User talk:Marshman

Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to reflect your new status. --Uncle Ed 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I will be a credit to the organization %^) - Marshman

Hi, I dropped a reply in Talk:Kahoolawe. - Hephaestos 21:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Membrane related

I believe you deleted membrane processes? Some nitpicks...

Unless there's a good reason for deletion, please redirect rather than delete - see wikipedia:redirect and wikipedia talk:deletion policy/redirects for background.
You didn't check the backlinks, so you left Membrane Processe as a broken redirect, which was non-ideal. Where deletion is appropriate, it's best to delete all the redirects too. This is an easy thing to forget, I know: maybe there should be a warning, similar to the one you get for deleting a page with page history?
You didn't check talk pages - Talk:Membrane Processe, in this case. I just moved it to talk:membrane. Such talk pages show up on wikipedia:orphan talk pages, and someone has to come along and tidy them up later. Again, easy to forget.
You didn't leave it seven days, and the page wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion (wikipedia:deletion policy).

It's no loss: it sounds like there was nothing worth keeping in the page history, and I could create a redirect easily enough, but maybe worth bearing in mind for next time? Sorry to come over all critical and such - just caught my eye... :) Martin 23:17, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) (insane in the membrane)

No problem Martin. In my defense I did explain my reasoning for not waiting 7 days (my earlier inclination). I did consider Redirect and should have gone that route, at least initially. I did check links and saw Membrane Processe (a misspelled word?) and intended to delete that as well, but -- well forgot. The Talk page went right by me (I'm new at this). Otherwise (that is, forgiving my errors which were errors) I do think it was a candidate for speedy deletion just because it was generated automatically some 18 months ago, had one erroneous edit which caused confusion, and the entire brief contents fit perfectly into an article elsewhere. The history was just this: 1) Automatic Conversion, 2) added "cell" to membrane causing confusion, 3) my initial changes (marking for deletion). I'll continue to learn - Marshman 23:38, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The "automatic conversion" was a conversion between two software versions of Wikipedia - See User:Ryguasu/conversion script AI and Wikipedia:Usemod article histories for more. So it's not really correct to say that it was generated automatically - it was all written by hand. Martin 08:52, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The two lists generated at the site I destroyed and the one I moved stuff to were similar but not identical which indicates hand typing rather than automated machine. Question (you seem to be pretty wise about these things) -I looked for answers but have been unable to locate anything written down: 1) what does the "block" mean after "Talk" (Talk|block) in Recent changes by Wikipedes not logged in? 2) Is there a magic way to revert a page if it is found vandalized or erased (also form of vandalism) or is that done by going back to an older version and cutting/pasting into the edit plate? - Marshman

This is your magic IP-blocking ability. You can also access it via the "special pages" link. See wikipedia:dealing with vandalism and wikipedia:vandalism in progress.
I think the answer is at wikipedia:revert (or it should be)

Martin 09:33, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In re Maui Dollar, I will add more. I believe it is of interest. They have been issued since at least 1975. Most visitors to the island are familiar with them. See: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3046265428&category=3455 and other examples by searching.

Well, I think I misread the article Plantae then. I also have a misunderstanding then algae can't be bacteria and bacteria can't be algae! Luckily I have an excuse of poor high school education for biology :P -wshun 23:23, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Marshman, Highway 50 IS a US highway, but 99 is a state highway. RickK 03:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Boy, you could be right, but that would be a surprise to me. I lived and traveled that highway for many years between Stockton and Sacramento (and as a kid between Sacramento and LA). It is in sequence with (east of) US 101 at the coast. I just checked my atlas and it does have it as a State Route. My suspicion is (and I'm not a Transportation expert) that US 99 was removed from federal authority sometime after Interstate 5 was built and given to CalTrans. We shoud have someone who knows the history weigh in. But I'll concede, it is now State route 99. - Marshman 04:10, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, when I look, I see the same thing happened in Oregon - Marshman

Re: Hawaii and the UN in 1999.

You mentioned on User_talk:Xamian:

That is a wierd factoid; What is UN Article 73? - Marshman 04:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah ... I thought it was interesting too ... it was mentioned a few places on the Internet:

and a few others. I thought it should be mentioned in the article ... I never knew myself.

Xamian 05:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Re: Groin/Groyne - I believe it's wikipedia policy to name pages in international English, not American English. -- Steinsky 12:30, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not correct. The policy is to be liberal (easy going) where British and American English differ and not push one or the other (International English? No such animal). - Marshman 17:04, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Marsh photo

Dear Marshman, yes, the Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-vs.jpg photo is mine. I took it on July 17, 2003. Actually it is part of a much larger photo (the actual photo is over 5,000 pixels wide). I made the larger version because of the amount of detail. I use a high resolution screen and it pops up fine on mine. I am not quite sure if you are having a problem with the smaller image or the the larger image, Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-s.jpg. I tried to make the smaller version something like 800 pixels large which is within the standard limit but I guess it is still too large for some browsers. If you want to reduce that one, maybe that is the one to go ahead and reduce and leave the detailed one so someone can study the details of the image? That was my intention in uploading such a large image. Alex756 02:09, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that reformating of the marsh photo. The smaller version works for me, but Stan is still having problems with the size of the image. I have a hi-res 1024 screen so any version looks great to me, I defer to those who use 800x600 browser windows to determine compatability. You should see the 3000x1000 px image that I got printed on a 8 x 22 epson six ink photo printer. I can almost hear the frogs in that photo! Alex756 03:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I bet! Amazing how far that technology has come. I reduced it to still a little large, so it could go down if making problems on low-res browsers. It is 600 wide and max recommended is 400. - Marshman 05:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I took the formatting off on purpose. See the talk page. Angela 17:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm confused. Did you try and put the subheaders back in? When I looked at the diff, that is what it looked like, but I just checked and now I can't tell what you did. Angela 17:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I changed the formatting to be consistent with the way it has been on that page. It was (before I made changes) subheaders for each article listed for deletion. I'll go check the discussion (missed that?). Anyway, thought I was helping out; I've no stake in how it should be laid out on that page, and will help put it back how you want. - Marshman 17:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) There was an edit conflict when I did my changes, so we may have both been doing the same correction. I still casn't get up eaerly enough to stay ahead of youu 8^).

Sorry, I got confused. Seems like we were actually tying to do the same thing. Thanks for helping. Angela 18:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So the great debate upon the Lib. of T.B. is now archived. Seems to have been considered as having some vague relevance, best not to identify too personally with the fate of a single page . Abandon hope all ye who contribute here should be inscribed on front page of wiki perhaps. . You are quite right of course, just no use whatsoever ranting when in the long scheme of things ALL will be erased. Just intellectual pride, but thanks for your concern over my blood pressure. Sir T.B.'s particular interest in botany appears to have been fungus and the microscopic in nature. He made many sharp-eyed botanical notes which were last reprinted in 1905. Norwikian 10:19, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not like I have not been there more than once myself, and defending is certainly called for in many instances. It just looked like you were making it a do or die proposition — not a stand (at that point) worth taking. Best to look for work arounds. Otherwise the change you defended to the death just gets made against your wishes next yerar or next decade. Have fun is more important 8^). A botanist? I should have been on TB's side (actually, I think I was)! - Marshman

My comment "AKFD" on VfD refers to the ongoing "AIDS kills fags dead" controversy. Your comment that the title "stupid multiplex" was inherently problematic, even before we start on the article, struck me as yet another reason why we shouldn't have 4 or 5 redirects to the article Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. Onebyone 16:43, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was able to figure that out after I did some searches. I'm still unsure if you are agreeing or disagreeing that starting an article with the word "stuped", in most cases, indicates it is POV (my point), in that calling something stupid usually really means: "in my opinion that is pretty dumb" Anyway, no bigee either way. Thanks for explaining AKFD; sounds like we agree - Marshman 16:54, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Image format

Nice tweak on island, can you do islet too please? --Uncle Ed 19:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I went straight there! - Marshman 20:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just a minor query re Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. My Birder's Guide to Florida, purchased for a trip to Nova Scotia and southern Florida last autumn gives the area as 10,720 acres, don't know which is correct. Jim

My numbers come off the booklet sold at the sanctuary, but could be dated (acreage may have been added). I'll see if the web site gives more correct numbers. I have Florida's Birds but it gives the location w/o details - Marshman 16:47, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC) I emailed the director and he responded: 11,000 acres - Marshman 18:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Photo replacement

It was a good choice to replace the photo at Mushroom with one with a more common morphology. I for one have never seen any fungus that remotely look like that fan-shaped one. And I even used to go out of my way in forests to look for fungi (no...not for psychedelic experience or even for any ingestion). Photos that are representative are better than, admittedly, very beautiful and exotic ones.

Btw, another great photo from you!? Stop already! (No... please don't stop!) --Menchi (Talk)â 19:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words. My thoughts exactly. I really liked that photo of the cacao infecting fungus fruiiting body. It just was too odd for the article. I've got a number more to illustrate different types of fungi, so I'm not done contributing yet %^) - Marshman 17:30, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you a mycologist?

I see your beautiful bracket fungus photos and wonder if you are into mycology? I have MANY mushroom photos, many of them very beautiful. I cannot identify them, and right now I'm kind of swamped; learning about them is not my first priority. I've taken the photos simply because they were there, and unique and beautiful, thinking to use them later when I have more time to study them. They are all from eastern USA and Canada. But I'd be glad to put them up now, if you or someone knowledgeable would like to identify them and do the write-ups. Pollinator 03:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid my pictures were similary obtained. But I have a good local guide that allows me to identify many of the species. I'd suggest we set up a mushroom photographs page, and as you upload the images (with whatever location information you can provide) we can have them out there for someone to identify — at which point we can move them into appropriate articles. Start with some of your favorites that you want to release and put them here: Mushroom album. I can help with page formatting if needed - Marshman 04:00, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are quite right about List of introduced species. I've half a mind to list it for deletion, but someone would only create it again. Cheers, Tannin 21:35, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

earthworms

"becomes a pest in the new location, threatening the local biodiversity."

I work on earthworms. There are large stretches of the world where introduced species (in the temperate zone mostly Lumbricidae) are eliminating the local species. One of the notable native earthworms of Oregon (Driloleirus macelfreshi) is probably extinct due to competition. Lumbricids have fundamentally changed the soil characteristics in areas they invade. If this does not fit the definition of "invasive", then perhaps we are speaking different languages. WormRunner 03:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes we are. Because virtually any introduced species, if naturalized, will likely result in some kind of eciological change in the place where it is introduced, the term "invasive" has really little meaning (cannot be defined as different from introduced species), and for this reason tends not to be used by ecologists. However, there is a government definition (read the article) that states invasive species cause economic harm, and indeed there are (USDA, for example) web sites that list "officially declared" invasive species. If the earthworm you speak of is listed as having caused economic damage, then it is an invasive species, otherwise it is an introduced species. This whole subject was discussed on the talk pages at invasive species and introduced species. Unfortunately this is a subject that most biologists will tell you "well I know what an invasive species is" only to run headlong into other biologists declaring they are wrong. The reason, IMHO, is that few biologists have actually tried to define "invasive" in any precise way. For example, you state: "...where introduced species (in the temperate zone mostly Lumbricidae) are eliminating the local species" I can assure that that is the situation for virtually every naturalized species on earth -- they replace native species -- with perhaps the rare exceptions of species introductioon to a place where their niche was completely absent. What you have, I believe is an intyroduced species and not an invasive species by the definitions (taken from the literature) presented on the Wiukipedia pages covereing those subjects - Marshman 00:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I did read the article, beforehand, and think that what the lumbricids do qualifies as environmental harm (in the definitions given). Now that you have changed the page to state that economics is the only real test, they may not qualify since that has never been quantified AFAIK. WormRunner 01:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not out to eliminate the worms from the list. I AM on your side. I fight introduced stuff all the time here in Hawaii, probably more than anyone at Wikipedia since I'm involved in actually destroying invasives and replacing them with natives (plants) on my weekends. But think about the definition: You know what is happening with the lumbricid fauna, but you are biased, because you have interest and knowledge. And that would be true for any biologist seeing their speciality over-run by introduced species. So if it is always true ecologically, then "invasive" and "introduced" are basically describing the same thing. But when that point was raised a month or so ago, there was an outcry (to wit: "I and every other biologist know what invasive is, and it is not the same as introduced"). Environmentalists use "invasive" because it has greater emotional appeal than "introduced". But when it comes down to actually defining the difference, the only thing I could find that made much sense is the "economic" issue. If USDA (or some other gov't entity) says the introduced species is causing great harm (usually measured in dollars somehow) then it is invasive; otherwise it is introduced. - Marshman 19:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Marshman. Could you look at my flag entry on Talk:Hawaii. I would fix it but I don't have veriafiable info. Moriori 20:08, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Origin of Algae

Josh – Your recent changes to Alga have removed the idea that eukaryotic algae had their origin(s) in endosymbiotic event(s). You have not replaced that "theory", just eliminated it. Was that your intention? Can you cite some sources? - Marshman 17:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry! I was changing the note about the possibility of origin in several separate endosymbiotic events, because newer research makes it unlikely. I'll try to add some references later, but there's a good bit of the Protista that needs changing. I didn't mean to take out the bit about endosymbiosis altogether, and have replaced it. Thanks for keeping watch. - Josh

fire department alert

We're having trouble tonight with a vandal, see Wikipedia:Block log. Some suspect it is the same user as User:Bird....if you have any way to help us stop this individual, it would be much appreciated. We are in IRC. Kingturtle 08:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I was out of town and just got back. Unable to do much until later today - Marshman 17:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flowering plants

Thanks for re-bolding and tidying this, looks a lot better now! - I for one am much happer to see the formal scientific names emphasized, I don't understand what JG had against it. I certainly find all this invalid pseudo-Latin stuff like euro-sids one and two is confusing and unhelpful MPF 23:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I could see a bit of controversy developing there, but tried to just tidy up things as I saw it. The bolding IS justified because the terms fit (I think) a reasonable definition of technical terms in that paragraph. I also think the idea that "common terms are better" was quite well-meaning when it was established by early Wikipedians, but is a poor way to present technical information that can only get worse with time. For example, clicking on Magnoliopsida right now brings up Dicotyledon, a term that is becoming archaic to those knowledgeable about plant taxonomy. What the term means is a valid topic, perhaps even deserving of its own article; but most people persuing information here would be better served by going straight to Magnoliopsida. Of course scientific terminology changes all the time; that is the beauty of this encyclopedia that the paper ones cannot handle: our terms can follow the changes. To stand by old terms because they are "well known" among the average non-scientific user becomes a disservice to both the project and the user. I learned my plant taxonomy when it was Dicotyledones; should I insist we stick to that article name when the rest of the botany has moved on? I don't think so. I say dump the common names when they cease to really mean what the article intends to cover. Have a short article on why the term has passed out of fashion, then link to the modern equivalents for those seeking an education here. - Marshman 23:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New pages

Marshman: I don't "follow editors around," but I do often keep a close eye on Special:Newpages. It's been my experience that most (>95%) of new articles are not edited soon after their creation, so I have no qualms about editing brand-new articles. Besides, you can always replace my edits if yours are better... it's a Wiki, after all! ;) -- Seth Ilys 04:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like I said no problem really. I had just created that article, made the first save and went on to flesh it out a bit and ran into an editing conflict. It was more the shock of it than anything else! I have never visited Special:Newpages, so I'm not sure what it presents. Anyway, I think the article can still be considered a stub, even with my further work on it. - Marshman 04:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm editing out the links because the articles no longer exist. They're all redirects to scientific classification, except for genus and species. jaknouse 01:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good enough reason for me. And nice to know. I suppose I would have noticed at some point - Marshman 01:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Marshman,

I have started adding to the Botany book you created at wikibooks, and wrote you a message on your talk page there. Please have a look, best wishes, Aletta 21:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I noticed! But did not see the message. I'll check it out and respond over there. And Welcome! - Marshman 01:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Supposed Redundancies re HI

I was about to just put back all of the portion of the following:

Hawaii's distinctions among U.S. states include being

the one with the southernmost point,
the only one with any part in the tropical zone,
one of two outside the contiguous U.S.,
the only one with no territory on the mainland of any continent,
the one most recently admitted to statehood, and
the one whose territory was most recently annexed by the U.S.

It also has all of its permanently inhabited area both in the tropics, and (thus) south of all other states.

that's been removed, when i realized that you almost certainly have all the relevant facts at hand, and were not simply editing out of ignorance. So let's talk abt this.

I think you will find that the appearance of redundancy merely reflects imprecise reading. For instance, "the tropics", tho it has a precise meaning presumably given by the article, also has another common meaning (suggested by the description of Florida as having a "semi-tropical climate") that is imprecise. One reference to the "tropic zone" rather than just "the tropics" is needed to draw attention to the fact that the statement is far from being a matter of mere opinion abt the difference between FL's & HI's climates being enough to call that a distinction.

"Southernmost" is also imprecise, with at least 3 meanings:

having the southernmost point
being entirely south of all the others (not the case w/ HI, as i assume you know)
having its centroid farthest south (In this sense, NV is farther north than CA, even tho their northermost points are equally far north.)

(Note that the first sense has the surprising consequence that there is no logical contradiction in the possibility of the same state being both northernmost and southernmost; in fact, in this sense, MI is both more northerly and more southerly than WI (a thought which leaves me queasy, even though i am clear about why my intuitive expectation is wrong).)

Finally, i'm sure you're aware that HI is not in the tropics, but rather part of it is and part is in the N temperate zone; i can't imagine why you would accept that (since i see that someone else made the change).

Perhaps my language counted too much on readers' careful attention; do you think the kind of precision i see as required is more acceptable if points like these are made explicitly in the next 'graph? --Jerzy (t) 05:04, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Again, you make my head spin. Agreed, I accepted the two statements, southernmost point to be inclusive with southernmost state; but I see first that the Florida Keys are as far south as some parts of Hawai'i; so southernmost point can be the only real distinction. Yes, our climate is actually subtropical, although we technically overlap the "Tropic". Tropical zone is better, although I thought it a bit stilted. I vote for restoration to they way it was before—except, I'd drop the last free sentence as causing some confusion in people's minds (because of the need to otherwise get more precise about defining these things). - Marshman 17:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, M, i'm afraid i'm a precision junkie. (I apologized to the guy at the register this evening, who thot i'd given him exact change, for "quibbling over a nickel", and really i was quibbling over his ability to add 75 +20 + 1 and get 91.) So i'd love to keep the "free sentence" but add enough to make its precision clear. But i realize that's a weakness on my part.

So let's just both watch for anyone who's confused, and i spot the confusion, i'll propose a fix to you rather than add another paragraph and a half that i fantasize will make it perfectly clear. [smile]. --Jerzy (t) 23:55, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I abhor misinformation, so in that sense I'm like you - Marshman 02:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi again. Did a big edit on Hawai'i, which i imagine you'll notice. It felt like it went on forever, so i would bet it was riddled with typos when i got to the end and quit without serious proofreading (along with whatever mainlander misconceptions i injected in the course of moderating the PoV). But the real reason i wanted to drop you a note is Kingdom of Hawaii, which i looked at only long enough to see that it is full of "Hawaii" where i think we would agree "Hawai'i" is called for. I don't think i could look at another HI article for weeks, so i didn't seriously considering working on it. Hawaiian monarchy is a redir to it; i'm not sure whether it is a merge (that may deserve attention to whether enough got reflected in the merge) or a cut-and-paste move (which should be repaired; i trust you know how), but i didn't look hard enough to know which. I put this on my list, but if it seems to be calling you, i won't be doing anything with it soon.
Be well! --Jerzy (t) 05:05, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

Marshman, thanks for your letter. I have written something for you and Heidimo about the article on traditional Chinese medicine; the comments are on User:Heidimo's page. RK 14:31, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

hey

I do agree with you both sides in the RK, MNH both violated the 3 revert rule i just want to keep the peace here i think a cease-fire form both sides is a start. Comrade Nick

Vocabulary Project

Hi there! I saw you contributed to the german wikibook, so I thought you might be interested in this. I have written a program for learning vocabulary. It is based on the belief that it is best to learn foreign words by learning typical sentences. The program can also be used for learning other stuff that works with the question/answer scheme, e.g. the theory for the driving licence or anatomy. Unfortunately I wrote it in qbasic, which can be downloaded here. It also uses images and sound files for alternation and in order to work on the pronunciation. Let me know what you think about it. I currently have files in English, French (with sound), and Spanish. Catalan and Portuguese are in the planning. Corrections or additions are very welcome. The easiest thing to start with for improvements would be adding new vocabulary, sound files or images. A guide to the program will follow soon, although I think it is rather self-explanatory. In the long run the program should be rewritten in a better language like Visual Basic. Afterwards it should be possible to switch languages within the program. Up to now there is a different version of the program for each language. Get-back-world-respect 23:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Endemic Species in Hawaii

Hi Mr. M! I noticed Bulbaboy's recent edit on the Hawaii article regarding the po'ouli and it came to me that, with all the verbiage we've written about Hawaii, there's not one word about how we've got so many endemic species here. I've started a stub article on endemic species of the Hawaiian Islands and added pointers to it from the Hawaii and Hawaiian Islands articles (I figure there's probably enough info and studies on them to justify its own article, if only for the probably humongous list). With your expertise on biology, I think you'd probably be the best person to add to it. What do you think? KeithH 01:19, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I missed this Keith; I was off-island (and away from the wiki) for a couple of weeks. Let me check out what you are talking about and get back to you. But I like the idea! A friend of mine has recently completed a book on the subject, and I'm reviewing it for the publisher. - Marshman 20:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Marshman: Yes, I'm aware of that bug in MediaWiki. When we move over to 1.3 in the near future, I believe that problem will be resolved entirely. It's a fairly widespread problem, but it's also an extremely minor problem as well; in many articles, the first paragraph is similarly indented. I'm not terribly concerned about it. :) -- Seth Ilys 18:17, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good replacement photos

Thanks for replacing those Horsetail] photos with ones containg specimen in wild. My indoor lighting was just absolutely horrid. It's like the documentary photos some sort of torture chamber-morgue for dying plants! :-O I had no idea it looks so dreadful until I replaced my LCD a few weeks ago. Thanks for the lively improvement! Keep it up! --Menchi 19:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Although I had some problems with the upload function (I always have problems that seem to relate to delays in the way the Wiki handles such things), I was able to resurrect your photo that was labeled after putting it through PhotoShop. - Marshman 20:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Camera

Marshman, are you close to wanting to get rid of that camera of yours? I am moving out of the country shortly and if I was going to buy it off you should do so now. Thanks sir! - karlwick

Friends of the ‘Okina

Hawai‘i-born friends of ‘okina unite! ^^ - Gilgamesh 03:32, 27 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good 8^) - Marshman

None of my ‘okina have been yet reverted! I think they're permanent! I'm so happy! ^______________________^ - Gilgamesh 22:18, 30 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is always hope in having proponents. The mor4e of us that agree, the harder it is for the "English-only" crew to justify badgering us. - Marshman 01:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the English-only camp anyway... Bilingual people are smarter. ^_^ Belligerant voluntary monolinguals are book-burners. :P Or something. - Gilgamesh 03:14, 3 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an English encyclopedia, so that is where it comes from. But my belief (and yours) is that English-only does not preclude broadening one's horizons as far as other (non-English) cultures are concerned; and that usual requires some adaptations in language. I do not speak Hawaiian, but I love using the Hawaiian language as much as I can as part of my understanding of Hawai'i-nei. Makes more sense than using names given to things and features for which there has always been (in human terms) a perfectly good Hawaiian name/term. Not the same as making the Wikipedia multi-lingual; just multi-cultural. - Marshman 03:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clashes with another user - you're an admin and can review, right?

I'm not asking anything drastic or anything, but recently Mustafaa and I have clashed with another user who has been editing quite a few articles to assert theology as fact, and even tried to revert some of the reverts. I don't quite know the procedure when it comes to users talking to admins, so I'm asking you about it. (Maybe you can also give me points too.) The user is IZAK, and the articles (with edit wars just a few hours ago) are Hebrew language, Canaanite languages, Biblical Hebrew language, Ammonite language, Moabite language, Edomite language, and the categories "Category:Hebrew language" and "Category:Canaanite languages" (which he tried to eliminate). Does this constitute disciplinable abuse? - Gilgamesh 07:49, 7 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --Menchi 08:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks very useful. Marshman, Menchi, sorry for the trouble. ^_^; - Gilgamesh 08:14, 7 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dispute has moved on to Talk:Hebrew language where others can participate and clarify the arguments. It appears to be a case of some honest (on both sides) differences in opinion - Marshman 17:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The procedure seems to be going well now. :) However, this time I do need an administrator for non-dispute-related assistance. :P We have been preparing to move Hebrew language (as a family) to Hebrew languages, and to restore Modern Hebrew language to Hebrew language. The first move went without incident, but the second move failed because I need an administrator. :) I'll pour over links myself to make sure everything points to where it's supposed to. - Gilgamesh 17:42, 7 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You may need one of the old pages deleted before you can complete the move. Let me know - Marshman 17:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) I noted that you had already moved the Talk page, so I deleted the redirect at Hebrew language so you can make the final move. Do not forget to go through the "What links here" for both new pages and make appropriate corrections - Marshman 18:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what to do anymore. There has been lots more input, and the other user's not respecting any of us in the least bit. And then...he slurred me. I couldn't believe that me that by pure association, I should not be allowed to coexist in his part of the Wikipedia universe. The sheer totality of the phrase... I felt ill. I still feel ill. This can't be correct conduct by any stretch of the imagination. I've never seen my associations referenced in such a soiled fashion... Marshman, I humbly request more council, more advice, more options, whatever can end this unending hell. Reading the most recent history and difference pages might help. - Gilgamesh 05:27, 8 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I thought things were being worked out with the name changes? I'll check the page histories when I get a moment, but I will council you on this: Wikipedia is a community, and reflection on even the smallest community you have had previous experience with should teach that any collection of people is not like your friends—it is as collection of all types. Some come here and throw their weight around, some are so far out there you really have to wonder, and others are helpful, annoying, respectful, difficult, you name it. But despite any individuals (the best, the worst), the project moves forward. Each of us is just a small contributing cog; and if things seem tough in one area, just move on. Come back to the difficult stuff after staying away for awhile. Going somewhere else in Wikipedia to work is NOT conceding or giving up. Nothing we do or say here is really ALL THAT IMPORTANT. It is just something we do, and someone else could change it all next year or next decade. When I get angry I try to sleep on it before getting too far into the dispute. After a day or two, most problems seems nowhere near as big as at first. And remember too, that anytime we communicate by email or by typing stuff back and forth, the most important social clues to successful communication without hard feelings are visual ones—and these are completely lacking. It is real easy to insult someone without meaning to or realizing it. So I take everything with a big grain of salt. If your knowledge or POV is the correct one, that will eventually win out because others will see the articles and question the questionable points. Just like the ‘okina! - Marshman 06:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that's logically right. In fact, IZAK has only encountered resounding disagreement. And then it was only a matter of unending flames and consumption of energy. But sometimes, someone says or does something that demonstrates so much contempt and bigotry that it cuts... It's hard to explain. He...said a terrible thing, almost felt like a death threat, like the denial of my existence. "Mormon" is a strange word; in many cases used amongst an inside social group, it has almost no meaning. But in certain other uses, often just using simple grammatical affixes, it's like a quick and instant sword through the gut, utterly decisive in its immediate carnage, leaving permanent and uncomfortable scar tissue laced with poison that never completely heals. I'm not sure if any of that made sense, and it seems almost impossible to describe in terms of a NPOV article. - User:Gilgamesh 06:18, 8 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do understand that the problem with non-visual communication such as we have here is that words are said only to the depth of understanding possessed by the sayer, but are received or taken with all the baggage that the receiver possesses. So as a receiver, you have to separate those deep wounds from the interpretation because you really have little idea what the sender's knowledge is. Of course he could be just a fat bigot, which by definition is a person with deficient social skills; but in face to face, you could show clear signs of hurt or aggression that might quickly change his tact. Here, if you attack verbally (and I see in the Talk: pages that you did a little bit ;^), he can just attack further, leading to an esculating road rage between two people that might in a social setting get along pretty well. Further, all the words just hang there, and are not forgotten after further conversation. My two cents - Marshman 06:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, alright. - Gilgamesh 06:47, 8 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Kiritimati

It is (also) the oldest atoll in the world. If you need some more info.--Enzino 16:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd not heard that. Yes, I think the evidence for that would make a good addition to the article. I lived there many years ago. - Marshman 17:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Photos

Youve uploaded some great photo's "taken by Eric Guinther and donated to Wikipedia under GNU". Which Gnu licnece are they under? Wikipedia would prefer GFDL, ideally tagged {{GFDL}} . There's an attempt to get all immages "tagged" so that we know what can be copied, which is how I came across it. Rgds Rich Farmbrough 15:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) P.S. Since I write I have found many GFDL'd photo's as well, wchich I have been "tagging", the question still stands thou. RF.

Hey thanks for the complement. I now put the GFDL tag on all my photos, but that is only since the creation of the special tag. Before that I nearly always just copied the language from near the bottom of the page (e.g., "Photographed by Eric Guinther and released under the GNU Free Documentation License"). These could be reworded to include the special GFDL tag. I've been slowly going back to "my" old ones and doing that, but I can "pick up the pace" if it would be helpful. - Marshman 17:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Legume taxonomy

Hi, since you seem to be someone that likes correct taxonomy, do you think that the entry for the Fabaceace should be changed to the Leguminosae, and the sub-famalies to the Caesalpinioideae, Mimosoideae and Papilionoideae, since this is the taxonomy currrently accepted world-wide (consistent with the International Legume Database and Information Service at least)? --nixie 06:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Off hand (I'll check further for you) I would say no. Fabaceae is the modern name and pretty much accepted everywhere I am familiar with. I'm surprised anyone still uses Leguminosae, as it was invalidated as not representing the name of a type genus a decade or more ago. The subfamilies are good, except Papilionoideae is now Faboideae. Some name changes die hard with some botanists. The "International Legume Database and Information Service" could just be some guy in his den somewhere. Would have no official standing, and may not be representative of anything but one person's opinion. - Marshman 08:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ILDIS is an international group of legume specilaists. As far as I can tell Fabaceace is still used in some circles because of presedence. Mabye we could include something explaining the taxonomic confusion :) --nixie 10:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would be good. But it is Leguminosae that is used because of precedence (it is the older name). Looking in my taxonomic books older than about 1985, both names are given, with Leguminosae preferred. After that, the situation flips, with Fabaceae preferred. Of course there remains the related problem that Faba is now Vicia I believe. Guess we need to research this further. I'm going to move our discussion to the Fabaceae talk page to get more input - Marshman 16:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Authentic traditional Hawaiian names?

Marshman, I'm in a bind. I can't believe how difficult it is to find a web resource for authentic traditional Hawaiian names. Every page is either "convert English name to Hawaiian", or a shallow list of names without ‘okina or kāhako, which are completely adequate for cultural research. I propose we start two articles: Hawaiian name and List of Hawaiian names, similar to what already exists on Wikipedia for naming traditions of other languages. I cite Hebrew name and List of Hebrew names as precedents. - Gilgamesh 07:19, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean "names" like what one would name a child? I think that would be a great idea. A number of Hawaiian names are currently popular outside and inside Hawai‘i, so having a page that gives the meaning in English AND the proper spellng would benefit parents thinking of giving their child a Hawaiian first or middle name. - Marshman 17:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be fanfreakingtastic. :) Let's start! :P Unfortunately, most of the people I ever knew in Hawai‘i were either Japanese, Chinese, white, or non-Hawaiian ethnic Polynesian, and few of them had authentic Hawaiian names. I only knew more native Hawaiians with authentic Hawaiian names when I moved to Utah Valley, where they are abundant. So, I don't think I know enough to personally start a Hawaiian name article. But I could help with list of Hawaiian names. :) - Gilgamesh 22:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does it need to be two articles? Although I can understand what a "list" is, why not start out with both list and explanations and see how that develops? It can be split up later as the need arises - Marshman 22:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great. I'll start an article with list only. You can fill in the top with more detailed info. :) Come to Hawaiian name and we'll work it out together. - Gilgamesh 23:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marshman, RickK almost immediately put vfd on Hawaiian name, because "Wikipedia is not a list of names". Please help. :( - Gilgamesh 00:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks like there is lots of support to retain. I'll add mine - Marshman 17:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great. ^_^ Now... Can you help me expand it a lot? :P I'm out of resources...Hawaiian names on the Internet suck, bad. Real bad. No ‘okina, no kāhako. And the primary interest seems to be converting English names to Hawaiian for fashionable middle names or animal names on the mainland. Check Google for proof of this sorry state of affairs. :P But since you live in Kāne‘ohe (correct?), you may be much closer to library resources (etc.) than I. I will add whatever I can come across, but the pickings are slim. - Gilgamesh 09:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll start getting stuff to add to the effort. We should start by just listing and defining (and correctly spelling) the most popular boys and girls names. Do you agree the page name might better be Hawaiian proper names ? - Marshman 17:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Horsetail pic

Hi Marshman - you might want to know, your pic Image:Equisetum arvense stem.jpg is Equisetum telmateia, not E. arvense - MPF 18:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I took that picture in Portland, Oregon and my ref. material back here in Hawaii for that area is dated. I'll defer to whatever you believe it to be. If it helps your ID, the picture at Image:Equisetum arvense strob.jpg is of the same plant - Marshman 03:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, definite E. telmataea; like most northern hemisphere horsetails this has a holarctic distribution, and I'm very familiar with it as a wild plant here too - MPF 23:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Flowering plant

Hi Marshman - User:Punarbhava has added a whole lot to Flowering plant from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. I don't feel competent to decide as to whether this should be kept or not, and if kept, how much updating it needs (probably a lot; I did only a tiny bit). Could you check it over please? (note also left with Josh Grosse) - thanks, MPF 23:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Caps or not; dashes

Hi Marshman - I'm not certain that's correct, I don't see it generally so written in the books and journals I read. Just as I'm in favour of caps for species names (e.g. Red Pine) because it is what I find in the majority of books, I'm also in favour of not using caps for family, genus, etc, as I don't see 'the Family Pinaceae' in books, I see 'the family Pinaceae'. On another one, can dashes be avoided please? They're a confounded nuisance when editing, as when mouse-highlighting text, computers treat "legume—that" as "legume& mdash ;that". So when editing, the dash code disintegrates, leaving little bits behind stuck to other words, which then have to be removed individually later. If you try to highlight the whole of a dash including those fragments, then the computer also sucks in the surrounding words too, so they risk being changed accidentally. If they must be used, leave spaces either side of them to prevent this happening: "legume — that" (which also looks a lot better as text, too). And anyway, 99 times out of 100, a comma or semi-colon suffices just as well :-) - MPF 10:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boy, I've never seen taxa without caps where the words are all part of one proper (double) noun (except at Wikipedia). Seems like that is a rule in English as well as one that is standard for biology. It does occur to me, that some might arrive at using lower case via this argument: "These trees are in the genus, Pinus" and, with the tendency in modern English to not use commas, becomes "These trees are in the genus (pause only) Pinus." In many case, just adding a comma "absolves" the need for making the taxon indicator a proper noun.

As to the — (m-dash), I've not experienced the problems you describe and prefer the m-dash to commas in some situations, although you are right either will usually work. Again I believe it is standard English to NOT put spaces as you suggest, but it might be that we want to alter that rule or emphasize that spaces should be used to avoid the problems you cite. There is an ongoing debate about that at Wikipedia, and your suggestion might swing things to the "always use spaces" camp. Personally, I think text with m-dases is easier to read with the spaces present, but I have been following standard rules (this is case where you see it both ways all of the time in printed matter, but the fact that others are sloppy or unaware should not be considered reason to follow suit). I'll move to including spaces. - Marshman 17:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Underwater

Thanks! I found it by idly poking around on the Creative Commons search engine. Sometimes you just get lucky. :) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 05:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Luck is finding the picture; talent is knowing where it fits in, perfectly! Inspired me to do a bit of rewrite on the article 1st para. - Marshman 05:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreeing with you on Metabolism

I followed up on your comment on Talk:Metabolism, I agree we should use good summary style here, but Bensaccount has other ideas (he adds good content, but tends to split things up a lot and turn some articles into CliffsNotes rather than encyclopedia-style prose). I thought that we could start a discussion on the Talk page about this, so followups should probably go there. --Lexor|Talk 05:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I think my comment is at Talk:Cell metabolism. Metabolism is pretty much a disambiguation page. I went ahead and expanded Cell metabolism by bringing in the Anabolism and Catabolism articles; in the latter case, I left the detail behind, but in the former case they was no detail to leave and I would suggest that article become a redirect for now. - Marshman 17:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

East Maui Volcano Revisited

Someone is seriously challenging the name of the East Maui Volcano article, seeking to change it to "Haleakala". Could I have your input here? - Gilgamesh 12:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meaning of Haleakalā

I think your question is important, but I was wondering if you could be more specific on the talk page so that I can do my best to research some answers. --Viriditas 09:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My question is expressed at the bottom of that discussion page: What did the Hawaiians mean by Haleakalā?. But it is only important if you do NOT buy into the (what I consider most serious flaw of Wikipedia) argument that the majority of English speakers determines what is fact and what is not. This argumnent is brought up all the time, is actuially stated in the style manual somewhere, and believed by those who find it on their side in any dispute. Yet it is clearly an onerous concept, as it means American is always right over English, Australian or New Zealand, and highschool education level American is the supreme guide to the knowledge base of the encyclopedia (because it would comprise the majority view in all matters). I find it a concept that directly conflicts with the idea of an encyclopedia. - Marshman 18:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amen. - Gilgamesh 01:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iao Valley

Please put Iao Valley on your watchlist as I will be making major changes to it in the next 24 hours. --Viriditas 22:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Looking forward to expansion of that "stub". Maybe the article could include Iao Stream? - Marshman 23:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I'm debating on whether the State park page should be expanded and split. I've been reviewing other precedents, and the answer seems to be yes, in many cases. For example, notice how Grand Canyon and the Grand Canyon National Park have separate pages. --Viriditas 23:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it is better to develop such things together as perhaps separate subsections in one article. Initially, a single moderate length article is better than two or more stubs. As the subsections expand, it should become obvious when splitting one or more off into separate article(s) would be justified. Realistically, there is a lot more to be said about Grand Canyon (park and geological feature) than there ever will be about I`ao Valley; so it is not necessary a good comparison. - Marshman 00:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully I'll get to that tonight and you can review it for accuracy. Thanks for your helpful suggestion. --Viriditas 02:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are a pleasure to work with. My gruff comment ;^( under Haleakala discussion was not aimed at you (necessarily). I'm unclear who actually made the improper name change as Gilgamesh is the first record under the page History. But maybe you two were doing some revertings back then? - Marshman 03:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see the Iao Valley article. The changes are preliminary, and I think the sections are presently in the wrong order. I intend to focus on each section as time permits. Hopefully, I can include some photos (that I took) as well. There's a lot to add. --Viriditas 12:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amazing is it not? As big as this project is, you can (quite rightfully) say "there is a lot to add" about something as manini as I`ao Valley 8^| - Marshman 17:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Hi Marshman. ^_^ Do you have instant messaging? ICQ, AIM, MSNM? If you do, I'd like to add you to my list. ^_^ Contact information can be sent confidentally to gilgamesh AT aerinospamfal DOT cx. (Don't forget to exclude the string nospam from the address, and to replace the uppercase strings with the appropriate symbols. ^_^) - Gilgamesh 07:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not. But you can always reach me (pretty fast) at email: guintherAThawaiiDOTrrDOTcom - Marshman

History merge solution

Posted in the section "Will this work?" on Talk:Haleakala. After looking at the problem, this appears to be the solution. Perhaps it would be best to get a second opinion before attempting the proposed merge? --Viriditas 05:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have made a request for a second opinion on User talk:Quadell, just to be on the safe side. --Viriditas 09:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like he knew what he was doing! - Marshman 17:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh. --Viriditas 06:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I've added a Multi-Licensing FAQ, which may answer your questions. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:13, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I think that I owe you a "thanks"

I was at my user page and noticed that you had deleted something last night. What was it? I'm quite sure that I did not want it on my page, but how [why ?] did it get there and how did you know about it? Thank-you, one more time. 216.31.41.183 16:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was over at Wikibooks where there is some chatter about a "Chinese spammer". I checked out some of his recent vandalism/spam which (at that moment) was being put on your talk page, so I reverted it. - Marshman

Image copyrights

Thanks for uploading Image:Palau pitcher plant reduced.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, — Edwin Stearns | Talk 20:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can do. I deleted the reduced version, and GFDL'd the full size version - Marshman 20:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proper names

On Wikipedia:Proper_names, there are sections on Place names, Personal names, and Biological common names. Could I ask for yourself and/or others to submit some guidelines for State names.

Should the full name be used somewhere in an article? When the abbreviated version of a State name is identical to a different subject or Place name, should the shorten name be used without qualification? Should for example an article on the United States of America refer to it as America throughout the article -- would someone coming to the page via a Google search know the article was about the US instead of the America's? etc. Or would they be lead to believe that the encyclopedia is of the opinion that the proper name of the US was America?--Daeron 14:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a full name should be used at least once in any article specifically about the state (i.e., government, history, sociology) but I'd suggest not necessarily in every aticle where a political place (state) name comes up. Qualification is only necessary if there is a chance of misunderstanding.

As for America: seems like I saw this argument before. The proper name of the US is the United States of America (US or USA for short) not "America". America is used by most US citizens for the US, but properly could be used by Canadians, Mexicans, and Brazilians (all are as much Americans). I would say articles in Wikipedias should avoid "America" when US is intended, and stick with US or USA or United States. Unfortunately, that is just my opinion and there are those out there that insist (I guess cause they hear it that way from "the boys" all the time) that "America" means the United States. I agree, in the US, "America" means the same thing as US. But outside of the US, "America" becomes at best a slang expression for the US.

I will look at the guidelines to see if something can be added there. - Marshman 17:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be great if you could get concensus with others about some of these fundamentals at least of using a States full title somewhere in an article about the State. As for continual use of an abbreviation known to be ambiguous; would noting that in the US's case there is even a disambiguation page at America help? In event that the State does not have a second abbreviated name (such as U.S.); I would hope that once the articles subject matter had been clearly defined, that in the case of the abbreviated State name being ambiguous with another subject, that any suitable pronoun (e.g. the State, the country) could be used to make the flow of text easier.--Daeron 00:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good points. By "states" I presume you mean countries (political entities) and not "states of the US", is that correct? - Marshman 03:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image license

What license is the image you uploaded, Image:Anax withmeal.jpg, under? --Ellmist 03:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is such a cool picture, I could not decide what to list it as. I am not in this to make money, and prefer GFDL. I would like credit if others use outsdide of Wikipedia. Is GFDL the right license? - Marshman 04:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

dragonfly

Your dragonfly photo is awesome. That is all. Koyaanis Qatsi 02:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. With a meal in the "hands" or mouth they are apparently reluctant to just take off, so he held still as I approached. - Marshman 02:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Iolani Barracks

Thank you for rewriting my recent contribution to the Iolani Barracks article. I didn't realize how disorganized it was until I read your subsequent edit and realized how much better your version flowed. In the future I will try to integrate my contributions so it won't disrupt the flow of articles. Thanks again. Aoi 09:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Aoi. One of things I enjoy in life is editing. I was a terrible english student back when, so the fact I can do a reasonale job at it now amazes me. But it comes from lots of practice and my writing lots of stuff that others had at with red pencil. What I'm saying is that these are skills any of us can learn, and learning by doing then seeing what others do with our contribution is an excellent way to improve. - Marshman 17:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enaptin

Thanks for the revert edit, I was just about to take care of that when you did.--Theloniouszen 18:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess like the vandal, I was attracted to the "Did you know..." on the Main Page. The artical seemed to have a redundant paragraph (mol. wt. etc. is discussed in two different places) so I was checking out the history when I noted several edits had been made today by an anon, which seemed odd. - Marshman 18:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biocoenosis

Great job on merging Ecological community into Biocenose. Thank you. --Theo (Talk) 21:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm always pleasantly surprised (and somewhat amazed) when I find parallel articles that the various authors never realized were essentially the same subjects - Marshman 23:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question about "Hitler in Popular Culture" rv

The Family Guy entry was a legit appearance, and I think that Family Guy is considered pop culture enough to be included... --Michael, severely wishing that he made that edit with a username, considering this school's oh-so-brilliant contributions

And after that sig, I forgot to sign it. My bad. 209.80.167.6 21:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I was tracking a vandal at that same URL (is that the term?) and was perhaps over zealous. That is good reason why you really need to have a user account name when doing serious edits/additions. Anons are always suspect, and the entry was pretty far out (even if factual). Others from that address were clearly vandalistic. Go ahead a redo it, but this time I'd suggest under an account name. Sorry. - Marshman 03:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's my school's IP. *shakes head*... I know who did it too. Gonna smack him later --;; Segekihei 01:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re:Mana

Hi Marshman - you wrote: I like your addition to Mana regarding political party names, but (IMHO) any addition like that should not be marked as "minor", that reserved for changes like editing correction spellings, fixing links, etc.

You're right of course - I've been working on changing stub template messages so much lately that it's become automatic for me to click the button for "minor edit". I'll have to be more careful about it.

That said, my visit to your user page got me into your art as shown on your web pages. I really like it! I assume you sell pieces. I'll explore your web page further and see what I can learn about techniques and prices.

I'm glad you like my art! Yes, I do sell work, though I haven't got any prices listed on my site - they tend to range approximately from $US 250 to 500 (plus packing/postage), depending mainly on the size of the paintings. The site needs a bit of updating too, come to think of it - quite a bit of new art and quite a few of the older pieces have sold. If you're interested in any of it, let me know! Grutness|^hello?

01:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

issues about school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Kingturtle. I have mellowed quite a bit since those days. I do have an opinion on school articles, so I will check out the debate as you suggest - Marshman 04:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Might I point out that the 'deletion policy/schools' poll that you just voted upon, was closed two years ago? Yours, Radiant _* 23:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

There were some recent additions to that poll. I just changed my earlier votes. I followed other links per Kingturttle's request above, but could not find anything else really going on that requested any input. - Marshman 00:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In your vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland), did you mean to place it under the "Keep" heading? The text of your vote makes it sound like you did, but it's placed under "Redirect" at the moment. Thanks much. --BaronLarf 14:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I looked and mine says keep and is under "keep" as far as I can tell. There is someone else that has a keep in the wrong place??? - Marshman 02:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kingturtle moved your vote to the correct heading between the time that I left you a message and you replied, I believe. Change by Kingturle --BaronLarf 04:43, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mystery solved! - Marshman 04:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bantam rooster

Hi there. I like Image:Bantam Rooster.jpg a lot. Would you have a higher resolution version, perhaps with less cropping on the tail? This would be neat on commons. Regards, David.Monniaux 18:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I probably have a higher resolution version. I'll put it up on the Commons. I presume I should erase the picture at Wikipedia once the Commons one is up? - Marshman 19:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thanks. David.Monniaux 20:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

makapuu

The merge you did was done well. Thanks. Avriette 08:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And thank you for the pictures and information about the hike, etc. The Makapu`u article now has some real substance. - Marshman 16:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hanauma Bay

As you probably know, I've spent the last two weeks photographing a lot of Oahu. I would like to expand the Hanauma Bay article, and possibly replace the picture that is there. My thinking is that it has no copyright tag, or rather, it has GFDL as its tag, when brion was initially dubious as to its source. The original in the polish article lacks any copyright tag at all. I should have (gotta get the film developed) an image of equal or better quality. I also have underwater and shore-level photographs. Additionally, I've got a lot of literature on it, and think I can substantially expand it. Do you think it is a good idea to replace that image? Also, I'd like it if you could check the article when I'm done with it. I plan to start it on Sunday or Monday. I see that you're local (I live in Virginia), and a Marine Biologist (I'm a Unix administrator), so your check of the article would mean a lot to me. Thanks, again. Avriette 02:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Skeptical Enquirer tip

Hi Marshman, thanks for the tip about Wikipedia being mentioned in the SE, I've added it to this week's press coverage article. I have vaguely heard of the SE but am not too familiar with it, so have only given it quite a brief mention. If you think it deserves more trumpeting than that, then please feel free to edit the article directly - add yourself to the byline if you do! Worldtraveller 15:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gravitropism

Hi Marshman, thanks for your copy edits. It looks a lot better now. David D. 02:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I saw you were expanding it, and it was on my list of articles to "improve", as I am working on the Ecology text at Wikibooks and was assigning that one (and other tropisms, etc.) as part of the book. - Marshman 02:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

phototropia vs phototropism

Hi Marshman, is there a good reason for having the redirect from phototropism to phototropia, rather than the other way around? Phototropia seems a bit dated as a term (if it is a real term at all) compared to the more usual phototropism.

Also is there a protocol about not leaving 'red' links in an aritcle since I notice you 'unlinked' phototropin? Excuse my ignorance I am new to this. If so maybe I should write a stub/article for phototropins? Alternatively, we could get one page and merge all the plant light receptors (phototropin, cryptochrome and phytochrome), however, I am not sure if this is a good idea since the article could be too long. A third possability is to expand the Photoreceptor stub to give a broad overview and then link to all the specific articles.

You know I do sometime unlink terms that I feel there is little chance of becoming an article any time soon, although I'm not sure why I did as you indicate, unless I was considering that the place to discuss phototropins was right there. I do disagree with the approach of some people to "mark" all the nouns and technical words in the hope that someday someone will make the link(s) into something. It does the reader no service to not be able to follow a red link, so why have it unless the person that made it is then or soon working on the linked article. It is not that hard to later pick up the link. However, I realize that somewhere, such dead links are kept track of and as their count rises, thisd fact becomes an indication that an article is needed. So I only de-link where in my judgement a separate article is really not needed or forthcoming. - Marshman 00:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for asking these questions but you seem to be very familiar with the formats on wikipedia and I don't want to launch in before getting some feed back, or treading on your toes, if you already have these on your to do list. Thanks for your input David D. 19:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take this a step further and suggest that we delete phototropia. The more I search for this term the only reference I can find to it is wikipedia. In fact, I am horrifed that wikipedia pops up as the source for this word in many online dictionaries that have the appearance of been scholarly. This means that wikipedia is essentially flooding the web with inaccurate information as all the other web site plagerise it. This is fine in wikipedia since eventually these pages will be updated but I bet the other sources don't get updated regularly. Excuse the mini rant but I noticed you had shared a similar frustration on your user page. David D. 20:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daycd. I do not know where "phototropia" came from. I saw that and was wondering about it, but had not got around to actually getting on to see which term was more widely used (I'd never heard of phototropia before and it does seem at odds with the naming convention for tropisms). By all means lets change to phototropism. I also share your concern about Wikipedia copy sites. I hate to tell you how many "science" and dictionary sites I have encountered with just plain wrong information, only to discover their source is a Wikipedia article much in need of improving. I usually go straight there and fix the Wikipedia version. I would hope when someone reaches such a questionable site, they follow on to the source and find Wikipedia has been updated. As for making Wikipedia better, well that is why we are all here - Marshman 00:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mangrove vs. coconut palm

The Mangrove article appears to assert that the coconut palm is a member of the mangrove family. Is this, in fact, true? Or am I misreading something. Please excuse my undoubted ignorance, but if I am confused, others probably are too. TIA, Mwanner 18:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly NOT true in any sense. I'll check it out. - Marshman 18:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC) — I could find no reference to coconut in the mangrove article. Can you be more specific? The confusion appears to be all yours at the moment, but I'll check further if you wish - Marshman[reply]

Nā Mokulua

Marshman, thank you so much for your contribution to the article stub I've created a while ago. I'm in your area for a few days - if you care for some Czech beer, let me know. I'd be more than happy to bribe you :-D

Jbetak 23:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where are you staying? - Marshman 17:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Kailua - my flight is @ 10 pm tonight. Still have some beer left ;-)

Jbetak 17:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I might be able to get away from work later this afternoon (after lunch). You can reach me at my office 247-3426

OK, I will try to call you. My cell is 415-314-6319.

Jbetak 20:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tried to call around 4:30 local time but I kept getting an error that said call could not be completed as dialed. Will keep trying but with 1-415-314-6319 I get "Announcement 2: your call cannot be completed as dialed...." - Marshman 02:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was on the water until about that time, I suppose my phone didn't pick it up. Thanks for trying to get in touch - perhaps I will have more luck on my next trip ;-) I've left a few bottles of that Czech beer at 232 Awakea with the folks I was staying with in Kailua.

Jbetak 16:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it seems like some digits were transposed in my original message: "341" is correct not "314" - my apologies.

Jbetak 16:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No prblem. We can try again on your next visit. What do you usually do when you come to Kailua? - Marshman 17:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hawaii

I've noticed that you've reverted a style fixup I made to Honolulu, Hawaii without explaination. Honestly, I find myself scratching my head, as the article linked article titled Hawaii, not Hawai'i. It seems weird that the Wikipedia article is titled one thing, and then referenced in other articles under a different title. Can you explain this? Is this something special that has been done with Hawaiian placenames? --Bletch 00:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There have been lengthy and long fought discussion/battles over the use of the `okina in articles on Hawai‘i. In as much as the official state spelling of Hawai‘i is just that, those of us working on Hawaiian things prefer to keep it that way. We do agree that the use of the `okina (or other diacriticles) in titles is not a good idea as it really complicates searches, etc. That is why "the Wikipedia article is titled one thing, and then referenced in other articles under a different title"—actually a very common practice everywhere in the Wikipedia. I noticed you have made other such changes under the "label" of "cannonicalization." Is that a real word? I would discourage what seems to be making edits to non-English words so they match some perceived American English standard as it will have the effect of upsetting people, especially if you are doing it without any understanding why such words appear spelled as they do. Hope that explains it - Marshman 01:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Truthfully, I'm not sure if "cannonicalization" is a real word either :-). Those edits were not as much driven by matching "some perceived American English standard" as you describe it, as much as being consistent with Wikipedia itself. I'm inclined to believe that Wikipedia should consistent spelling barring (unless the BE/AE issue comes into play). For example, the Wikipedia article for Tiwanaku uses the new Quechua spelling (which also seemed to be preferred when I was down in Bolivia) rather than the original Spanish spelling Tihuanaco). Frankly, I'm inclined to believe that if 'Hawai‘i' is preferred, that should be used in the article titles, but if there are practical issues at play complicating that, then using 'Hawaii' makes sense. --Bletch 14:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think you are sort of agreeing with me, but at least are giving thought to the question which is not as straight-forward as some would have us believe. Your expertise in the South American example should give weight to your opinion here on Spanish vs SA native spellings. The Hawaiian/English language debate has cooled down, but you can find it on discussion pages (or archived pages?). My view is that Wikipedia needs to respect the diversity of the world, not represent the same ol same ol of English-speaking domination of all that is intellectual. An encyclopedia is a place for learning, not a "lets see if we can fit all this into our view of the world" place. I find it exciting to encounter real Greek spellings of word origins and wish my computer would display the Chinese where these are given. Seems a bit more respectful of the contribution of other cultures rather than "hey, maybe they did it first, but we stole it so its ours now" . All MHO ;^) - Marshman 17:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We do agree, but for me those issues are secondary to using consistent terms. Maybe I'm crazy, but it bugs me that articles reference the Rape of Nanking when the article in question is titled as 'Nanking Massacre' without overriding contextual reasons to do so. FWIW, I started a topic over on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this. --Bletch 00:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding your complaint, but I see no need for a word (or words) in an article to reflect the title of the article to which that word or words link. Highlighted links are not meant to be "titles" which may have all sorts of contstraints such as the one mentioned for Hawaii, and words in text should not be straight-jacketed into article titles either. A link is just a link, a way for the reader to explore a subject further. The person writing the article (and others who modify it) may have all sorts of reasons to express things the way they are expressed without stilting things by making links exactly match the title. In fact, Wikipedia styles for setting up links are built with options just for these reasons. - Marshman 01:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marshman, what was the consensus on the use of the `okina? Someone has just reverted all of its references in the Oahu article. Jbetak 29 June 2005 22:07 (UTC)

changing okina to lsquo

(I made this remark on Talk:Gilgamesh, but in case you aren't watching his page, I thought it prudent to repeat it here:)

Marshman, what you are doing looks a lot like vandalism. My guess is that your assertion that your browser isn't broken is correct, but you apparently don't have a font with the latest unicode characterset installed, or it's not the default. This is in part why the {{Unicode|}} template exists. On my screen, ʻ is a box, but ʝ ({{Unicode|ʝ}}) is ʝokina. There is a good reason to use okina instead of lsquo: the browser regards lsquo as punctuation and at wordwrap point will split a word up in the middle, essentially making it appear that a Hawaiian word is ending with okina. That's hardly obscure. Tomer ^TALK 03:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem if the ({{Unicode|ʻ}}) is used, as that can appear as an 'okina (does not right now, but I just had to change my hard drive, so I'm unsure what I have installed) and would be fine. Most or all of the pages I reverted (that I saw) were using unicode without the unicode in brackets, which appears as a box in IE. The latter is not acceptable nor is the idea that readers need to install a special font to use Wikipedia. I worked hard with others (including Gilgamesh) to get those pages looking correct and without any discussion, the pages suddenly are filled with boxes instead of readable text. Such an action is the vandalism. If in fact I cannot easily get one or the other ʻ forms to work, I will have to support removal of all ʻokinas from articles in Wikipedia. - Marshman 17:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Also, it is 699 not 669, and so my screen is like yours; I would accept the workable solution - Marshman

Yeah, I see that. 669 is showing up as a j with a tail. My bad. :-p The only reason btw, that I notice what you were doing was because I had just gone through some of those same pages and added the unicode template to a bunch of what had previously been showing up as boxes on my screen, including a number on Template:Hawaii. I don't think the solution is to go through using the wrong character, but to edit correctly to ensure that the correct character is readable. Tomer ^TALK 19:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what pages those were. I just rolled-back Gilgameshes mass of changes, then worked on Maui, where I thought I left alone the dbl-brak-unicode-dbl-brak, but might have changed some before I realized they were displaying correctly. As I said, if that format works for everyone, I'm not opposed to it. - Marshman 20:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rorippa

Discussion moved to Talk:Nasturtium (scientific name)

Misidentified Opuntia?

Hi, just saw Image:Opuntia ficus-indica.jpg and noted on its talk page that it doesn't look at all like O. ficus-indica, although I don't have alternate suggestions, Opuntia being large and presumably the photo is not of a native plant (no cacti native to Hawai‘i, right?) Stan 12:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is Opuntia ficus-indica. What do think is "different" about it? It is not native to Hawai‘i, but then most of our vegetation is not native. That species has been in the islands for around 200 years. - Marshman 30 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)

To quote from Anderson's The Cactus Family, "Glochids falling away early, brown or yellow. Spines inconspicuous, often absent", and I think you'll agree that that those are pretty conspicuous spines! :-) In fact, thumbing through the book, this one is unusually heavily spined for Opuntia - most have 0-3 spines, while this one seems to average around 7 spines per areole. Commons doesn't have good pics of ficus-indica unfortunately, I've got better ones waiting to be uploaded. Stan 2 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

Well of course, taxonomy changes and it is possible that Hawaiian botanists have mis-identified this plant (not likely), or the genus has been reworked. I'm unfamiliar with the source you cite (having marginal interest in the family) but I can discuss with authorities here. I would need to know first if the description you give is from the orginal for that species or from a more modern treatise and to what extent regional variation is being considered. Spines are certainly nowhere near "absent" on all our panini (the Hawaiian name). Indeed, there are three Opuntia thought to be naturalized here, and O. ficus-indica can have from none to 6 white or yellowish spines per areole; the others more typically none to 3. What is your name authority? I'm using O. ficus-indica (L.) Mill.? - Marshman 7 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

I looked again at our reference on Hawaiian plants, and it is possible from the descriptions considering only what I can see in the photo, that this is O. vulgaris Mill. (10 or more spines on trunk areoles). The problem with that is that O. vulgaris is not known from the island where I took the photo, and in general the specimen seems too large to be O. vulgaris - Marshman

Detail about Anderson's book is in the reference list for Cactus. I think it's considered pretty authoritative, and he reports on the latest work of the International Cactaceae Systematics Group. It only has a couple paragraphs on each species though. He lists O. vulgaris Mill. as an old synonym of O. ficus-indica (L.) Mill., and does mention that there are hybrids with other prickly pears, along with a cryptic reference to spined variants in a section discussing historical cultivation. Just to make things more fun, Opuntia is being broken up these days, although it seems to be keeping all the species with obvious pads. Stan 7 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)

'Okina

Marshman, it's not wrong to use the Unicode blahblah699 for an 'okina. Keola Donaghy, who ought to know, says that this is the form that they prefer for the UH Hilo Hawaiian language pubs and website. Probably because it doesn't get confused with the left quote, and hence can be found easily with search utilities. Zora 30 June 2005 05:18 (UTC)

It is wrong to use a unicode that is not recognized by browsers such as Internet Explorer and therefore shows up as a box (like the chinese characters). I have not the foggiest idea who Keola Donaghy is and what her "authority" might be.

Ah, him. He's been involved with computerization of Hawaiian for years, active in Punana Leo, on staff at UH Hilo, webmaster for UH Hilo Hawaiian dept. I worked with him briefly, years ago, starting the Usenet newsgroup soc.culture.hawaii. It's the only newsgroup on Usenet with a charter in English, pidgin, and Hawaiian. Zora 7 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

But I'm not questioning whether unicode 699 is the right one or not. There is a way to use unicode in Wikipedia articles that allows the readers to actually see it as an 'okina and not a box. I have no objection to that style as it accomplishes something. To simply replace all the 'okina in Hawaii articles with a box seems counterproductive to me. - Marshman 1 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

Here is how it has to be done to allow readers to see the 'okina: {{Unicode|Hawaiʻi}}, thus: Hawaiʻi - Marshman

I checked out the UH Hilo website and on those pages where they simply use the unicode #699 the reader sees boxes; unacceptable in my mind for a website promoting Hawaiian Language. However, on other pages, they are getting the 'okina to show correctly, but I cannot figure out how (may be in a style sheet as no font codes are given) - Marshman

Problem may be in the browser? I have no problems EVER with the 699 code. I'm using Firefox.

Unfortunately, it has to work in the more widely distributed browsers to be considered usable. In time they may all handle this as well as Firefox. Until then I sufggest we either use &lsquo or {{Unicode|Hawaiʻi}}. I think we all want the same thing, but need to make sure the broader public gets it.

In other news, how about a meeting of Honolulu Wikipedians? Restaurant somewhere? Zora 7 July 2005 04:19 (UTC)

A date! Actually, an interesting idea. How many of us do you estimate there are? I'm game. I had a guy from SF get in touch with me a week or so ago while he was here visiting, but we got our signals screwed up and missed having a beer together. But your idea might really promote good feelings if we all know who the others are (hard to attack friends, right!) - Marshman 7 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)

I'm a fat crippled geekette of advanced years and I don't do dates, but I like intelligent conversation. The only other Honolulu Wikipedian I know is Alex Golub. Do you know any others? Meeting at the Kim Chee II in Kaimuki? Cheap and big naugahyde booths? Or are you a vegetarian? Zora 7 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)

There is Gerald Farinas. He is in Honolulu, I believe. I eat anything, and Chinese is fine. - Marshman 7 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)

British county names (again)

A year or so ago you kindly helped out with developing a policy on this. It's all going pear-shaped and I, for one, would be grateful if you'd take another look. I've raised an RfC or you can go straight to the Project's talk page. (But if it's going to take too much time, or if it will stress you out, or you just prefer not to - that's OK too :-) Thanks. Chris Jefferies 7 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

Hawaiian naming conventions

Aloha, I'd like to solicit your input. I'm trying to initiative a conversation on developing naming conventions for Hawaiian royals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style. I would really appreciate your views on this subject. Mahalo nui loa, 青い(Aoi) 04:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon article and citation for fact on it being a fruit

On the talk page for the watermelon article, I mentioned that a fact about it being a fruit, explained on the talk page by a biology specialist, probably had a source citation already documented by you when you made a Sep. 2004 edit adding fruit info and a source at the bottom of the article (the citation remains in the article). I am writing here to check whether that source you added did in fact take care of documenting a source for that issue of whether it is classified as a fruit or vegetable, but I don't have the book you used for a reference to look at. The reason it came up is that yesterday another person had changed the text to say it is a vegetable, not a fruit. I reverted that, but wanted to make sure we had sourced the info definitively that described it as a fruit since I've seen a couple of minor, non-academic sources that said otherwise. Most sources I've seen mention it being a fruit, but they are mostly sources on the history rather than the biology of the plant. You could reply at the article talk page or here, either one. Bebop 13:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Anyone that thinks a watermellon is not a fruit, will find no support in biology or culinary arts. I will go look at the article. - Marshman 17:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stipule

You have made a request to move the article 'Stipule' to the Wiktionary. I have put my objection on its talk page. Be so kind as to reconsider. JoJan 20:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm putting up the warnings that should invite comments such as yours. - Marshman

Manana Island

Manana Island is comprised of two tuff cones and is home to monk seals, I have first hand knowledge of the seals because I have been on the island twice and I have seen 10+ seals on it each time. Males and mothers with pups.

Don't worry about the changes though I'm over it, just kinna felt like my baby was kidnapped.

I agree and kept the text in about the two tuff cones. What I thought was confusing, and could certainly be added back in with clarification, is the fact that it is not obvious looking at a map what points constitute the highest part of each cone. So I just kept in your figure for the max height. The monk seal observation is interesting. I'll check with DLNR on their assessment. I was not doubting that monk seals might appear their occasionally, but the idea that it is home to a signifcant popultion. To my knowledge (possibly limited in this area) no part of the main Hawaiian Islands is home to a significant population of monk seal. It is also possible that DLNR does not want the presence of monk seals there widely known, as unauthorized visits to the islet could be damaging to the biota.

I recognized your response as typical for a lot of newbies that fail to read the "warning". Happy to see you are getting over it. No one here can claim ownership of an article—just a fact of life! And do not forget to sign your messages ! - Marshman 17:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crust

Hi - I do hope you plan to fix those 50+ pre-existing links to crust that now need relinking to crust (geology). It would be nice :-) Thanks, Vsmith 05:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't. Those all pointed to a redirect. Whoever created crust (geology) or the redirect has that responsibility more so than I. Crust has many more meanings than just in geology, and someone must have agreed by creating crust (geology) to isolate the geological meaning. But I'll help out. - Marshman 05:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, thanks. More in the morning - tired now. Vsmith 05:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. But a lot of those links do mean to go to crust as a disambiguation, so the former set- up (crust redirecting to geology) was a serious miss by someone. - Marshman

Naming Conventions for Hawaiian Monarchs

Hello, I know I bothered you about this earlier but I'm wondering if I could trouble you again to contribute to a (different) discussion on Hawaii's royals. (I apologize nothing concrete happened from the previous discussion; that was largely my fault for not keeping the discussion going.) Anyway, I hope we can eventually agree on a written standard for the naming of Hawai‘i's monarchs. We're having a (slow) discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style#Names of monarchs, and your views on the conflict would be most appreciated. This time, I will try to be more consistent in keeping the conversation going. Thank you! 青い(Aoi) 08:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God bless you, sir.