User talk:Adam Bishop/archive7

Archive: June 10-December 30, 2003 Archive 2: December 30, 2003-July 15, 2004 Archive 3: July 17-December 30, 2004

Copyright violations

• To who has taken the time to file comments on my book additions. Whatever has been included in the above listed pages is NOT a copyright violation. The information doesn't come from any website, but its based on the advertising information of the aforementioned books (which are in my library by the way.) That information, by definition, is intended to be of free distribution, thus it doesn't fall under any such category as to be construed copyrighted. I appreciate your concern on the matter, but in summary: a) said information has been somewhat rewritten to make it coherent; b) it's free information, and as such, free to be distributed, and c) I do not appreciate threats, either direct or implied. So I would appreciate sincerely that before issuing them, you do review your facts a little better. User:Melromero

Feudalism

Hi Adam -- Thanks! I can't be around much, but it does look like Stbalbach could use some help at Feudalism. I don't know what Zain is playing at, but it seems like an attempt to hijack the article for his own political agenda. I know you're also active on the list, so you might also mention it there if it gets too heated. He's just plain wrong, as you probably well know! Cheers! JHK 20:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unverified image

Hi, thanks for uploading Image:Alexius4.jpg! I noticed that it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? I would guess that it is a piece of work that is probably old enough to quality under {{pd}} but I just wanted to make sure. If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Vergilius Augusteus

I'm sorry to say that I don't much about the Vergilius Augusteus. I am most interested in illuminated manuscripts, and so far as I know, it has no pictures. Thanks for the heads up on the medieval wikiproject. Dsmdgold 01:07, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

If it has decorated initials then by my rather low standards it qualifies as illuminated. Right now my standard for inclusion on the illuminated manuscript list is ANY amount of decoration makes it onto the list. Initials can be a bit tricky, if they are merely enlarged, like this, then I don't count them. If they are decorated like [Image:CathachColumbaText.jpg|this]], then I do include them. t is strange that the Augusteus manuscript never made it into any my art history books though, decorated initials that early would be important. Dsmdgold 01:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the the decoration of the initials are enough to qualify the manuscript as "illuminated". I wish there were better images available. On another, related topic. Since I created the List of Late Antique, Medieval, and Renaissance illuminated manuscripts, I have been considering doing away with the "Famous Illuminated Manuscripts" section of the Illuminated manuscripts article. It is a bit of a misnomer as the Ranworth Antiphoner is not particularly famous, and many very famous manuscripts (Utrecht Psalter) aren't on it, because we don't have articles on them yet. I would prefer just to link to the list on a separate page, which can be expanded indefinitely. What do you think? Dsmdgold 03:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

invite

Thanks for the invite! I added my name. Looks like fun (I love this stuff ... I must be a nut.) Happy editing, Antandrus 05:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles Lennox

It's not so much necessary to have all those cricket categories as convenient. Cricketers could be searched by the fact they are cricketers, their nationality, the teams they played for or by skill. It's convenient to add them to all categories where people may search for them. Also, it should increase the number of people who read the article - there's never any harm in advertising:) Kind regards, jguk 19:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thoros

Hi. I didn't write the content of Thoros_(god), i just moved it there from Thoros. Nateji77 06:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Collingwood

Hi, what makes you so sure the content of the article you just deleted was "nonsense"? All the best, <KF> 21:07, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

If that is as you say, should his name be removed from the gay page then? <KF> 21:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Welsh article

Hi Adam, you're quite right about cy:Mali 'r Mail Arglwyddes, but I've listed it on cy:Wicipedia:Tudalennau amheus so all the other users can have a laugh first! I've never come across something that purports to be machine-translated into Welsh before, we sometimes get dictionary translations which are almost as good. I had to take a look at en:Molly, the Mail Lady to try to make sense of it -- at least they got Molly --> Mali right, but Arglwyddes is Lady as in aristocrat, and "Mail" is "Post" anyway, not forgetting that the word order is different! -- Arwel 21:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Help.

Then what I'am I supposed to do to help Wikipedia?

--Relaxation 21:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tide the laundry detergent.

Why did you delete it?

--Relaxation 21:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amphibian Visual Cortex

I hope you realize that the Amphibian Visual Cortex is a REAL THING! I wrote that article to inform, not to watch my work get deleted! The amphibian visual cortex has been mentioned in the book "Jurassic Park." I bet that you're so stupid, you didn't know that is WAS a book! Moron! Jayrod 17:55, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

DYK

On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2016/May#Saladin tithe 2016|Saladin tithe 2016]], Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Example, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, &end=&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Example Example), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Re:New3B.JPG

Hi, Adam. If you are still a System Administrator, How About deleting image:New3B.JPG from the system for me, please and thanks. I would appreciate that very much... User_talk:Michael Reiter.

Re:Re:New3B.JPG

Hi, again. User_talk:Michael Reiter here. Please disregard Re:New3B.JPG, please and thanks. Sorry. I am not playing pranks, I just changed my mind, is all. Thanks a Million. User_talk:Michael Reiter.

Wiedergutmachung

Any reason why you removed a large chunk of my contributions? Your comment said "presuming". You removed my contributions based on a presumption? --JoergenF 20:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Franks

Hi Adam -- I stopped in yesterday and saw some iffy changes to Franks by Shimmin. Did some editing and explained, but probably someone needs to keep an eye on the page. Cheers! JHK

Lindsay Lohan

How about not using rollback in content disputes? If a revert is a slap in the face, then a rollback breaks a nose and knocks out a few teeth. Everyking 01:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 03:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

More fun with JillandJack

I've just noticed that JillandJack actually wrote, in the article on Diane Francis, that Canwest Global originally owned and launched the National Post. That wouldn't be an excusable error even from a user who wasn't insisting that their edits are factually perfect. Any thoughts? (I've already corrected it.) Bearcat 08:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh. You know, Angelique had come to mind for me, too, but other than a couple of tangles about whether a "racist" comment by Suzanne Tremblay deserved to be highlighted in Bloc Québécois, I wasn't intimately involved enough with that whole thing to remember how deep it all actually went. Good stuff. Bearcat 20:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate article listing

Hello, I noticed you're an administrator and I have a small problem I've been meaning to ask someone knowledgable about for some time. Early last month I created an article for a former Assembly of First Nations chief, Ovide Mercredi. Unfortunately I was impatient and when it did not immediately appear after I clicked Save page, I believe I tried to save it again. Eventually it did appear, but unfortunately thanks to my impatience the article is listed twice in the Category:Canadian Assembly of First Nations chiefs. Additionally, for both "phantom" Ovide Mercredi articles when one clicks on the 'What links here' link in the toolbox, no links are reported, despite the fact that it very clearly is linked to from the Assembly of First Nations page. I'd greatly appreciate any assistance you could give in clearing this mistake up. Thanks! Kurieeto 19:40, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I reviewed this situation as well, since I noticed it during our other discussion. Admins actually can fix the duplication issue, by deleting the offending article and then recreating it. I've done that; article now appears only once in the category list. It hasn't actually fixed the "what links here" issue, though. Bearcat 20:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to sign the message you left on our page:

• So, DW/Joe Canuck/Angelique/whoever else, congratulations...you're pretty good at changing identities, but why don't you just stay relatively well-behaved for once? If you didn't always revert to doing and saying the same things that always get you banned, we would probably never notice when you return.

Sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Would you be good enough to elaborate? Thank you. JillandJack 21:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't understand your comment. I read the article Angelique but can't figure out what you are saying.

• Elaborate? "You are Angelique." Don't be shy, we know it's you :) Adam Bishop 22:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to appear stupid, but can you try and explain again? Thank you, Adam. JillandJack 22:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way. Who is this we that you refer to? Thank you, Adam. JillandJack 22:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)