User talk:E Pluribus Anthony

Greetings!

Hello E Pluribus Anthony and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

TTC

Howdy! Just wanted to thank you for your various adds and tweaks to all the TTC-related articles; they're one of my pet projects and I always like seeing them get better.

Thanks again, Radagast 04:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Star Trek

Hello,

I've seen your recent contriubtions to starship classes and other Star Trek-related articles. They are quite good. Perhaps you could cite your source for data on the starship classes in the references sections. In any case, nice work. Please continue to contribute. Have you thought of creating a username?

Acegikmo1 07:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am interested in knowing why you posted incorrect torpedo layout figures on the Sovereign class section. -Alyeska

Alyeska:

Greetings! Thanks for your note and for pointing this out. This count varies according to who you connect with, what has been observed (and not) in the TNG movies, and on production diagrams of the ship from the powers that be. OK: I've made editions that I thought were correct. Let's recap:

Original version - 5 launchers total, comprised of: 1 forward (quantum torpedo) launcher, ventral saucer (near Captain's Yacht) 2 forward launchers, ventral engineering hull (near navigational deflector) 2 aft launchers, ventral engineering hull (on aft hull undercut)

Refitted version - 10 launchers total, comprised of above launchers and: 1 forward launcher, dorsal saucer (near deck 3/4) 2 aft launchers, dorsal saucer (near aft docking port) 1 aft launcher, dorsal engineering hull (above shuttlebay) 1 aft launcher, ventral engineering hull (below shuttlebay)

Not all of these are observed firing but are either noted on production diagrams or can be observed on the ship if you look closely. I previously included the quantum torpedo launcher with all of them and then totalled badly ... oops! So, I've changed the page to reflect the above noted count. Let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again!

Anthony

Your figures are not entirely correct. Prior to Nemesis you are right, the Sovereign class has 5 launchers total. As of Nemesis the Enterprise-E is now armed with 9 launchers total. I have accounted for all the production diamgrams and visualy inspected the ship. Early production notes of Nemesis called for 6 additional launchers. However, only 4 of these launchers made it onto the actual model. You can see diagrams with the changes on 3 of the added aft launchers. There is another launcher added just under the bridge.

The position of the newly added launchers are as follows:

2 launchers in twin configuration near the upper shuttlebay and docking facility.

1 launcher just above the lower shuttlebay

1 launcher just forward and below the main bridge and surounding deck area

Early diagrams called for ventral launcher below the lower shuttlebay, but it is not visible on the CGI model. Another launcher was called for on the forward dorsal saucer section, this is also not visible on the ship. Both have to be cut.

The total torpedo launcher count is as follows

1 forward quantum torpedo turret

3 forward launchers

5 aft launchers

Alyeska

Alyeska:

Hi there; thanks for your reply and clarifications. Actually, I think you and I are on the same page but use different terminology:

2 launchers in twin configuration near the upper shuttlebay and docking facility SAME AS 2 aft launchers, dorsal saucer (near aft docking port).

1 launcher just above the lower shuttlebay SAME AS 1 aft launcher, dorsal engineering hull (above shuttlebay).

1 launcher just forward and below the main bridge and surounding deck area SAME AS 1 forward launcher, dorsal saucer (near deck 3/4).

I did not note the forward launcher on production diagrams near the transporter emitters on the saucer dorsal, since this is not observed (or at leas clearly) when closely inspecting the Nemesis DVD.

I believe the only divergence of opinion you and I really have concerns only one launcher: the aft (ventral) launcher on the structure underneath the lower shuttlebay. 'Refit' diagrams indicate the launcher is there and I believe it can be observed on close inspection of the movie: refer to scenes in the DVD when (1) the Enterprise-E arrives at Kolarus III near the beginning, and (2) one of the final scenes when the ship is in spacedock being repaired.

As well, be careful about referencing edits which are as valid as yours as 'screwing' with them; who are you again?

If you think differently, feel free to indicate. Thanks again for your review.

Anthony

After pulling out my DVD and reviewing it carefuly, I do notice something imediately below the shuttlebay on the very aft section of the ship. However, it appears to be significantly smaller then any of the other launchers. I am also suspect because the location does not match pre-production drawings which showed that launcher to be outright under the shuttlebay on the ventral section outright. If you look at the pre-production picture you will note that none of the arrors land directly on the item they are pointing out, but rather come close. Look at the phaser strips for an example. The ventral aft torpedo launcher is actualy underneath the shuttlebay and not on the aft section of the ship. And yet this doesn't make the movie version of the Sovereign.

-Alyeska

Alyeska:

Hi there! Thanks for your reply. The aft launcher of note, if indeed it is one!, is likely smaller because it is single and largely within the frame/structure of the ship. I would think it similar to the forward dorsal launcher on deck 3/4. The aperture, though, need only be at least 0.8 m in size, the approximate width of a torpedo (and allowing for some clearance), and this definitely appears to be the case. However, that aperture can just as easily be some sorta purge vent or pleasure shaft. :)

Also, mere reliance on production drawings can be dubious; however, the arrows on the diagram do point to the location of the aft torpedo we are debating about (though the launcher is far less apparent in Nemesis). I would imagine that the quality and authority of the diagrams is somewhat questionable since they are not full-up schematics and since these do not fully agree with film evidence (which alone should be canon). Of course there are discrepancies between these things but, ultimately, the content we include in Wikipedia should be based on authoritative sources or empirical knowledge.

Believe me: I find it nonsensical that such a ship has a heavy aft torpedo complement, unless each of those weapons (a possibility) have lower capacities than the forward tubes. It makes one wonder, though, why 'Starfleet' (in this case, Eaves and company) would design or refit a ship with such an unbalanced weaponry arrangement.

To preclude an edit war, since we can both be right or wrong, I propose we enter this into a public forum or consult other (online) sources to resolve this issue. I'll keep the weapon counts as you've edited them but will change them again if needed.

Anthony

The proposed launcher on the aft section is smaller then any other launcher on the Enterprise-E, including the two observed single launchers and smaller then even one of the twin sets. Several pages that research and look into this subject agree on the basic consensus. This one aft launcher just doesn't really fit into the established facts. BTW, the other proposed launchers and phasers as shown on that pre-production diagram showed up exactly where proposed. Thats another strike against this one launcher.

-Alyeska

Hmmm; your reasoning is very selective. One of the forward dorsal launchers on the refit diagrams (near the transporter emitters, very upfront) cannot be observed on the actual ship and we concur it is not there. As well, one of the newer forward launchers on deck 3/4 (forward) is not large at all, as its aperture alone is present ... and is likely similar to the aft launcher under the shuttlebay or even over it. Of course all of these appear different since they are located on different surfaces for which the details cannot be resolved clearly enough.

By the way, which pages agree on this basic consensus? We are supposed to cite contributions and, particularly, if they are challenged. I will do the same shortly.

I will await other contributions before making any other commentary or editions. Thanks!

Anthony

The forward dorsal launcher near the transporter emitters at the front of the ship does not exist.

http://www.ditl.org/gpns/GSovereignPhotons13.jpg

As you can see there is absolutely no protrusion or apparent launcher.

http://www.ditl.org/gpns/GSovereignPhotons12.jpg

We can see the forward launcher just ahead of the bridge. A smallish launcher point, but the rest is in the hull.

http://www.ditl.org/gpns/GSovereignPhotons10.jpg

While that whole assembly is large, the actual launcher points are smallish.

Now the supposed read launcher you say exists is even smaller then any of these launchers. Given its not even as obvious as any other launcher (no protrusion or obvious launcher element) and is so small, I am inclined to leave it out of the count.

-Alyeska

Thanks for the info and references. Unfortunately, there are no references that you cite that prove or discount the rear launcher I contend is there. My contention is that--if the rear launcher exists--it is similar in structure to the forward launcher near the bridge. It is not as apparent as the forward launcher, but that doesn't discount its existence and nothing discussed yet has changed my perspective on this. I'm also unsure the rear launcher that may exist is smaller than the forward launcher near the bridge. Remember: only the aperture needs to appear, with considerable machinery in the deck structure forward.

Trust me, I'm inclined to give the Sovereign a more balanced weapon layout and omit it outright, but have not yet been convinced--given that damned diagram and the appearance of the port in the movie--that it doesn't exist. I'll see what others contribute before making any more judgements.

Thanks again!

Anthony

Since you have not conclusively convinced me regarding the rear torpedo launcher in question and given the preponderance of canon information, I have edited the torpedo count as indicated as a compromise. Unless you can convince or demonstrate reasonably that this is not the case, further attempts to revert the count will be corrected to the current version.

User:E Pluribus Anthony 06-Feb-2005 1539 UTC

R-77/AA-12 Adder

Hi,

Just wanted to thank you for looking over the R-77 AA-12 Adder article. Keep up the good work!

Tin soldier

ABC

Hay.. I've got a question.. Where did you find the information that the ABC-logo is public domain? I can't find that information. Empoor 09:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flag of France

Looking at that flag image I see that you say it is in the public domain in the upload summary. However, you do no say where you got it from. Is it your work, or is it someone else's? Please update the image summary page as appropriate. David Newton 21:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are also a few other flags that you uploaded I tagged last night as unverified because it was not clear from the upload summaries if you were the author. It would be greatly appreciated if you could tag them as well. David Newton 09:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I realise that copyright can be very complicated. There are an awful lot of flags that were uploaded by people and tagged by those who thought that images of flags cannot be copyrighted. Most of those flags need source information and who was the author if they are to be licensed under the GFDL or similar. I'm similarly engaged in trying to get at least some more flags online with correct versions. I uploaded small images of a number of ensigns a while ago claiming fair use. If possible I now intend to create SVGs of those ensigns and then derive bitmaps in png format to get properly licensible materials. The thing about naval and civil ensigns is that they are very often a great deal harder to find information on than national flags. David Newton 02:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name change

I've moved all the history from your previous username here, but it is a much more difficult job to associate past edits with the new name. That can only be done by a developer and currently the waiting list seems to be around 6 months, so I'd suggest just forgetting about it – that username redirects here anyway, so it should all be ok. violet/riga (t) 15:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

Anthony, I encourage you to cull material out of this article. It seems to need a regular cleaning to keep it to a manageable size and as an oerview article. It seems that a lot of people want the main article to hold all the information on their pet areas of interest. A word of caution about removing "Dominion of Canada", though. There are several people who pop up every so often to insist that the official name of the country is still that. See the Talk page and archived talk pages for more. the wording that was in there seemed to trick them into thinking that we were accepting their point, although the reference to "styled Dominion of Canada" actually was in the past tense, so if you read it carefully, you'd realise that the article was not sying that it still is. We'll have to see if any of these people are still around. Good luck in your editing. Kevintoronto 21:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on your recent edits. They really help the article read better. Ground Zero 14:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) (the editor formerly known as Kevintoronto)

Canada: federation

Anthony: Canada is a federation of ten provinces. The northern lands are under the control of the federal government, which has created three territories for the purpose of administration. The constitution divides powers between the federal and provincial governemnts, but gives no authority to the territories. They exist only at the pleasure of the federal government. The feds could disband the territories at the stroke of a pen, which they cannot do to the provinces. That is why it is not crrect to call Canada a "federation of ten provinces and three territories." Ground Zero 16:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and whole-heartedly agree with your point about elaboration. The problem that I have is that it is only the 10 provs that are federated. The territories are not federated. They belong to the federation as expressed through the federal government. How about just leaving it at "Canada is a federation of ten provinces"? The territories can be dealt with elsewhere. Alternatively, "Canada is a federation. It is divided into ten provinces and three territories."? Ground Zero 17:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with your second suggestion, "Canada is a federation divided into ten provinces and three territories." Ground Zero 17:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada: History

Why did you remove "peninsular" from Nova Scotia? the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) did NOT give Great Britain all of Nova Scotia, only peninsular Nova Scotia (actually Acadie). Ile Royale (Cape Breton, Louisbourg - see article) remained in French hands and was the subject of dispute and invasion until it was finally turned over like the rest of New France in the Treaty of Paris (1763). Please put "peninsular" back, as it is inaccurate to say all of present day Nova Scotia fell into British hands in 1713. Louisbourg was destroyed in 1758. As you know, the Great Upheaval took place in 1755 when the British expelled the Acadian population from peninsular NS. I can live with most of your other changes, but I wonder if it is accurate to say the Hudson's Bay Company "owned" Rupert's Land. The Crown owned it and the UK promptly turned it over to Canada when Canada requested it after Confederation. The HBCo had a charter. I find the phrase "launched a series of territorial expeditions" incomplete now. You removed the reason. Why were these launched? "to familiarize themselves and the Canadian population with the geography and climate of the region". Since space is at a premium, this could be reduced to "to familiarize the Canadian population with the geography, climate and potential of the region". These expeditions were important features of the 1850s. Canadian politicians were determined in the 1850s to break the HBCo monopoly and once they had achieved Confederation in the 1860s, they wasted no time securing the land from the UK government.--BrentS 03:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you're well; thanks for your note. Your editions are much needed, nor do I concede their accuracy per se, but there is always room for improvement. As you know, the overview article has been lengthy so I've made (or tried to make) editions to that point ... all the while trying to preserve content and style. Some of the details you've cited regarding the political landscape and geography, for instance, are better placed in the 'History of Canada' section/article; the casual reader can be overwhelmed by all the geographic/political distinctions in the overview and over time. 'Territorial expeditions' seemed concise; perhaps 'exploratory expeditions' or something similar is more prudent; expand in the subarticles. And as you know: you are just as able to make the editions as I am; in any event, thanks for your note. Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 05:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Japan

7:10 is the official proportions relation of the flag, not 2:3 --Deelkar (talk) 11:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know there are several "flag enthusiast" Sites around, but I got different answers from different people, so I asked the embassy of Japan to Germany, who told me to visit their Website at http://www.botschaft-japan.de/japan/flaggehymne.html which is where I found the information given above --Deelkar (talk) 12:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found more information on this, and it seems there are contradicting documents around, concerning the flag dimensions and colours, I am investigating this. --Deelkar (talk) 13:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the existence of Proclamation No. 127 of 1999, so I apologize for the constant reverting of the flag. I am in e-mail contact with both embassies, the embassy in Germany has yet to answer, but it seems to me that the German website has not been kept up to date for a couple of years, at least concerning the information about national insignia. --Deelkar (talk) 29 June 2005 12:09 (UTC)

in the meantime the embassy in Germany has answered my e-mail. correct proportions are 2:3, again my apologies. --Deelkar (talk) 29 June 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Flag of Finland

Hi! Corrected the color on your version. On most monitors, yours is definitely too dark. I also added a border - it looks kinda crazy just as a blue cross! --Janke | Talk 17:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected you did use the "official" color values for the flag. However, as said above, it will look too dark on most monitors, especially PCs that tend to have a gamma of 2.0 or over (it's a bit better on a Mac with a gamma of 1.8, like I have). However, I think it's important that the color looks right, not that the RGB or CMYK values are some certain numbers. Since I'm a Finn (and I guess you aren't ;-), I see our flag every day. The version I uploaded is visually very close to the real thing. Borders - well, there we can agree to disagree. However, I really think it looks weird to have just a blue cross on a white background. Look at the Finland page - the weak, light gray border looks pretty good there, don't you agree? --Janke | Talk 20:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC) PS: Look at the ministry's first page, with a photo of the flags - the color is more correct there - their graphic representation is too dark on the monitor screen! Remember that the PMS system is designed for print, not display![reply]

And while I may not be Finnish (which is not a ground for substantiation)... No offence meant! I just wanted to point out that a color you see on a computer screen far away from Finland, may not represent a true rendition, seen every day here.

you need only proceed to the submenu on the website I cited to view a diagram of the Finnish flag that is darker than your representation and similar to the one I drew. See my PS above - I did study it!

Moreover, I do not think it weird for the flag to not have a border: since the Wikipedia background is off-white, I can resolve the flag edges. Well, in a "Finland stub" whrer the flag is also used, the background is pure white! (Check Lokomo, for instance. My border just barely shows there, because its light & thin.)

Perhaps you need a new monitor or should adjust its Gamma? Thoughts? It is adjusted according to Apples setup instructions. Very necessary, since I work in animation and graphic arts... ;-) --Janke | Talk 21:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS again:

and you nor I can say certainly if the specs provided are for print or screen Well, it is my understanding that PMS is always a print reference. --Janke | Talk 21:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-

Thanks for your latest note - we seem to be "chatting" almost in real time here...

So, I believe the best course of action is to use or devise a flag using the official colour specifications... OK - but couldn't you "cheat" even a little? Make it a bit lighter than the "official" PMS? A compromise between that and my version, perhaps? (Remember the ministry photo...) No big deal, really, but I was really surprised at how dark it looked.

to include a light grey border... My personal opinion is that this should be done on all flags with a white background. Wikipedia is not only for vexillologists, you know... ;-)

BTW, re the color of the Canadian flag you mentioned - the red on screen is probably too bright. The color gamut on a monitor screen is much larger in the red area than in any printed, or fabric colors. The photo of the Royal Military flag looks much better, IMHO.

So long for now - do as you wish, but please do consider what I mentioned here... --Janke | Talk 22:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Sweden

Hello!

Did you have a reason to upload a new version of the Flag of Sweden?

You can answer here, please. I will put it on my watchlist.

--Fred-Chess 13:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your note. I've been making numerous editions to flags, et al. in Wikipedia. To that end, I gave the Swedish flag a common hoist size (of 300 pixels), which is a common size for flags on Wikipedia, and removed the border, which is not formally part of a flag and unnecessary (as there isn't any white present). Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 14:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it was a good reason. I personally thought the border looked good (it makes it clear that it is a flag, I think), but it is perhaps just a matter of taste. Anyways, the colours are right which is more important. I think I will check with the colours of the flag on http://www.ra.se/ra/svflagga.html (using the "dropper" tool in Paint Shop Pro) to make sure they match exactly some day, since it should be the most precise way.

I think we should consider correlating the flag with wikimedia commons. I have just uploaded new swedish flags to both German and Italian wikipedia, and this would probably have to be done for many other wikipedias aswell, until we decide on a "common" flag that is used everywhere. Check commons:Category:Flags of Sweden for the current Swedish flags on Wikimedia Commons. One flag there, the flag Image:Sweden flag 300.png, is for instance currently used on Swedish Wikipedia. I hope we can agree on one flag. What do you think? --Fred-Chess 17:14, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ack! Please accept my profound apologies for not replying earlier; this slid off of my radar. Yes: use one image (i.e., the one I edited) where possible: my hunch would be to have authoritative images on Wikimedia, but I think most are currently on Wikipedia. I think the consistent use of flags in the various Wiki projects is a huge task and we should take baby steps to ensure manageability. Thoughts? Thanks – and apologies – again! E Pluribus Anthony 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Thanks for the reply. I--and many others--do not favour the use of borders on a flag image since they are not a formal part of a flag, do not add any real value, and it is generally difficult to mistake a flag for anything else. Borders can be helpful if many or most of the elements on a flag (e.g., on the periphery) are white and the image appears on a (near-)white background but this isn't so in this instance.

As for using a standard image, I'm in complete agreement with that! Feel free to use the image I created. Why? It is correct in proportions and colours; has the standard hoist size; is small in size; and is not anti-aliased (unlike the Wikipedia image you noted above). I may just take another peek over there and make some updates. Thoughts? Please feel free. :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, very good!

Your colours matched exactly an earlier version of mine, so no complaints there!

The question is now what filename to use. I think we should use one file on wikimedia commons only, to avoid mis-understandings, and then let the others be removed. But we should keep flags that differ in size, or in other ways. I think a very small image to use on for instance Template:Sweden-stub would be a very good idea. An additional flag with a border would probably not hurt either, as I think some people agree with my taste on that one.

People don't generally like their images being overwritten, so I think we should talk to the people who have made the flags on commons before overwriting them.

--Fred-Chess 20:20, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

TorontoSubway-real.png

Hi E Pluribus Anthony,
can you give this image a license? (GFDL, PD or a Creative Commons-License) For further informations see please Wikipedia:Copyrights. Greetings from Berlin --Jcornelius 12:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: the prior image has been replaced with [Image:TTC_map.png an image I've adapted (for release)]. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 19:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Denmark

The danish flag have a dark reed.

I also do not like Anthony's version, it is not correct. It is way too light. Please see here Talk:Flag of Denmark Twthmoses 04:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the subsequent provision of authoritative sources by Twthmoses around 15 Aug./05, more appropriate flag images have been uploaded. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 19:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out the images on Flag of Denmark from time to time. I drew the images in the first place, and I've no problem with you improving them. They look better now. I do, however, have a problem with User:Haabet, who's having a field day constantly reverting them.

BTW, I like your work. --Valentinian 05:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll upload a corrected version momentarily. IceKarma ॐ 03:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe there'll be a bug in the MediaWiki code that I have to get someone to fix first, so it took longer than I anticipated. But the fixed version of the flag has now been uploaded. IceKarma ॐ 06:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Finland - again

OK, we agree on the color now. However, there are two versions (both by you, uploaded August 7) that should be the same. One is with a border (which I prefer, since our flag has a white background) one is without. Can you consolidate these two different files? Thanks, --Janke | Talk 21:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now both versions are the same - yours - with a border. --Janke | Talk 22:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! By the way: thanks so much! E Pluribus Anthony 19:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

As requested, I've renamed your edits under a previous username to User:E Pluribus Anthony redux. Warofdreams 13:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! By the way, thanks so much! E Pluribus Anthony 19:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Haabet

I'm game, but I'm afraid I don't know the procedure. Haabet is a well-known vandal on the Danish Wikipedia, although opinions seem to differ between those seeing him as a sort of mis-guided soul on the one hand, and those who simply label him a vandal on the other. But I resent being called a vandal when I edit an image I spent more than an hour of my life on, making sure I got the proportions just right - even if the technical quality was inferior. I admit, I am an amateur in that respect. :-) --Valentinian 11:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing Wikipedia to Toronto

I've been working on a bid to bring Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. I have contacted KMDI, an institute at the University of Toronto. They are very interested in partnering with us, and can get us a full range of U of T facilities for free. With this offer I think there is a very good chance of bringing Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. The only thing we currently lack are people willing to help out. I'm willing to do much of the work, but for the time being I am in Ottawa and having some people on the ground in Toronto will be necessary. We also need a number of people willing to assist at the actual event, likely the first weekend of August 2006. If you are interested in helping out sign up at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005, at which point a committee will choose which city gets to host the event. The number of people willing to help will certainly be an important consideration. - SimonP 16:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Norway

You uploaded a new flag of Norway, with a black cross. I always thought the cross to be blue, and having searched several other encyclopedias and sources such as the CIA factfile, this appears to be the case. Could you please rectify this? Grunners 12:41 GMT 15 Sept 2005

Your message cinfirmed what I was suspecting, and having since viewed the flag on my home PC I can see it's my decrepid work monitor which seems incapable of displaying colours to any great degree. I perused some photos from Wikipedia's collection, and none of them came out correctly. Sorry to falsley accuse! Grunners 11:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HDI Image

Hi and thanks for this HDI image. Is it possible to change the colors to something more easily discernible, like blue to red, or yellow to green. Many people have difficulties with seeing red and green, including myself. I would appreciate it. Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote message

Hi E Pluribus Anthony. It might be best if you advertised the poll only in Wikipedia namespace, lest you be alleged of "spamming". That was something tossed out once in a completely different circumstance, but best to be careful. Thanks,--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I removed one from Talk:Information, where it had nothing to do. Flammifer 04:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your comments. I've placed the notice to vote on any pages where human development issues/HDI may be relevant (usually, but not exclusively, where links are present) and -- as well -- on the Information page, as the HDI (on the Country template page) was challenged as not being 'information' (or relevant); maybe that's obtuse and if I erred, I apologise. My purpose is is to garner as wide -- and relevant -- a consensus as possible to support or deny the HDI's inclusion in the infobox. Make sense? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 03:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think you've erred - but it's best to err on the side of caution. Already another has raised concern, and I personally don't think its necessary to advertise as extensively as you plan/have. You might like to list the poll at Wikipedia:Current_surveys, although I'm not entirely certain it matches the criteria for inclusion. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this poll has anything to do with the information page - should the information article talk about wikipedia infoboxes ? Are people contributing to the information article likely to have anything special to say about inclusion in an infobox ? I don't think so. Why not a link in Talk:box as well ? I'm not going to have an edit war over this, though ^-^ Flammifer 05:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While your suggestion is not utterly beyond the realm of possibility (trust me: I'm not gonna do it), the initial argumentation (by another user) necessitated me to respond and place the vote notice on the Talk:Information page. And yet another user restored what you removed, so they thought it at least valid. Besides: the box article deals with physical items, not information or infoboxes per se. Anyhow, thanks for the feedback. E Pluribus Anthony 13:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because of the meat....

Thanks for your work on the [a] article, and for trying to reconcile the differing positions. I am trying to stay away from that issue now. I think the text is not perfect, but we have been spending way too much time on the issue, so I think that it should be left alone. [x]'s latest additions to the talk page are a good illustration why I should disengage from the argument. [x] says [x] has identified [challenges], and provided copious amounts of background text, but hasn't actually told us what the [challenges] are. There are other things I should be working on instead of trying to guess what [x] is thinking about. thanks again. Ground Zero | t 13:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland tricolor

Hi, I've made a smaller PNG version of the Newfoundland tricolor flag you at one stage uploaded. (Image:Nfldflag tri.jpg ⇒ Image:Nfldflag tri.png). I've listed the original for deletion – hope this is OK. Mysid (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Thanks for the note. Nixer seems to have left off editing the intro for the moment. I think it was becoming a matter of WP:POINT though I partly understand his concerns. Other citable criteria taken together could form a section at the end (GDP, cost of living, busiest airports) but we don't need another full list—actually I suspect there is no other full list. Boosting Toronto is another problem which has hopefully disappeared (speaking from the head rather than the heart of course). Marskell 11:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday both you and Nixer very obviously violated 3RR. While I agree with you, if it were noticed or reported both of you in fairness would get a block (especially since it was half-a-dozen or so). I suggest you stop at three in future. Marskell 15:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you'd actually received a block. I replaced NPOV with the non-global perspective tag. I mention in the edit summary the irony of global city needing to be globalized, but it's a fair criticism. Focusing on finance inevitably means focusing on the west. For example, Nixer or someone mentioned Jerusalem and Mecca. Yes, absolutely they should get a seperate mention outside of GaWC. Pilgrimage sites are by their nature internationalized. Marskell 16:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't reply earlier—the pages haven't been popping up on my watchlist so I decided to take a break from the topic. When I have something substantive in mind for Nixer's page I'll let you know. Marskell 15:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greek alphabet

I don't know whether you've just been adding the box, or are involved in maintaining it, but should stigma be included? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Et cetera

3RR

Image conversions!

Greetings! I hope you're well. Thank you for converting (to PNG, et al.) numerous images (of flags, etc.) I've created. I have the ability to do all of this; initially, I did not out of being a novice, out of a desire to not go through the effort of changing every link/reference under the sun to an particular image, or just for expediency. Ack! If I erred, I apologise.

In any event, let me know if there are images – or a list of 'em – I can help convert, or can be otherwise helpful. Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 19:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have converted all of them (or so I think!), and I'm uploading them gradually. Thanks for your help offering anyway. --Fibonacci 19:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great! The offer was a general one (i.e., for images other than ones I've created, as well); there are also numerous instances when precisely the same image is in different/multiple formats (JPG and PNG). Anyhow, let me know; thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 19:50, 1 October 2005

Yes, so I noticed. I'm working on those too. I'll let you know if I have any problems (which has happened before, so it could happen again). Thanks again.

Hehe, I really should get a life :P ... j/k. --Fibonacci 20:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! > Flags

Hello! I hope you're well. I noticed that you have integrated an SVG version of the [Image:Flag of Japan.svg Japanese flag here] and on Wikipedia. Nice! I have made, altered, or appropriated a wealth of similar SVG images (e.g., Canadian flags) and have the ability to create them anew. How can I assist? Are there any naming or other conventions to follow? Pointers?

Thanks again! (If possible, comment on my Wikipedia user page.) E Pluribus Anthony 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best naming convention is to use "Flag of Foo.svg", where the Wikipedia article about the flag is at "Flag of Foo". For example, I put the flag of Washington, D.C. at Image:Flag of Washington, D.C..svg, not Image:Flag of the District of Columbia.svg or any other variation. Of course, there's no hard and fast rule, so it's all good as long as you upload your flags! (There's one technical issue: make sure your flags are at least "300 pixels" wide, since MediaWiki refuses to scale SVG up in most cases.) ... dbenbenn | talk 17:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thanks for your reply. Great! I will try to follow the conventions you cite – especially regarding size – in my quest for SVG/image verisimilitude. :) ... Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC) ...[reply]

Barnstar

FireFox 19:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

A "major barnstar" is no better than a "minor barnstar" - Minor barnstars are given to award people for making valuable minor edits (i.e. ticking "This is a minor edit" on the edit pages.) As you say, you've read up on the concept of barnstars, so again, thanks! FireFox^{esp 16:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Flag of Canada

Hi again! I noticed you uploaded an SVG of the Flag of Canada; thanks! However, I've not had a chance to upload my SVG flag of Canada (which is the basis for the recent/current PNG), which I drew (with another user) because of disatisfaction with the prior representations, colours, and leaf shapes on other flags (including on your SVG; the leaf is ... not quite right). Might I ask you to revert this change and I'll upload an update in the next day or two and to refrian from uploading SVGs for the Canadian flags already present? I'd appreciate it, or guidance thereof :) Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 08:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you simply upload your improved version over Commons:Image:Flag of Canada.svg? Then your version will automatically display. It seems to me there's no need to change back to the PNG version, only to change back to the SVG title again in a day. dbenbenn | talk 08:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; no problem. Simple tasks, yes; but, I'm trying to focus on other items currently ... so many things, so little time to do them! :) I just don't like to replace someone else's work without reason. I will upload them soon, though, but try to avoid the other Cdn. flags for now, OK? :) E Pluribus Anthony 08:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. dbenbenn | talk 08:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great; thanks so much! ~~(And yes: my deletion was inadvertent; I guess I was revising when you were adding. ;))~~ E Pluribus Anthony 15:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I hope you're well. Now that I've a moment, I uploaded an SVG of the Flag of Canada that I created that is the basis for the PNG version. The leaf shape ('a leaf of the first') is better (closer to reality), and the red (at least in CorelDraw) lists as R,G,B(255,0,0), though it appears darker than in the PNG. Thoughts? Thanks for your patience and help! E Pluribus Anthony 23:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you open the SVG in a text editor, you can easily see the red is #DA2724. Do you mind if I change it back to #ff0000? dbenbenn | talk 23:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please shift the red in my image to #ff0000! I'm somewhat new to SVG conversions, so please do (even though I do not know how that shift occurred) and bear with me. As well, some internet users prefer a more tomaty red on the flag; not me, though, on screen. :) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 23:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]