often a useful tool, especially as an alternative to the more cumbersome AfD process. Don't feel you have to deal with these things immediately; without links, they are not likely to be found and be viewed by our readers. A delay of a day or so is not likely to matter. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Great learning experience though! I'll try to be a little more patient (and tactful, and cautious, etc...) from now on. I think there's so much potential here...just anxious to be involved. --ShadowPuppet 02:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember having similar feelings last summer when I started. I'm still finding it quite interesting but I'm no longer attempting to do everything at once. I've made two or three friends and that is as pleasant as it is unexpected. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Me again

I nominated Shoshone National Forest for featured article, jus so you know. As a major contributor, I discourage you from voting on it, but if you're bored, you can monitor my additions to citable links and or references as that seems to be the major complaint so far. I wanted to take this time to thank you for all the help you gave me on this effort.--MONGO 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My contributions were pretty minor, but I take your point. I'll try to help with the links. Over the weekend, I got bogged down with other matters (Talk:Peter Deunov) on WP, and a roof leak in RL. You are most welcome. It is a pleasure to work with you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That looks confusing, getting someone to do translations for you...I have 25 links in the article and I'm fairly satisfied. I have to be careful as I am very familiar with the forest, so some of the information is "common knowledge" to me and may appear to violate WP:NOR. I was looking over the manual of style and it states that all links should be listed at the end of the article in an external links or references section, and I believe I have done this now. I don't like the notes style, unless a lot of the information comes from harder to obtain books...I personally prefer web based referencing as much as possible for quickness of cross referencing...anyway, have a looksie if you wish, but I think I have pretty much covered it, and put the links as they appear in the article chronologically in the end as well...whew.--MONGO 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the glacier recession wikilink I missed on Sea level rise. On glacier retreat, I edited the Valdez Glacier image with Photoshop to increase the color saturation. I can put the old image back if you don't like the result. On Deunov, I'm inclined to tag the related articles "noncompliant" and refer it to some editors of Christian articles. I don't have the interest to do more than that. I'll try to look at Shoshone tonight. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• I found this, in case you haven't seen it...List of glaciers--MONGO 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Need your opinion here

It was stated by one detractor to the Shoshone article here that I should use the ref/note style of referencing with essentially footnotes and the link is at the bottom of the article. I was looking over the guidelines on citation at WP:CITE that one can use ref/note, the "Harvard" style and or quicklinks, as I have done. Since this isn't a paper encyclopedia and since most of my major cited points are web based, I think having the referencing as I have it now, which allows quick linking to supporting external sites, without scrolling to the bottom of the article and possibly losing your place when you scroll back up...In college, obviously the footnoting style was the only way to go, especially if quoting something. But the neat thing about this effort being web based is that we can now quick link...any thoughts on this? Maybe the footnotes just look more professional?--MONGO 07:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I went through and switched all the links to footnotes (ref/note) style and took some stuff out...let me know what you think about the wording on the glacier stuff. Thanks for all your help.--MONGO 11:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion at m:When should I link externally may be familiar to you, but I just found it. WP:RS recommends getting close to the source, which I interpret as citing peer reviewed journal articles when they are available. It recommends evaluating online sources critically. I agree that it is very convenient and useful to be able to follow external links. But this needs to be balanced against the ephemeral nature of many web pages (and the burden on future editors that must maintain those links) their dubious vetting. Also, the external links are useless in a printed version of the article whereas print citations may be quite valuable. I suspect that Wikipedia, by its nature, will never echew external links in favor of journal citations, but if it is convenient to cite the journal article as well as an external link, then I think that is desirable. An external link is likely to be worthless in 10 years, but a citation for a print publication may still be quite useful. All this is a very long winded way of saying that I think footnotes or Harvard-style references are a good idea because they permit the citation of print publications. Moreover, the footnote for an external link can include information like the page title, author or organization, and other information that might help a future editor repair a broken link. That said, I agree with your point that being able to follow an embedded external link directly is very convenient for the reader. Going to the links via the footnotes is annoying. I understand why you favor that option.
Good job on the switch to footnotes. That looks like it was a lot of work.
I'll look at the glacier wording later today. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I may have relied too much on web based sources, but I like them because they allow a reader to quickly cross reference them without going to a library and or locate hard to find books...I have an additioanl reading section that has a short list of sources too....should my efforts fail to get to FA status, I can spend my time finding many more references that can cross examine each other.--MONGO 19:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter Deunov

Wow, that's a big crazy article! i'll help out if i can. good luck! --Heah ^talk 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You're doing great. I removed the long Bulgarian letter because it's pointless to include such material in talk pages if editors cannot understand it. Cheere, -Will Beback 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I buy you a drink, Walt?

I'm paying!

I was feeling kinda down, staring blankly at the RC page, and then I saw your name... mind if I stay here for a while, my dear Walt? I'll buy the beers... - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 02:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sharon, thank you for the beer! I wasn't expecting to hear from you until this weekend, so your message was a very pleasant surprise. I'm sorry you are down. Please send me an email with your troubles. A loyal friend laughs at your jokes when they’re not so good, and sympathizes with your problems when they’re not so bad. (Arnold H. Glasgow) Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter Deunov , Questions from Razum

Dear Walter Siegmund,

Excuse me for disturbance. Thank you very much for your patience and good will in Wikipedia-meaning. Your work is great. I (Razum) wish to work in harmony with Wikipedia requirements. That's why please help me to understand where are the problems with (1) unsuitable material and (2) cannot include original research in article for Peter Deunov. The problem with (3) NPOV for discussed link is decided. I will try to work more for (4) Verifiability of statement and links to well-known persons. The problem with NPOV for discussed link is decided. I find some materials for this topic and soon I will publish them. That’s why I think that that the problem (3) is decided and the problem (4) will be decided soon. The problems are in (1) and (2).

Please, give me the concrete examples in the article for Master Peter Deunov, because I wish to correct them and free the article from noncompliant tag.

Please, understand us - we do not wish to make problems for this problematic link. We only explain that the webmaster of this site do not know the history and details from work of Master Peter Deunov and that's why he makes some problems. Soon I will published the translations of my opinion in resume form and the translation of special article for the topic "The problem for 'authentic' word of Master Beinsa Douno - is there decision?"

I decided the problem with adding NPOV info for the link.

The world and the word is free - the Wikipedia too!

Best regards, Razum Razum 09:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Guess what?!

Shoshone National Forest has been promoted as a featured article! I'm now "free" to resume my contributions to Glacier retreat and in the protected areas projects...I am very appreciative of your contributions...but we still have one last chore...nail down the best way to state the glaciers in the forest...I would like to number them if we can find a reliable and conclusive number, but that doesn't seem possible...any and all suggestions are fine as I want accuracy as do you. Again, I really appreciate all your help...let me know what I can do to get one of yours to FA status as well.--MONGO 09:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I couldn't be more pleased. I don't know anyone who deserves the recognition that FA confers more. I appreciate your offer of future help very much. I don't think there is anyone that I would rather work with.
I spent some time on Thursday working on the glacier problem in the local library. I'll try to get back there in a day or two. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Glacier retreat has a lot of potential...it's informative and what not and is an interesting read...I'll be working on it again by next week.--MONGO 19:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Thurston Lava Tube.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 05:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good job...congrats!--MONGO 08:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating my picture! - Mikeo 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

a belated thanks

Thankyou so much for the updated pictures on my home page. Due to personal issues I've been on a wikibreak for some months and haven't been able to thank you. I will be back hopefully soon but in the mean time keep up the good work. Majts 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It is a pleasure to hear from you. Thanks for the edit summary! Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Glaciers are melting

I'm going to finish up the ref/note conversion on Glacial(glacier?) retreat tonight and posted so on the talk page there.--MONGO 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Non breaking space was alien to me, but I was told when I got the forest article up to spped that it was mandatory, hence my additions to the glacier article. Yeah, not sure why I equated it with server load.--MONGO 06:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has been put up for peer review...watchlist this page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Glacier retreat/archive1--MONGO 10:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's on my watch list. Thank you for letting me know. Thank you for doing the ref/note conversion on glacier retreat. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brazil Nut

Hi Walter - thanks for the note; I'd guess it is worth copying across to talk:Brazil Nut as there's been a bit of discussion on it there. I agree with you fully - MPF 22:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Glacier retreat references

I have set them up in two different formats and would like you to tell me which one seems better...have a look at the references cited section and let me know...Thanks!--MONGO 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is the first format rather than the second.

1. ^ Intergovernmental panel on climate change, graph of 20 glaciers in retreat worldwide [8]
2. ^ North Cascades glacier retreat

I have two arguments:

1. It is desirable to include enough information in the text description to help a future editor repair a broken external link. A long text piped link is obtrusive. Format #1 invites a more complete link description.
2. If text publication citations (Geophysical Research Letters) are intermingled with external links (format #2), the list will look like it was formatted randomly, rather than having a more uniform and pleasing (to my eye) appearance.

I don't know whether our reviewers will agree, though. Alternative #2 seems to be more common in other articles.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll have much time to work on the article until this weekend. I tried last night, but was too tired to make progress. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll finish switching over footnotes to "option #1" tonight. We don't need to add anything to the article and they will ultimately want us to trim it some as it it really long now.--MONGO 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3D glasses

Hi, 3dnaturguy, getting back to you. You asked about better glasses. That depends on several things. I advocate the subtle approach to stereo. Good color, but contour friendly stereo. You might call it the "ViewMaster" approach, rather than the "flying arrows" school of 3D. Plastic glasses with a slight diopter correction in the RED filter greatly sharpen images. If the 3D is shot with a reduced spacing between the camera lenses, much more color and be left intact. Google the term anachrome 3d under "image" search. there are about 580 examples of my type of 3D, shot be me and several other anachrome technique devotees.

I'd be happy to send some free plastic glasses to a few editors who are particularly interested in the photos on Wikipedia. I'd like to tell you that there are glasses that cure bad ghosting, but the fix really lies in the setup of the shot and the details of processing. Send an e-mail to sharper3d at yahoo dot com. Say that 3Dnatureguy wants www.anachrome.com to comp some glasses to interested "photo concerned" editors. I'm sure you'll get a few glasses to mail around to some of the editors. Probably 10 or 20 glasses might be available for your use, and for a few others that want to evaluate the images in 3D. 3dnatureguy 04:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day, dear Walter!

Happy Valentine's Day, my sweet dear Walter!
Phædriel

Style Committee proposal

(My email comment that prompted this discussion follows) My suggestion is to appoint/elect a Style Committee, akin to the Arbitration Committee. Ideally, it would have three to five members and would remove the redundancy, contradictions and the glaring incompleteness from the MoS. The MoS would no longer be edited by other editors although everyone would be welcome to edit the related talk pages. Earlier today, I saw a discussion on whether a space should be inserted between a number and the percent sign. Sound familiar? Anyhow, it wastes the time of editors like you (and Lulu for that matter) not to have a stable, clear, and more complete MoS. Moreover, it can be a source of conflict among editors. While I can see the advantages of empowering people and giving them control over their environment, I don't think those advantages outweigh the costs of the current system.

Yes, a standardization is badly needed...see here:[9]--MONGO 01:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that discussion to my attention. It seems to me that a few examples of this sort could help make the case that some sort of change is needed. Do keep a lookout! --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the MOS is volatile, contradictory and incomplete, it lacks authority, thereby leading toWikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_it_permissible_to_implement_the_guidance_in_the_Manual_of_Style.3F. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected areas categories

After seeing the posting on the protected areas talk page, I got together with another editor and he propsed a move for all categories for protected areas...[10]...it would be nice to standarize the cats and I personally prefer the subject before the country as mentioned in the discussion page [11]--MONGO 04:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Once over

I just wanted to ask how you feel about the Glacier retreat article. Is it what you hoped for? What does it lack and or what does it have too much of? Is there a manner you would prefer it to have been written as contrasted to the nearly completed form we have now? In my opinion, I believe it is an excellent article. I do want to state that soem may wish to see it reduced in size when we nominate it for featured article. If that happens, maybe the Mass Balance section would be the best part to spin off into another article, which in itself, is an article that could be quite extensive. When you get a chance, let me know if you are pleased and I will then nominate it for featured article status.--MONGO 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I agree. I think it is a spendid article. You, Peltoms, Lulu and WMC have done a great job. Please nominate it when you think it is ready. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk page deletions

Hi,

Thank you for bringing my attention to the matter of talk page etiquette. I had been under the impression that talk pages were rather like email--that it was OK to delete the messages you did not wish to read or see anymore. After reading the Wikipedia page you recommended, I am now aware that this is not the case. Thank you for this, and I'll certainly try to be more polite in future discussions. Mademoiselle Sabina 06:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future. Martyman - 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mount Kilimanjaro

Maybe you'll want to watch this one...especially the talk page.--MONGO 03:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Walter, I kind of outlined Holocene glacial retreat and added some links if you want to check it out. It's a start I guess.--MONGO 05:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool! It's got external links, too. I've been noticing a lot of stuff that is post-Last Glacial Maximum and pre-Holocene like the emptying of Lake Bonneville and the Missoula Floods. I thought these events were Holocene before I looked them up. Still, one thing at a time. It looks like there is a lot of interesting stuff there. I'll try to work on it this weekend. I've got Kilimanjaro on my watchlist, BTW. Thanks for mentioning it. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow...good finds...maybe the article will have some more sources for evidence than I originally expected.--MONGO 06:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you missed it, you can find a short discussion on citation format at Talk:Global_warming#Citation_format. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Account Unjustly Blocked

I have discovered that my account "Happyjoe" is blocked from editing due to some sort of misunderstanding over the Big Spring, TX article. I am uncertain who to contact to have this mistake fixed. Please remove this block so that I may complete necessary editing on other articles. Thank you for your timely assistance in resolving this problem... Happyjoe 69.145.215.206 04:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that you try to learn from the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Happyjoe and attempt to work more constructively with others? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it must had been boring to watch my talk page... not so much activity there :-)! - Liberatore(T) 12:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I didn't think your talk page was dull. You are interested in different things than I. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

rƒa · ɐƒɹ

Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved

I moved a copy of Glacier retreat to my userspace for a major overhaul....User:MONGO/gr I have already commenced eliminating many of the haedings and trying to make the flow of the article better...have a look...it is just another work in progress...if we like the end result, we'll replace the existing article which is not going to make featured status in it's current format and direction. I have kept every single citation and all the evidence. We also need to address some of the comments in the nomination and on the discussion page as we go, mainly with how this all relates to global warming or what effects this worldwide problem may have in a lot more detail.--MONGO 10:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Beaver Attacks

How does one pre-empt the perennial issues of 'Beaver Attacks'? I had thought that the beaver bites will help dispel these myths. Any guideline apart from the overly broad WP:RS would be helpful at this point Egberts 17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your query. I'll reply on Talk:Beaver. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shotokan Karate

Walter,

I have contacted CapJ about the dispute on the shotokan page. He has not responded. I guess I do not know where to go with this. Who can remove the POV marker on the page? Can I edit the disputed section? I am learning the ropes here and am trying to fix that information. Any advice here? ron Southwick 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I usually give people two or three days to respond. I would suggest not removing the POV tag until at least one other logged-in editor makes a substantive edit to the page or until Cap_j concurs. You might ask User talk:BenBildstein and User talk:Ekkis to have a look. Although they are infrequent editors, they have edited Shotokan in the past. Consider leaving a note on the Talk:Karate page. It is likely that a three or four way discussion will lead to a resolution. In the meantime, perhaps you can work on something else. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

>I am learning the ropes here

You wouldn't know it from his treatment of *me*. I have to comment on the arrogant way he lectured me. He stated in his comment of 05:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC) on Talk:Shotokan: "I will continue to remove it until you show evidence. That is not anything against you. This is a knowledge base, not a rumor mill. Debate is encouraged." - ron Southwick 05:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC) - showing a statement that he is committed to edit-war.

I have to wonder why he doesn't talk to you the way he started talking to me and continued to until now, when he stopped replying to me directly entirely.

Cap j 04:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Walter,

I am learning the ropes, the hard way. I can now only think this is vandalism/harassment. It is obvious that CapJ does not know or practice Shotokan Karate and is trying to play a game. I have the time and knowledge to clean up this article. Matt and NeoChrono have been very helpful and I am sure they will be. Please advise. ron Southwick 05:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My advice is to not discuss each other. Instead, discuss the article. When you criticize other editors, you make a poor impression on more experienced editors. You are implying that other editors cannot see when someone is behaving badly without your help. Moreover, you should be aware that some people seek to provoke others. By remaining unflappable, you discourage them.
If you cannot agree options include:

• include both versions of the disputed section. Use words like "Most people think "A"; Others think "B". See Global warming controversy for how this has been done.
• take a break from editing the article for a week or two. When you come back to it, you may find that the dispute has calmed.
• is the whole article in dispute? If not, move the pov tag to the disputed section and ignore it for awhile.
• you can post on {{WP:RFC]], but posting on Talk:Karate seems to me to be more likely to reach interested editors.
• you can poll the editors on the talk page, but with at most four voters, one of which edits anonymously, it may not be very conclusively. Still, it would be helpful to someone like me to understand who is who.
• it would be helpful to refactor the talk page. As it stands, it isn't easy to see what the dispute is about or what the arguments are. Maybe you could clearly indicate the two versions and list the arguments pro and con for each. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Walter, I took a break from the discussion for a while as you suggested. Please see Talk:Shotokan#Pine_Waves for my comments, and question(s) to you. Cap j 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to say thanks for the time that you put into this issue. In my comment just referred-to I showed that I realized it was Ron misapplying what you said (too much discussion of languages) that was the problem, not what you said. Cap j 01:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Walter, please help us. This has got to be a joke. The subject of “shoto”, the homonym, has nothing to do with shotokan karate. I have placed the translation at the top of the page, it is referenced, any other that has commented on it has agreed. This is not a page about homonyms, myth busting or speculations. I have been working hard to contribute info, which you can see, and wish to continue. If I am wrong and this site is allowing incorrect, unverifiable and irrelevant information to be placed on its pages; then what is the point? If you say something I am sure it would end. If I am wrong, let me know. I am honesty tying to use good faith here. Me taking time from it will not change the facts.

Thank you for your time ron Southwick 00:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Walter,

I received the following note from Ron: [email addresses snipped] "Subject: Wikipedia Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:48:12 -0400 From: "Southwick, Ron"

Please do not take this outside the Wikipedia. You do not know who you are messing with. Feel free to contact me here.

Thanks,

Ron"

Thanks again for your time,

Cap j 14:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Glacial Lake Outburst Flood

Here's one to work on if you feel inclined...just a stub and I'll work on it some later.--MONGO 05:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be that a similar article, Glacier run, could be merged into Glacial Lake Outburst Flood. Thank you for calling my attention to the new article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Walter, thanks for my first barnstar after almost a year and a half of editing. I must have finally gotten something right. I'm adding it to my userpage. I'm also glad to see the beaver thing cleared up. --Aranae 04:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Aranae, it is my pleasure. Thank you for the help with Beaver.
If I may, I would like to suggest to my colleague MONGO that he do a RfA for you. With 3249 edits, and a year and a half of editing, you are qualified in my opinion, especially considering that you are an expert on mammals. [12] You may be criticized for your somewhat inconsistent use of edit summaries, but I don't think that will prevent your nomination from succeeding. [13] Some may comment on your level of interaction on user talk pages. However, it is easy to find examples that are exemplars of user interaction. [14][15][16] I will be happy to point out that effective communication makes extensive dialog unnecessary. You are active on AfDs and will no doubt find administration tools helpful in closing some of those out. [17] You assume good faith when dealing with new users/potential vandals. [18] In short, I think your fellow editors will be pleased to entrust you with the administration tools.
Our interests overlap somewhat. I've contributed to Tamiasciurus douglasii and Marmota caligata as well as Castor. I'm a bit surprised that we haven't interacted before. Best wishes, 05:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd like to consider it. Thank you very much for the proposal. I'm actually leaving town for a few days in less than a week so I wouldn't be here for the end of it. I'm thinking now's not the best time. I was surprised my edit summaries percentage was so low until I realized that it's because so many of my recent edits have been new article creations. I had not considered adding an edit summary to a new article since it comes up with an N next to it on watchlists and such. --Aranae 09:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Aranae; I'm sorry I missed that point about new articles on the edit summaries. I usually say something anyhow, about whether it is a stub or fully formed article, if it includes illustrations or references, etc., to try to give other editors an idea of the scope of the article.
Take your time. As you probably are aware, it is best to not argue with those voting Oppose, but to allow supporters to question them. However, there may be unanticipated questions (you should anticipate the standard questions and those from User:NSLE, although s/he does not ask them of all candidates.)
Have a safe trip. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Aranae; MONGO commented (via email), that many editors like to see about 10% of a potential administrator's edits in "the Wikipedia namespace sections (areas like the deletion pages of Afd, Cfd, Mfd....and the associated talk pages in places like 3RR, AN, AN/I)". That would be 350 to 400 WP namespace edits for you. Less than 100 edits will likely be viewed negatively. Also, some may object to your low edit count months. People voting for a candidate want someone that will be around consistently. On the other hand, he indicated that he would nominate you if you wish to proceed. But, I think I should apologize for glossing over some of the objections that (as MONGO correctly points out) might arise. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll stay with the teeming masses for now. Thank you for the consideration and thanks again for the barnstar. --Aranae 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Be sure to let me know when the time comes. I'll be happy to support you. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting read

Might want to check out this article that is surely on it's way to Featured nomination...the main editors there do good work. S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897--MONGO 13:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that one. It is fascinating and well written. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Successful RfA

Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know. Cactus.man ✍ 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu

Hi, you are one of the couple of editors I was refering to here. Please join in if you have the time/inclination. TIA, --Gurubrahma 07:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gurubrahma; Thank you very much for the kind words and invitation. I'm afraid that I won't be able to do much more than to put The Hindu on my watch list at this time. It's good to hear from you! Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Smurrayinchester's RFA

Thank you, Wsiegmund/Archive 2
	for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 100/1/0. Thanks for your vote! If you have any comments, please say so here. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 19:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Sir, might I please ask that you fully analyze situations before you insert yourself into them. If you follow the pages, Users DJac75 and DickClarkMises have been vandalizing pages associated with libertarianism for the last few weeks. User DickClarkMises is indeed employed by the institution which he often defends. As to Mr. Beback, he, while an administrator, is too friendly with DickClarkMises and DJac75 to ban them for 3RR and other violations, although numerous users have posted proof of the fact that both Mises and DJac75 engaged in behavior severely counter to Wikipedia's rules and regulations.

Thank you,

~~CaliforniaDreamlings —This unsigned comment was added by CaliforniaDreamlings (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 March 2006.

Bad behavour by others is not a justification for incivility or personal attacks. "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors." Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The term vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia (WP:VAND). Please insure that a disputed edit mets the criteria for vandalism before describing it as such. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Control Monger

You asked on my talk page my control monger was notable... this is why

below is a list of many MAJOR GAME SITES this game is posted on and im sure i could list at lest 50+ more sites, how many sites does this game need to be listed on before people call it notable?

This is a notable game on almost all major Gaming sites to include:

Gamespot: [19] GamersHell: [20] WarCry: [21] OnRPG: [22] 3dgamer: [23] File Planet: [24] File Shack: [25] Strategyinformer: [26] 3ddownloads: [27] BetaWatchers: [28] UGO: [29] Game Ogre: [30] softpedia: [31] Ogaming: [32] Demo News: [33] MofunZone: [34] Gamer God: [35] worthplaying: [36] pcgameworld: [37] Online Game Inn: [38] Got Frag: [39] Mongo2

Walter, this editor's account was banned for being too similar to mine, so you can disregard.--MONGO 04:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I thought it likely to invite confusion and commented to that effect on AN/I. The external links cited above do not appear to satisfy the criteria of WP:SOFTWARE, although I confess that I did not look through all of them. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Heh, thankyou! That was a really nice message to get out of the blue. :)

I wrote that ages ago... they all seem second-nature to me now. :)

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Makemi RfA

Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Makemi 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Walter - many thanks, very much appreciated! This one was on my local park pond today - MPF 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are very welcome.
The M. merganser image is first rate, I think. It is high resolution, pretty sharp and isn't saturated at either the dark or light ends. I'd like to nominate it for Featured Picture on enwiki, if you don't mind. "Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article." Some may object to the lack of color and some won't like the pure profile pose (90 degree to camera), but I think it likely that it will succeed. It seems to be tilted slightly. I'd be happy to attempt to fix that, if you like. Whether nominated or not, it is a splendid image, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks; go ahead! The apparent tilting is because of the wind direction affecting the angle of the ripples on the water, and the bird swimming slightly away from me at the time; if you think it would look better slightly rotated to look level (no harm in doing so!), let me know and I'll send you the uncropped original (which will be better for rotating). Unfortunately the tip of the tail was off the edge of the original, too :-(( MPF 10:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether correct or not, it is likely that the reviewers will make that argument, so send me the original and I'll make a rotated version. It might be good to make your argument, but to have the reviewers vote on both. Some may object to the tip of the tail being cut off. Since it is dark and small, it shouldn't be too objectionable. Should the red on the bill be a bit more intense? The water has a greenish cast; is that accurate? Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! In the mail in a couple of minutes. I didn't change the colour balance at all; again, try jiggling it a bit if you like - MPF 15:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of my tweaks; please revert if you don't like them. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! - MPF 23:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Renominated

I renominated Glacier retreat and here is the nomination page. The article only exists due to contributions from editors such as yourself and I am really appreciative of all the hard work you put into it. Lets hope all goes well this time around.--MONGO 12:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That is great. I'll try to help out. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

DNA Overview

Hi Walter! Thank you for your feedback. I have tried to do a "Flying through DNA" picture, but unfortunately I can't get it to work, it just does not look very interesting... Mstroeck 21:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)