User talk:Loganberry/Archive10

Did you know

On 27 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ronald Bird, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 11:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correction you left on my talk page has been made. In the future, you may wish to report this type of issue to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors in case the admin who made the update steps away from his computer. --Allen3 ^talk 16:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. D. G. Leveson-Gower

ah ok.

michfan2123 23:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Robinson

Hi,

Have seen to the infobox - have created a blank row at the moment, but can't have everything! It works with a 'partialdates = true' function.

Best wishes, –MDCollins (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Better? –MDCollins (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Jolly

Given that Norman Jolly only lived in England from 1904 to 1907, can he really be classed as an English cricketer? Pdfpdf 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Watership Down/temp

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Watership Down/temp, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 05:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Holt (cricketer)

Hi - sorry to bother you. I have recently created an article about Arthur Holt who was both a cricketer with Hampshire and a footballer with Southampton. As my cricket knowledge is fairly limited, I was wondering if you could have a look at the article and possibly tidy up, improve or expand the cricket sections. I was deliberating whether to title the article as "Arthur Holt (cricketer)" or "Arthur Holt (footballer)" and decided that he was probably better known as a cricketer and his shop definitely specialised in cricket. Thanks in anticipation of your help. --Daemonic Kangaroo 07:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion For Saint Vincent and the Grenadines cricket team

A tag has been placed on Saint Vincent and the Grenadines cricket team, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This does not tell what it is. It only tells what they have done.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ludds (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel, etc.

You might want to take a look at Hazel (Watership Down), where a disagreement over whether it is "original research" to say that it is the Black Rabbit who, in the film version, comes for Hazel at his death, has just led to one editor to delete nearly the whole article as "original research". -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:BMW M3

Sorry about that. I reverted myself. jj137 (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

brendan mulcahy and zishan afsar

are back. logamberry my friend you probably wont remember but look in your archives to around the end of 06 if you need anything pleare a comment on the account soqimple123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.24.119 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watership Down and feminism

Loganberry, thank you very much for your post. Personally, I've always been uncomfortable with the does' minor roles in WD, not that it's diminished the pleasure of the story for me. Maybe it's an American PC thing (and being a child of the Sixties), but I thought it strange that Adams didn't give the girls a more prominent role. I, however, attributed it to rabbit world realism rather than a consciously developed motif: I assumed real does are rather dumb and do little in the warren social world. After reading references raising the possibility that this depiction is at odds with Adams's favorite source (Lockley) and reality itself, I am a bit surprised, but think it likely that Adams's combat experiences are more an influence (as some sources have alluded) than any truly misogynic streak in his character. I also have to remind myself that Adams was raised in a different era than I.

I enjoyed your essay, "Passive Baby-Factories"? The Role of Does in Watership Down". The Tucker, Thomas and Townsend perspectives would be excellent additions to the article, but I have not been able to gain direct access to the source material. I'm going to make more of an effort this weekend at one of the local universities. However, if you still have the original material and the time . . . ? Again, thanks for the heads-up, and I'll have to give your Anglo/American difference some thought (curious).
Jim Dunning | talk 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watership Down on Front Page of German Wikipedia

Hello Loganberry,

the German article about Watership Down with your photos will be on the front page tomorrow (April 2nd) as "Article of the Day": http://de.wikipedia.org/

--84.57.177.238 (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Chequers Image

Sorry about that, I forgot to take the other image out when I inserted it into the infobox! -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Image:Bigwig.jpg

Thank you for notifying me of my fair use violation on this image, how silly of me to forget. I will remove the image at once, or at least upload a new version. Im sorry for this mix-up, i will see to it that this doesn't occur again.

Remember me? Anonymous reader (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Image!

Hello again, David. I don't believe it; I've finally uploaded a new Bigwig Image, and a rationale, too. It is also under the size you reccomended. I also moved it to the top right of the page. Thanks alot.

What do you want for nothing?

Anonymous reader (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your compliments, and sorry for the whole "name thing", I just wanted you to know I had visited your WD fansite ;). But anyway, thank you-I didn't know I had it in me.

What do you want for nothing?

Anonymous reader (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]