User talk:Harmil/Archive 03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive of User talk:Harmil for the months of September-December of 2005. -Harmil

RE: Central_trains_mainimage.jpg

I have already replaced the image and said that I sourced it from Have you cleared your cache?

Samluke777 15:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


The reason I used images from FreeFoto was because I saw plenty of other articles doing the same. And although I can see it as being commercial, why is Wikipedia commercial? It's a free resource!

Thanks for clarification, but where on earth can I source good pictures from to replace the ones you are requesting get deleted?

Samluke777 15:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


Making Image:Hong Kong coa.png transparent would not make much sense unless you're just shaping the outside, and even then I'm not sure it's useful. The problem is that the white background is almost always used, so allowing it to blend with other backgrounds would not make a lot of sense. -Harmil 13:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I meant by the borders of the emblem. It would be foolish to make the middle transparent, as it might not work as well on darker backgrounds. I asked for a transparent border / circle covering thing because the image looks like it has been exported from somewhere else. For example, imagine if we had no transparency on the Wikipedia logo on the top-left. I hope you get my point, thanks. -- WB 23:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for correcting my mistake on the Native American name controversy page. I should have checked before writing it, my bad. I was going to fix it, but you beat me to it. :-) Luigizanasi 22:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Writers Cramp

Thanks so much for looking at Bully Kutta and for the note on my user page. I really try to keep my head in only the dog universe because there's more than enough there to keep me busy. I hardly ever look at the community pages any more, and I've certainly always done my dangedest to avoid having to step in to deal with personnel issues. But I'm not surprised to hear about WC's attitude everywhere else; I might have guessed. I really know nothing about the process of banning--what has to go before, what steps to take, that sort of thing, but after working on WP for about 19 months now with hardly a conflict of any kind, I'd be glad to provide feedback to whomever requested it. Elf | Talk 03:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics

Thanks for your message. I'll know in future. In fact there was a redirect, but I linked directly to the article in question. (As my researches suggested that all that could be said was the one line in Magnetic declination, it didn't seem likely that there would ever be a separate article, though one might be appropriate for Wiktionary.)

I've changed the entry to go to the redirect now. --Phronima 09:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your gracious note. I have to confess I'd forgotten about the article's avowed NthAm focus, but even so, the Portuguese comment still works (fortunately). I also wanted to underscore that advantage that Spanish indígena has over the English -- ie, its use as a noun. "Indigene" just doesn't get the same level of name recognition in English, which is a shame. And I'll give your proposal on the Nat. Am. talk page some thought, and get back to you. Best, Hajor 17:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


Actually, he really doesn't have the right to say whatever he wants on his talk page, if what he's saying constitutes a personal attack on another user. And I certainly don't think we should encourage him in his current behaviour (now, for example, he's taken to vandalising my talk page). Be that as it may, I'm certainly not going to get into a revert war on his talk page. Exploding Boy 15:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Album edit comments

In fact, the bot is replacing [[Album]] with [[Album (music)|Album]]. They just happen to look identical in the edit summary, but if you click on the links you will that they are indeed different. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Your List of Indian Tribes A-E redirect

I have reverted your redirect of the List of Indian Tribes A-E, etc., and corrected the syntax of the F-X articles, for reasons detailed at Talk:List of Indian Tribes A-E, but that reduce to the (to me) apparent fact that the A-E, etc., articles are considerably more complete than is List of Native American tribes. I freely admit that I could be missing something-- this is not my field, but on the surface, the claim in the edit history that the former is a duplicate of the latter looks unsupportable. If I've mmissed something obvious, my apologies. -- Mwanner 23:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wess-Zumino-Witten model

Why did you revert the Unicode in this article? The wiki markup is far cleaner with the appropriate characters, instead of the escape sequences. I restored the Unicode for now, but I'd appreciate your comments (here or on the talk page). — Knowledge Seeker 03:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

For discussion of bots in general, you can see Wikipedia:Bots and the associated talk page. For discussion of Curpsbot-unicodify specifically, I've now made User talk:Curpsbot-unicodify an active page (it formerly redirected to User talk:Curps) and moved all the bot-related messages there. -- Curps 03:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Spaces around name headings

I've read and re-read your comment in my "discussion" page, then checked the two edits I made to Native American name controversy and I just don't have any idea what you are talking about. You were saying something about my removing all the spaces around name headings (first of all, I don't know what this means), but my edits were just adding a wikilink to "American Indian," no deletion of any spaces that I can tell. Badagnani 05:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've thought about it some more and now I think you mean that (although it doesn't affect the appearance of the heading when you view it in a finished article), there can be a space between the two equals signs and the heading (before and after the heading), or not. When you use the button that automatically adds the equals signs, it puts the space between the heading and the equals signs. Whenever I start a page from scratch I never use that button, instead typing the equals signs with no space. I have actually (though I don't think on the page you mentioned) removed previously existing spaces, believing it to be extraneous and wasting bandwidth. I couldn't imagine that it would be disturbing to any other editors, though when "comparing" edits and seeing no difference it can be frustrating and usually signifies that an editor has added or removed a space or two somewhere. So what you're saying is, don't remove those spaces if they're already there. I'm okay with that. But the question is, why are the spaces there to begin with if they're not necessary, and add unnecessary bandwidth? Badagnani 05:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


Howdy! Your comment on ROFLBURGERS was a good one, and I think your 'notability test' for it was fine, but a suggestion: Consider putting your rationale/research/etc into the talk page instead of using the edit summary, or both places. It'll really help out future editors who might come along and blitzkrieg the entry, and helps more people understand what you're doing. IANAA, so consider this just a friendly suggestion from a fellow editor! Best regards, CHAIRBOY () 15:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)



Mono language and related articles — thanks for completing the job :). Cheers, — mark 16:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

ANCs link

I changed the link because I was pretty sure that was the standard for links of that kind. The plural would be best if the link was a list. Anyway, I hope that clears it up; thanks for working on the page. --Merovingian (t) (c) 22:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I see now. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Native Americans/American Indians

Well, no I don't really recall agreeing that American Indian should link to Native American or vice versa. I'm not being comabative; it's just that it was a minor point in a complicated discussion and I might not remember everything that was said about it. Anyway, now that we're revisiting the issue, I don't see why they have to be the same page. Since they're both dab pages and so, ideally, no articles should link to them anyway, I think it's preferable to keep them separate but similar. I think there are some cases where a difference in wording might be desireable, and I can think of at least one case where the links might be different: American Indian should link to Indian American (which I neglected to do just now—I knew I was forgetting something!) - Nat Krause 04:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

List of U.S. Indian Tribal Government Web sites

I've redirected my list to yours. Patricknoddy 7:09 AM October 30, 2005 EDT


Since you commented on the image talk page, I'd like to let you know I have expanded the description of this graph.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's your POV. I think that this graph is very useful. It contains data from EB. You think they are biased? Maybe... but maybe not. Let's wait for a few days and see who other people will support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)