User talk:KF/Archive 1

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


The beginning[edit]

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hello Kurt, the reason I thought that the article at Brief Encounter was from a research paper was that it compared the play and movie at some length, and also had some non-standard characters in it. Some of your hyphens are coming over as ?- instead of --. I changed your ("fancy") apostraphes because I thought they were non-standarad characters (maybe they display fine for everyone; I don't know. I can't find on my keyboard where to make them that way). Anyway, thanks for your work, and welcome to wikipedia.  :-) --KQ 09:46 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

Hallo Kurt, wie schoen, noch einen Deutschsprachler hier zu finden! Ich bin aus Koeln, aber schon 26 Jahre in England. Like you, I am also experiencing the true meaning of addiction. Long may it last! Perhaps we could collaborate on some entries with a Germanic bias? Renata

Hallo Kurt, vielen dank fuer Ihren Beitrag zum This Perfect Day-Artikel. You write that the programmers' idea of a world government basically seems to be communist. I always get a little suspicious when I read a statement like that, because it often seems to reflect more the political stance of the contributor than that of the subject. For instance, there are people that are constantly trying to make nazism and communism out to be close brothers (which I am sure a lot of communists would have vehemently disagreed with).

So my question to you is: could you elaborate (in the article of course) on why the basic idea seems communist? Something that might speak against that, is the chant "Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei led us to this perfect day". Not just Marx, but Christ and Wood and Wei too.

Also, the fact that it is the programmers who rule the word is a spoiler. Could you please prefix spoilers with a spoiler notice next time? I am sure people who have not yet read the book will appreciate that. A link to Wikipedia contains spoilers should suffice.

Again, many thanks for your contribution. branko

Thanks for the much more readable translation at Millennialism! — Mkmcconn

Kurt, I fixed the "horse" experiment (see A Man Called Horse (1970)). --Ed Poor

OK, Entschuldigung.

Nur hat 'Point of no return' fast keinen Bezug auf 'Aviation', ausser z.B. wenn man in kompletter Elektronikstoerung in einem Sauwetter ist, keinen Treibstoff mehr hat und auf irgendetwas sanftem landen muss :D. Sonst kann ich keine Situation vorstellen in der es so was geben koennte, ausser in einem wirklich extremen Notfall, und ich habe beinahe zehn Jahre Erfahrung in Luftfahrt. Jedoch habe ich mir das irgendwo notiert und werde es auf irgendeine Unter-seite schreiben, wie z.B. ILS oder PAR.

Naja, ich werde irgendeine Seite kreiern und den Link da reinquetschen, falls das OK ist, wie zum Beispiel eine Emergencies in Aviation Seite, zu der ich auch zu Unfaellen und so linken koennte.

Gut dass es immerhin weitergeht.

Schoener gruss, Qwitchibo

Thanks for the fix of names on the Austrian stamps. "Dolfuss" was a typo - aging eyes often don't see double l's properly. I'm one of those who thinks that the article should be under Franz Josef rather than Francis Joseph. Some people mix up what is most commonly used by English speakers, and what they think the English should be. Most historical English language texts that I have seen tend to use Franz Josef. Eclecticology

Yes, it's the same Goya! When I'm putting things onto one of these lists I often need to guess just how we would write a name up. If I checked them all as I proceeded I'd never accomplish much at all - so I'm happy when somebody is interested enough to do a little housekeeping. If I agree with your correction there's nothing that I need to say. Eclecticology 23:04 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

Hi, KF. Thank you for quite nice (but short) editing of the article Carinthia. I am glad that you have changed just grammar misspellings and such. I have changed a version from 2002-10-16, because it did not explain the term as it should. I still do believe that this current version is good enough. An specially because it is good that it is written by the peoples from both sides of Austrian-Slovene border, where Carinthia in fact resides. If you have any other changes in mind, please do so. I am convinced that we are on the right way. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 23:06 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

As part of the incidentalist nature of the Wikipedia, I saw the name in recent changes and popped through immediately. Do you know how to eat a poem?

KF you are certainly right about how petty some Wikipedians are. Just look @ their commentary in the talk. That won't last too much longer:

Lockdown Sv Rule.

In any case I have made this page safe through through my post I hope you like it.

Authority through command of the English language

Earlier that day I had written a scathing poem against tyrants, in the style of John Robert Columbo because of incidents in a talk page. Some time later I posted it as part of my campagn to restore NPOV. That what Lockdown Sv Rulenames. Its purpose has been filled. I advertized it in my summaries because I wanted a lot of traffic here. The poem which I had written as a satirical attack against the stupidity of tyrants saltute to the unstopabble pover of truth. Its now gone: you can read it in the histories. I hope that you like my comments.  :-)) They are honest and heartfelt: it almost brought tears to my cheeks when I saw vulgarians gathering to stomp on this page.

What a fantastic idea for an article!

It will probably become the most beautiful how to's in the wikipedia.

How could it not?
I'm watch this kernal grow.

It's already a top three hit in the search engine. :-)

If it said 'poetry' it might rank high there too.

What a wonderful birthday present.

Truth is the enemy of power,
power is the enemy of Truth,
Writers and Artists can vanquish lies.
Against lies, Art has always won.

User:Two16 : childern should eat poems. so too should dictators.

User:Two16 From the wikipedia:

A how-to is a simple set of instructions needed to complete a task or build something.

A how-to on Wikipedia should include:

  • A brief overview of the project being built or end result of the instructions.
  • A list of materials, tools or prerequisites (if needed).
  • Time needed.
  • Appropriate safety warnings (if needed).
  • Instructions for the project.
  • What to do after the project is finished (cleanup).
  • How to use the result or object constructed.

A how-to will almost always contain some degree of personal opinion in the form of helpful suggestions. This is acceptable within reasonable bounds. In the context of an encyclopedia, however, it is best if you try to fairly represent any reasonable disagreements that exist about how to do the task, in light of our neutral point of view policy. For example, there are various methods of long division; on how to do long division, it would be an excellent idea to include these different methods.

See how-tos for a list of Wikipedia how-tos.

Hi Kurt. About the W. Ryder photo: it's highly unlikely that it's actually in the public domain. The website says, "All pictures contained on pages herein were collected freely from the internet and are believed to be public domain." In other words, it was lifted off another website. All photographs are automatically protected by copyright; unless the copyright holder specifically places it in the public domain, it's off-limits for us (unfortunately!). -- Stephen Gilbert 12:56 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

KF - nice work on the Crime fiction article. Atorpen

Hi KF. I've responded to your question on the "What wikipedia thinks it is" article at m:Talk:What wikipedia thinks it is.Enchanter

Hi KF - thanks for clearing that up (about Wikipedia talk:What it thinks it is) - I've briefly responded, but I agree with you that it isn't really worth arguing about too much. --Camembert

Hi Kurt,

thank you for your warm welcome on my talk page! I am rather new to Wikipedia -- and have to try things out. Also -- as you have seen -- my English is far from perfect -- but I try. I was very surprised, that my editions were corrected so rapidly -- and good. I appreciate your work!

I am actually reading a book about Heinz Guderian and reading in Wikipedia I stumpled over the dead link and so I decided ad-hoc to jump into Wikipedia -- after that I decided to start an account ... I also don't know how to use this talk-page "the right way" hope you see my remarks. Best regards --Juergen

I'm sick and tired of the "Americocentrism" being thrown around here all the time. It seems to be that if Americans write about America, it's Americocentrism, but if other countries write about their countries, it's somehow okay. If you think an article has only American sensibilities about, what's stopping you from changing it? The people like you who throw the term "Americocentrism" around somehow expect those of us who are Americans to write about everything in the whole world except America. -- Zoe

What is stopping me? The fact that I know nothing about the separation of church and state in Japan, Switzerland, or Mexico -- it's as simple as that. What I do know is that the title of that article is misleading, and I mentioned this fact on the talk page -- that's what they're there for. If, for some strange reason, you consider the term "Americocentrism" insulting, call it POV then. --KF 00:45 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
So, since you know nothing about the separation of church and state in Japan, Switzerland, or Mexico, Americans shouldn't be allowed to write about separation of church and state at all? -- Zoe
I suggest you go out and have some fun or watch one of your favourite movies or whatever. I'll catch up on my sleep in the meantime, and I'm positive that tomorrow we'll be able to discuss this matter in a serious manner. I've known you for several months now as an intelligent and committed woman, and I'd be very reluctant to change my mind, but this is ridiculous. --KF 01:05 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
What do you suggest we do about your supposed Americocentrism on the Wikipedia? Kick all the Americans off, or make them stop writing about what they know? -- Zoe
No, sorry, no more of this tonight. --KF 01:19 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Concerning the picture of Sisi, I said at Image talk:Sisi.JPG:

As it clearly says at the bottom of this picture, this picture comes from The "References" page says that pictures are :Copyright of the original pictures by the respective owner." Did the original uploader of this picture get the permission of the owner to put it on the Wikipedia? -- Zoe

Hi. I like the photos on your user page. Deb 22:57 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hallo Kurt,

danke fuer Deine erweiterungen auf der Longevity page. Hoffe, dass noch viele Leute aus allen "Ecken" des Lebens dazu beitragen. Wundere mich, dass vorher noch nichts zu diesem spannenden Thema auf Wikipedia war.

    Michael User:MichaelJanich

Hi: About My Night with Reg, I havent seen the movie, but your article was so good that it made me want to see it, despirte the fact I had never heard about it before. You said someone described it as poignant... and other things. You forgot to say who was it that called it that. I wrote a message to that respect on the article's talk page.

Thanks and God bless you

Sincerely yours, Antonio Spin The Bottle Martin

We came across your user page by chance and we like it a lot, especially of course the sections about books and films. Maybe you remember us (it's been a while...). We are still very fond of the English language and Great Britain. Greetings, Heidi und Matthias

Hi, Heidi and Matthias! I must say I'm not quite sure I know who you are. Did we meet there? Please write me an e-mail (see "E-mail this user" to the left of this text)! --KF 21:15 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Kurt. I notice you complained on your user page on about not getting many comments on your talk page -- I used to feel the same way up until recently. I guess that's something we have in common other than the first five letters of our country of origin :) Make lots of really stupid errors, or pick fights over controversial subjects and you'll soon have a few archives full. As for the trouble we have to go through to get something deleted: the difficulty to delete (and the ease with which we can revert) is central to the nature of Wikipedia. The theory is that as long as we don't delete anything, the information content of Wikipedia can only increase :) -- Tim Starling 14:22 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. By the way, I'm not complaining. :-)

I'm slightly confused by your labeling Heinzendorf, Czech Republic as ominous. Is there a better place for the article (just Heinzendorf, maybe)? -- Notheruser 21:35 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, it looks like you already answered that :). -- Notheruser 21:36 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Or if someone started an article called New Amsterdam or Londinium, maybe? ;) -- John Owens 21:51 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

You know, you can move pages just as well as I can, as long as there isn't already an existing page at Hyncice, Czech Republic or wherever it goes after that. The only time it's a problem is when there's already a page at the name where it needs to go, that's when you need Sysop Super Powers to clear out what's there, and what's left behind if you move it. -- John Owens 22:15 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

I just had an extra thought about the table experimentation: Did you know you can make your very own sandbox to play in? Just use User:KF:Sandbox, User:KF/Sandbox, or something like that, according to your preference, and you can have your very own place to experiment with such things. Can come in useful if/when (wenn can be so much more appropriate, nicht wahr?) you have something you want to keep around a while without random strangers messing with it. -- John Owens 04:59 20 May 2003 (UTC)

The merge on SI prefix -- where did the new material come from? -- Tarquin 08:10 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi KF,

I'm certain that User: is User:Michael. It's an IP address he's used before (look at the contributions), they edited 1991 in music and then 2 minutes later User:Michael/Crass did the same and the edits are on Michael's pet subjects. The IP has just been banned, see Vandalism in progress. The issue of what to do with Michael's contributions has been debated at length and I'm sure will continue to be, I'm in the revert on sight camp. Not wanting to sound too self-important, with my finals fast approaching, I can't afford to spend time cross-checking everything Michael adds with other sites on the internet before deciding whether or not it is accurate. He has a history of adding incorrect information and I hate the thought of leaving incorrect information on here. So, for me, reversion is the only choice. Please feel free to go and revert me if you wish but please check the information against something. Anyway, I must sleep now, have fun -- Ams80 22:57 31 May 2003 (UTC)

"One of the tough guys"? Sehe ich nicht so. Gerade bei Urheberrecht bin ich eher relaxed. Egal, ich bin vom 4.-8. Juni in Wien auf der Open Cultures Konferenz, hast Du Lust auf ein Treffen? --Eloquence 14:08 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hat mich gefreut, Dich kennen zu lernen! Das Nat.-Hist. Museum war interessant, der Rest von Wien auch. Wikipedia scheint noch heil zu sein, was für ein Glück. Dann kann ich ja beruhigt schlafen gehen .. --Eloquence 22:38 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The difference is just that it's treated (& highlighted) as an internal link by Wikipedia instead of an external one, and your page now shows up on the list of pages that link to Image:Aesculus hippocastanum.jpg. It's just tidier this way, certainly preferred for use within articles, but of course I wouldn't make a fuss if someone wanted it that way on their own User: page. I just thought I'd let you know there's another, maybe better, way, in case you didn't already. -- John Owens 22:03 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay, this was my first year. Now it's time for a break -- I'll be spending some time there in that country near that ancient Roman town. I'll be back on 5 July, and I do hope that Zoe will have returned by then. Keep up the good work! --KF 16:18 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Zoe isn't back yet, but hey, I'm still here ;-). Could you write something about the university project you told me about at Wikipedia:School and university projects? Thanks! --Eloquence 06:16 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It'll be a pleasure once they have repaired my PC and removed all those nasty programmes. Soon. KF 06:54 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wondering about the difference between a "hit 1966 song" and a "1966 hit song" -- why is the former preferred? Isn't the word 'song' equally modified by either modifier? (serious inquiry not snark).

A "hit 1966 song"? I thought you had made a careless mistake. Isn't it just like "a 1970 stage play" versus "a stage 1970 play"?!? And what do you mean by "why is the former preferred"? --KF 21:05, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'd say that in english either wording makes equal sense, and to my ears "hit 1966 song" reads slightly better (I should have said "latter" after reversing the query). Unlike "stage play" which describes a single concept, "hit" modifies "song" (as does "1966"). But I'm no grammarian and sometimes my ears are made of tin, so I'll think about it more next time. --JGM
PS. How do you do the nifty time/name stamp thing?
Three tildes ~~~ --> your user name
Four tildes ~~~~ --> your user name plus date and time
And why don't you start your own user and talk pages? Go ahead, I didn't want to do it for you!
All the best, KF (three tildes)
And again, KF 22:52, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC) (four tildes)

Fair enough, I'll try to restrain myself and only delete the real junk on sight. Jim

You should check out the Simple English Wikipedia. There are no deletions there. Only two pages are listed on votes for deletion and there are no sysops to delete anything. Much less stress! By the way, my questions were not rhetorical either. Angela

You said you don't think it's a good idea that there are some Wikipedians who hardly ever write articles themselves. I disagree. Wikipedia needs people to fill all sorts of roles (developers, writers, proofreaders, formatters, policy writers etc). I see nothing wrong with slotting into these roles if they choose to do so and I think in general it can only help Wikipedia to improve. Angela

Well, if you can't yet see where this is leading you will. Rather soon. I stated my reasons why I think this kind of division of labour is not a good idea. You didn't really. Well, that's it. --KF 22:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I will rather soon? Care to explain? It sounds like a threat. Angela
Pleeease! How could I threaten you? What could I do? Insult you here at Wikipedia until I become a banned user? Travel to England and hit you on the head? Sue you? Well, maybe I could ignore you. But is that a threat?
Let me explain: As far as division of labour is concerned, you seem to believe in what Adam Smith thought, while I tend to think that the alienation described by Marx will set in here at Wikipedia -- if not on a massive then at least on a much larger scale than right now. Of course division of labour is useful and necessary -- up to a point: I couldn't and wouldn't want to write an article on Chinese language, let alone develop new wiki software. But I see it as detrimental to the project if there are those who produce and others who supervise them. If this process is not reciprocal those who write articles will feel increasingly alienated from the final product i.e. Wikipedia itself. This is what I was alluding to. No threats, for Christ's sake.
I talked to Renata the other day, whose departure was not deplored -- although it happened already at a time when things were still much better than they are now. I'm just afraid that many more will follow if the speedy deleters have their way.
My time on this earth is limited, so what I wanted to do tonight -- write two new articles which I have already drafted -- will not be done. Instead, I'm writing this because I don't want to appear impolite and ignore your question. And if I'm voicing my concern, what do I get? Ridicule, obviously (see below). --KF 23:03, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Calm down - I didn't say you were threatening me or that I even thought you were - it was just the way you had phrased it to sound that way. And no one is ridiucling you. At least I don't think they are. I don't speak for sv, but I certainly didn't read it that way. I apologise if you feel I have caused you to be unable to complete the work you set out to do this evening, but you started it with your huge rant on interim by wishing to address the issue to me personally when it really has nothing to do with me anyway. Angela

您的愿望是我的命令。-戴&#30505sv 22:07, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC) {Your wish is my command}

I can't read that. Play games with someone else, please. --KF 22:14, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Given your conversation with User:JoeM you may be interested in helping improve common sense conservative. While it is unlikely to act as a true troll bridge, it might at least exploit the wealth of references and discussions we've had with him. Might as well get something out of it.

Thanks for the re-welcoming! I've decided to not let it worry me and come back. Too much of a Wikipediholic to stay away and too forgetful to keep up a pseudonym. :) Angela

Wikipedia actually forces me to take an indefinite break until the whole thing is running properly again. A couple of days ago, I wikified a long page and for once forgot to copy it before pressing the "save" button. Needless to say, the whole thing was lost irrevocably before I had realized my mistake. Yesterday I was careless again and added five titles to Kingturtle's reading list -- lost forever. Now I just wanted to update a page -- impossible.

I'm still amazed that this is not being discussed. Instead, I am inundated by e-mails about bots, most of which are just copies of old e-mails with one sentence added at the bottom. I don't understand participants' priorities here.

I have been used to having a look at Wikipedia first thing whenever I sit down at my computer. I guess I'll keep doing so and occasionally try to edit an article, but since all good features (watchlist, search function etc.) are more or less gone and as it now usually takes one minute or so to get from the edit history back to the article I don't think I'll be able to contribute a lot. This is just too frustrating.

Whatever happened to the "new server madness"?

I posted the above some hours ago on the mailing list but that didn't work either.

KF 17:02, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

An indefinite break? :( Don't assume Wikipedia will always have these problems. A temporary break 'till it's fixed maybe, but you can't leave indefinitely! A server upgrade is apparently due very soon, and I'm sure the developers are working on solutions to the problems you list above. Don't give up hope - I don't want to have to add you to the list of Missing Wikipedians. Angela 18:07, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's exactly what I was trying to say -- indefinite like in "indefinite strike". I'll be back when/if it's possible again for me to edit articles, and I'm looking forward to it. Thank you for your kind words, and all the best to you. --KF 20:57, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's ok then! I was thinking of this definition of 'indefinite' - as in 'infinite'. Angela

I changed the two photos because I thought the new ones are much better, especially Andie MacDowell's image, in which she had a strange face. The new photos are both portraits, in which the actresses look to the camera, what shows their expression and gives therefore a better idea of their personality, which - I believe - is the aim of an encyclopedia article.

The photos have temporarily been withdrawn from the articles, while I investigate if the rights for non-commercial publishing these photos have include an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, in which all texts and images can be used freely by everybody.

Chris K 10:45, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi again. The reason for removing Kelly Preston's photo is the same. I have communicated with several sysops on the copyright and the GNU/FDL issue, and want to confirm the latter one for each image.

Chris K 11:04, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Your photos should be still on file, as I would not delete someone else's images. As you say, they are not listed in the Image pages, and the Page histories show nothing about the pictures. I hope you have these photos on file on your computer, and would feel sorry if you would have lost them.

Chris K 11:53, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi KF, nice to see you're back. I just thought I'd tell you that no photos have been deleted. For a start, Chris K isn't an admin so couldn't have deleted them. Secondly, software issues mean that no-one can delete images at the moment. Angela 19:09, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Are these the ones you meant?

I went into the page history of Jacqueline Bisset etc and clicked on an earlier version, then clicked on the photo. Hope that helps. Let me know if it doesn't as I might have misunderstood what you wanted. Angela 19:58, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't figure it out. Perhaps it isn't something that has happened recently. It doesn't look like it's been deleted though as your edit to the image page still shows up in your contributions (
23:41, Feb 25, 2003 Image:A macdowell.jpg
) for example. If the image had been deleted by a sysop, the image description page would have been deleted too, and would automatically be removed from your contributions. This stays removed, even when a deleted page is recreated unless a sysop actually undeletes the original contributions. I just tried this out on a test page to check that this is the case. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Perhaps if you ask at the village pump a developer might be able to help you. Angela 20:45, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)


Hi there! I've noticed that you have reverted my edition on Farce. Some wikipedians want the definition of a term to be stated in the first paragraph in an article, and they strongly object the practice of inserting a subheading at the very beginning to fix the table of content. I had done this before and faced tonnes of objection from others.

I personally believe it is not a bad idea, but I think I should give you a "warning" that someone may not please with your solution. -wshun 01:16, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Kurt, did you receive permission to use the image in Anne Heche? If it's from the movie it's copyrighted.
Tualha 02:37, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

If a fan site uses copyrighted material without permission, they're violating the copyright. If someone else, such as Wikipedia, then copies it from that fan site, they're also violating the copyright. IANAL but I would think a screen capture from a copyrighted movie would also be copyrighted material, since the act of capturing the image doesn't involve any original creative work the way a painting of one of the scenes would, for example.

Ah, I just noticed the picture has changed. A book cover photograph would be copyrighted too, probably by the publisher, but I suspect the publisher would be much less litigious than the MPAA. I suspect we can safely leave that up until someone sends a cease-and-desist, if they ever do.

Tualha 03:11, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the very good on article on Fritz Speigl. I used to enjoy his fine articles in the Sunday Times. Pete 16:50, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Photo copyrights[edit]

Hey, KF, can you tell us where you got the pictures you used in Death, Deceit and Destiny Aboard the Orient Express? Are they public domain? RickK 02:45, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What about the concept of fair use? I, too, ANAL. I wish there was some clear policy, but I don't know what it is. Loved your comment about the free publicity.  :) RickK 01:27, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Fisherman's Friend: it was just a little something I cooked up early one morning (I discovered an old packet just as I was starting a cold) and I wasn't completely satisfied with it, hence the stub message. Phil 16:03, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

You were dead right: it should have been Super Strong Mint. As for Salmiak, well I got all the flavours from the official Web Site. Phil 16:58, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

I am cleaning up Crime fiction, as per a request in Cleanup. I noticed your answer to a user that the article cannot be reduced. Well, I am making an attempt at redistributing the content to other relevant articles. I am adding "See Also" clauses. As far as I am aware I have not deleted anything to a major extent.

As a major contribitor to the article, please provide me with a feedback. If you have any disagreement, please send me your comments. I feel extremely long articles generally repel users, and all your good work of writing it up will go wasted, in the absence of readership. I hope you concur. chance 11:25, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

I do hope that there won't be some fool who deletes the older versions of the crime fiction article or who demands their deletion.

I guess, now that the article has won some considerable publicity (and definitely a bit of acclaim), it wont be easy for a fool to demand deletion, and have his way, rest assured. Sense prevails here. :-)

BTW, The page was listed under Pages needing attention and not under Wikipedia:Cleanup. Sorry for the goof. It was a single objection, you were right. But, the single objection stayed there for the last 8 months. And, almost everybody now agrees that the article is very long....way too long. The page also threw up a warning that the article is 77KB long, and some browsers may experience difficulty in reading articles that are more than 32 KB long. Have mercy, mate!! :-) I would want everybody to read my article, even from a dumb-box.

I still believe that you would be one of the right judges to determine if the newer versions of the article are going way off the mark. Wikipedia is are right. But, a democracy where YOUR VIEWS as the major contributor will still be respected. So, please watch over the page and feel free to raise objections. chance 08:27, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Village pump[edit]

Hi Kurt, nimm's Brion bitte nicht übel wenn er manchmal ein bisschen ruppig ist. Er hat in den letzten Tagen als Hauptentwickler viel Stress mit unseren ständig fehleranfälligen Servern gehabt.

Die Sortierung der Link-Liste entspricht der Reihenfolge des Speicherns von Links in der Datenbank, die aufgrund der Programmierung mehr oder weniger zufällig ist. Als wir den Datenbank-Server umgezogen haben, wurden alle Daten neu eingelesen, wobei hier automatisch eine Alphabetisierung erfolgte, deshalb sind jetzt manche Links nicht mehr sichtbar. Das 500er Cutoff gibt's schon länger aus Performance-Gründen. Ich denke aber, dass wir hier früher oder später ein Paging bekommen werden (also Blättern auf mehreren Seiten).

Viele Grüße aus Berlin



Hmm, I've seen On The Road now, and I wish I hadn't. Same goes double for TheEpicJackKerouacBibliography. Do we have anyone qualified to tackle this stuff? I agree with you that more articles on literature is good, but I don't think we should encourage the addition of everything down to and including somebody's unedited term paper. Onebyone 04:08, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi KF. About Hegel - I just happened to notice that there were some broken double redirects, so decided to fix those - I didn't realise there was some debate about the name of the article itself (though I admit, "Georg Hegel" did seem a bit of an odd title to me), and I certainly didn't mean to give the impression I preferred one name over another.If you want to move the article back to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, I for one certainly won't object. Thanks for the kind words on the music articles :) All the best--Camembert

Oh, and now I see Snoyes has moved it back there, so everything is OK again :) --Camembert

As Wikipedia is worse than it was on September 18, 2003 (see above) I can only say good bye for now. <KF> 20:42, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed your question asking where the deletion policy on schools is. There isn't a policy as such though there is a discussion of a proposed policy at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/schools. Hope that helps. Angela. 00:59, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

European settlers[edit]

You wrote With "What links here" disabled, there is no way we could trace this origin. Well, there's no certain way, but I tried some devious means of my own to see:

  1. "What links here" is enabled on my personal (at home) wikipedia (with a database dump about two weeks old) and there were no links to European settlers
  2. a google for Wikipedia "European settlers" recovers quite a lot of pages, but (in their live incarnations) all seem not to have the phrase linkified there
  3. on the theory that the contributor of European settlers (User: might have made the link himself, I checked his contributions, but all he did was that article.

So there might well be no link at all. -- Finlay McWalter 16:40, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I found it: it's in History of New York. I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion of unlinking it, although perhaps the link markup should be to "European settlers in New York" or something? -- Finlay McWalter 16:44, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User page[edit]

KF, I'm a bit perpelexed by what exactly you're trying to communicate with your user page. It seems like it may be a joke; but if so, it's a joke that deliberately misleads, and it's very off-putting and anti-social at that. I'd like to courteously suggest that you change your user page to something more straightforward and less deceptive. -- Seth Ilys 21:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On deception
Hi, I can assure you that deception is the last thing on my mind. Considering the innumerable silly user pages here at Wikipedia I wouldn't have thought that anyone would single out mine. You can find everything you want to know about me at User:KF/Details, which is my old user page. I changed it to pay tribute to the many many instances when Wikipedia just didn't work -- it's actually one of the many error messages I got. And I got the idea from User:Finlay McWalter, but he may have more wit than little old me.
As this is Wikipedia territory, feel free to revert to my old user page, even if I find your basic idea of deception rather ridiculous. All the best, <KF> 23:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's not a huge issue; it just felt to me like you weren't being very friendly or honest. But I consider your user page to be your personal space, so I wouldn't think of changing or reverting it myself. What you put on it is, of course, your decision; we'll just agree to disagree. -- Seth Ilys 23:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello i also live in Vienna best


Fritz: OK, good point. I returned the topmost img to <div> format. The book cover one was, however, not displaying properly for me: overlapping with the bullet list below. (He also did a series of books on the Scouse dialect, which I must have around here somewhere; maybe they'll crop up at some point and I can include a few pertinent lines.) Cheers, Hajor 19:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


man, you must be joking. How can three letters (vfd) be misleading and irritating??? Vfd 19:47, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your Günther Nenning corrections, and the picture! --Nikai 10:03, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights[edit]

Hi, Kurt. I noticed that you submitted a significant number of images to articles without copyright information. Most of these are probably protected by copyright—Wikipedia can only use photos which are released under the GFDL, are public domain or are covered under fair use. Specifically I refer to Image:Sharon Stone.jpg and the images in The Banger Sisters article. There are probably more, but these are the only two I ran across. When submitting images, please verify their copyright status. If they are permissible for us to use, please include the pertinent information on the image page and in the article's Talk page in which they appear. Thanks! —Frecklefoot 15:55, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Terry Southern[edit]

Hey Kurt. Thank you for your kind compliments on the Terry Southern article, it was a pleasure to research and write. I was quite surprised to see Southern listed on the Wikipedia wanted pages, so since no-one had yet started an article, I took on the task. No worries about copyright violations, it's all my own original text. Earlier the same evening I wrote the Carole Bayer Sager article and some days before the Intrepid article, you can likely see some stylistic similarities between them.

Cheers, Patrick (Madmagic 10:54, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC))

Thanks for ...[edit]

... putting back the photo I once uploaded. Wikikiwi 19:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matura trip[edit]

Hans Hass mentions his "Matura trip", but Matura only talks about the diet of exams themselves. Am I correct in guessing that a "matura trip" is a holiday (or working&travelling) time taken after these examinations, but before a candidate goes to university? If so, I really need to write gap year, which is (roughly) the British equivalent of that (it's like a Grand Tour but with more lager) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:59, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hans Küng[edit]

Isn't removing the image rather a strict measure? I added the source and asserted that fair use is likely to apply here. What more can I do to meet your very high demands? All the best, <KF> 16:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

The demands are indeed high on copyrighted works. Wikipedia requires sufficient information to determine copyright ownership and permission or fair use. If we can not determine the owner of the picture we won't know enough about the situation to determine fair use. Fair use is a doctrine that requires enough knowledge of that use to make the claim. Can you give us a URL to the original image? From there we can determine if the owner has an expressed copyright and any restrictions or permission granted. - Tεxτurε 17:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC) . Reading your text makes me feel like a newbie being taught by an overambitious instructor. <KF> 17:15, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Reading your text makes me feel like an overambitious instructor. :) In this atmosphere that is a plus since it preempts the usual debates. My german is a little rusty but it appears that the site you reference has a copyright notice that allows use (not "fair use") under the condition that the original owner is cited. While we could modify Hans Küng to cite them, this is not compatible with GNU Free Documentation License since it grants no such restriction for using the image supplied from Wikipedia. When an image's copyright is not compatible with GFDL we cannot use it without specific permission.
The main problem against "fair use" is that we are using the entire copyrighted work (the image) and in its original use. Had we been using it as an example of the web site or university we could make a case for fair use. Had it been an article and we were taking one paragraph... or a film and we took one frame from the film... then we could claim fair use under the provision that it was not used in entirety. Instead, we are taking the image (with or without attribution) and using it in an identical capacity when compared to the original work.
You could correspond with the university and ask permission to use the image under GDFL. Thanks. - Tεxτurε 17:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't think I will because it isn't worth the time or effort -- neither mine nor theirs to answer my letter. Why? Because they actually beg others to use their material. After all, the pictures were uploaded by the guys responsible for Öffentlichkeitsarbeit (public relations). At you find the following text under "Copyright":
Das Copyright aller Texte, Bilder und für das Design liegt bei der Universität Tübingen (soweit nicht anders vermerkt). Es gilt nur die auf dem Universitätsserver des Zentrums für Datenverarbeitung Tübingen eingespielte Version.
Eine Weiterverwendung des Materials ist unter der Bedingung erwünscht, daß die Texte inhaltlich nicht verändert werden und ein entsprechender Quellenhinweis gegeben wird. Wir würden uns freuen, wenn Sie uns ein Belegexemplar an die Stelle für Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit senden würden.
The second paragraph, translated into English:
Making use of this material is desired/encouraged on condition that the texts are not altered and that the source is quoted. We would be delighted if you could send a copy to our Public Relations office.
On a more general note, let me say that I found the Küng-Robinson image particularly appropriate for an encyclopaedia because of its cross-referencing potential (lots of casual users looking for theologians and then asking themselves: And who is Mary Robinson?). Also, we could easily do without a picture of Küng: Anybody who, for whatever reason, wants to know what the guy looks like can start a Google image search. There, by the way, you will also find other images such as book covers that do not seem to constitute any problems for Wikipedia. <KF> 18:06, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I have changed my mind and actually done as requested. I have written an e-mail to the University of Tübingen, asking them if it is okay if Wikipedia uses that picture under GDFL. As I already pointed out, I find this procedure rather time-consuming. On the other hand, I'm really curious what (if?) they will answer. <KF> 19:34, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
One more postscript: I've just read the message below, which leaves me utterly confused:
Image:London Guildhall Corp of London.jpg
Image:London Mansion House Corp of London.jpg
These are all "used with permission" images and thus cannot be used by third parties, thus they are not in the spirit of the GNUFDL and hinder the redistribution of Wikipedia content. Jimbo Wales said we cannot use those type of images as a result. [1] --mav 21:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Quadragesimo Anno[edit]

Could you please write Quadragesimo Anno [2]? -- Kaihsu 15:15, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

Bulleted lists[edit]

Why is it no longer possible to have a gap (one empty line) in a bulleted list? (Or am I again wrong?) <KF> 20:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC) , posted yesterday, seems to be about the same thing. Sorry, I only found out a few minutes ago. But it's a real problem! <KF> 22:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Can you insert an example of the problem? - Bevo 22:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi KF, I removed the above from the village pump as it was time to archive things. Please post again with an example if it's still a problem. Angela. 01:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to mention that the edits you made to star (disambiguation) should not have been marked as minor edits.

Happy editing :)

Thue | talk 19:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem, it was an easy assumption to make :). Thue | talk 20:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Hi, Is there is a particular reason why you changed United Kingdom|Britain to Great Britain on paternoster? The text appears to me to be a national reference to the UK. Thanks.
Bobblewik 10:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, you may have missed the question I asked last night at the Village pump. As I tried to point out there, I do not see the point of stating that the UK and "Britain" are the same thing. Why on earth do you do that? Best wishes, <KF> 11:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes I did miss the bit on the Village Pump, which I see now. If you look at my talk page, you will see that I have been trying to respond to misunderstandings about the name of the country, nationality, culture and society. The issue comes up time and time again for British people. Here are some references (I quoted this from my talk page):

"Great Britain and Northern Ireland together make up the United Kingdom...The best thing that can be said for "British" is that it is not quite as misleading as "American", but it is nevertheless the established term for "relating to the UK".... So what about "Britain"? This is not a term with any legal meaning, but if you ask the English person in the street what country they live in surveys show that more will answer "Britain" than anything else. So it should probably be taken as a back-formation from "British", and therefore to mean "United Kingdom".
Used by cartographers to denote the biggest of the British Isles, containing most but not all of England, Wales and Scotland. The usage goes back to Roman times ("Britannia Major", distinguished from "Britannia Minor", ie Brittany). It also forms part of the official title of the United Kingdom, in which case it means the political entities of England, Scotland, Wales, including the offshore islands which belong to those countries. Because of the possible confusion between these two usages, "the British mainland" has been suggested as the least ambiguous term for the major island itself.
The informal name for the United Kingdom.
is the formal designation of the nationality of citizens of the United Kingdom, and of certain others.
The official name for the nation informally referred to as Britain. Often abbreviated to "the UK". The term "United Kingdom" only became the official title in 1801, when the Act of Ireland united Britain and Ireland. It had however been in use since 1707, when the Act of Union incorporated Scotland with England and Wales into the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Country name:
conventional long form: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
conventional short form: United Kingdom
abbreviation: UK
  • The British Embassy
"The United Kingdom is made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. ... Great Britain, on the other hand, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. The term ‘Britain' is used informally to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
  • The Prime Minister
"The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Great Britain, however, comprises only England, Scotland and Wales. Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles."
Thus casual references to the country, the government or the people should default to Britain or United Kingdom.

Trying to help.
Bobblewik 11:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks a lot, but I'm not convinced, for the following reasons:
(1) You might want, for whatever reason, to deliberately exclude Northern Ireland. For example, I have no information on the use of paternosters anywhere in Ireland, so what harm does it do to restrict what I'm saying to "Great Britain", i e that large island up there?
(2) Even if surveys show that the majority of people think, do, or feel something, they may still be mistaken. The whole thing seems to me almost as bad as the silly British reference to "America" when what is meant is the United States. (I have always found it very strange indeed that this is accepted as the correct answer in, say, The Weakest Link.) Let's not encourage people to use sloppy terminology! (I know this is the prescriptive rather than the descriptive approach, but why not?)
(3) Finally, Wikipedia is a world-wide phenomenon. You can't expect people from Chile, Romania or even Denmark to know that "Britain" and "United Kingdom" are, according to some people, the same thing. The uninitiated will guess that "Britain" is a somewhat smaller version of "Great Britain".
All the best to you, <KF> 11:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If I may answer your points in turn....

  • 1. If you want to deliberately exclude Northern Ireland that is fine, but that is the exceptional case. In most cases when people refer to a country, they are making a general comment about the territory, the nation, the nationality or the culture. If paternosters existed in only 70 of the 95(?) French departments, it is still true that paternosters exist in France. You would not say France (but not Corsica). There is no reason to make a general reference to a country refer merely to one island. There is a statement that paternosters are found in Europe. That is true even if there are only 10 paternosters in the whole of the area up to the Urals, yet nobody seems worried by the generalisation. We do not ask people to prove that they are found in all 25 EU countries and also all non-EU European countries.
  • 2. I agree that surveys do not prove something. I agree that America and United States are not equal terms. If somebody was to make an edit targetting that, I would not revert it.
  • 3. You make an important point that Wikipedia is international. I do not expect people from other countries to understand the terminology about Britain. I also agree that Britain does sound smaller (and perhaps less formal) than Great Britain. That is probably why mistakes are so common. The mistakes are understandable. I am not criticising anyone else for making a mistake.

So you make fair points. Thanks. Thanks
Bobblewik 12:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Instead of moving nonsensical templates across articles and removing

s, could we focus on the essential things

THAT is a personal attack, and there was nothing worthwhile in it, except for an attempt to make me look bad. It didn't work, by the way, I consider it a meaningful edit. Sorry if you didn't like it, but don't think it's going to make me change the way I edit. RickK 05:06, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Suburbia illustration[edit]

Illustration of a surburbian neighbourhood

Hey KF, I was just wondering if you could please tell me where you got this illustration from in the article 'suburbia'?

Just curious.

Thanks, Jonathan Ah Kit 04:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC).

Lodge novel in Pastiche[edit]

Hi KF,

In June 2003, you put a mention of "The British Museum Is Falling Down" by David Lodge as an example of Pastiche, without specifying what it is a pastiche of. Can you clarify?

Thanks very much, Opus33 01:01, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Opus,
It seems all the explanation is in the The British Museum Is Falling Down article:
Lodge's novel makes use of pastiche, incorporating various passages where both the motifs and the style of writing used by renowned authors are imitated. For instance, there is a Kafkaesque scene where Adam has to renew his reading room ticket. On the other hand, the final pages of the novel, reminiscent of Mrs Dalloway and other stream of consciousness novels, contain what is possibly one of the longest sentences ever written in the English language.
This use of different styles mirrors James Joyce's Ulysses, a work also about one single day. When Lodge's novel first came out quite a number of reviewers and critics, unable to get the joke and the literary allusions, actually found fault with Lodge for his apparent inhomogeneous writing.
In other words, the novel, as pointed out by Lodge in the Afterword, is a deliberate hodge-podge of different styles. The text is a pastiche in both the old and the new meaning of the word—it is not just a pastiche of one other work of literature. Rather, authors who are respectfully imitated are Kafka and the novelists who used the stream of consciousness technique.
All the best, |l'KF'l| 13:30, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, KF. I've adjusted pastiche a bit to take this into account; I hope it looks ok. Opus33 15:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jules Dassin question[edit]

In case you're not watching Talk:Jules Dassin, I'm letting you know that I've responded to your question there. - dcljr 01:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I replied to your query on my talk page. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:Nicole Kidman.jpg[edit]

<german> Hi KF, ich mach das mal in deutsch, sonst brech ich mir einen ab und werd am Ende doch nicht verstanden. Ich würde gern wissen wie du darauf kommst das das Bild von PD ist. Nach meinem verständnis ist das ein Recht deutlicher Copyright vermerk unten auf der Seite. Vielleicht kannst du mich ja mal aufklären. Benutzer:Guety12:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) </german>

Wie unschwer festzustellen ist, habe ich das Foto von Nicole Kidman Anfang Jänner 2003 geladen—das ist eine kleine Ewigkeit in Wikitime. Damals, als vieles in Bezug auf Copyright-Status von Bildmaterial noch ungeklärt oder noch gar nicht in den Blick der Wikipedianer gelangt war, las ich auf der besagten Website genau diesen Satz: "believed to be public domain". Ich kopierte ihn zum Bild (ohne dass ich damals dazu aufgefordert worden wäre).
Es ist natürlich leicht möglich, dass die Betreiber von actresspictures (oder wie immer das heißt) in mittlerweile fast zwei Jahren diesen Satz verändert, eliminiert, durch einen anderen ersetzt oder sonst was haben. Ich möchte wetten, dass auch dieses Bild von Kidman nicht mehr zu sehen ist.
Was bedeutet das für Wikipedia? Ich kann die Frage nicht beantworten. Kannst du das?
Liebe Grüße
KF 16:58, 12. Okt 2004 (CEST)
Kann ich leider nicht, aber inzwischen ist das Bild auch garnichtmehr auf der Seite. Ich werde in de. dran schreiben das die Bilder die aktuell auf der Seite sind nicht PD sind und via Waybach-Maschine (sollte ich da was finden, scheint im Moment nicht zu gehen) auf die alte Seite linken. Auf jeden Fall danke für die Antwort. guety 16:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Just wanted to tell you that you have done a great job with the Andersons. Must have been an awful lot of work. Alter Ego 17:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! <KF> 17:05, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

List of people by name: Fi[edit]

Yes, i would have added the same heading, and i'm encouraged by your success in my hope and belief that i've found the natural approach to this human-factors problem. Thanks for your effort. --Jerzy(t) 02:20, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

... Bi[edit]

Of your three recent edits to List of people by name: Bi, the first clearly added "Binyon, T.J. ...", and the other two seem only to have duplicated portions in frightening ways. (I say "frightening", bcz i've been there myself!) I reverted to the end-state of your first of the three, and believe that nothing was lost in discarding the other two, hoping that you wouldn't have expected the other two to contain anything of value, if you'd had occasion to examine them further. If i'm mistaken, and there's something besides duplication in them, i'd be glad to help recover it.

And don't be discouraged; stuff like that happens, but not often, even if you push the envelope sometimes, i guess in your case with multiple windows into the same page.
--Jerzy(t) 08:55, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

(Sorry to be slow in responding.) I have done the same, but sometimes now i have the presence of mind to view the page history, in another window, before hitting save again. If your first save got done but you never got the acknowledgement, you can recognize in the history that

  • you are the latest editor,
  • the time-stamp is close enough to rule out most of your previous ones, and
  • the summary matches the pane that is probably still displayed on the edit page.

But the whole thing is complicated by the server's attempts to cleverly resolve ed-conf's that don't change overlapping text, and by its tendency to get confused when an edit adds or removes headings. And i think the two can combine to cause duplication, AFAIK in response to either self- or normal ed-conf's. (Let's talk more if you're interested.) --Jerzy(t) 21:08, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

... Mu[edit]

I'm about to break up List of people by name: Mu, both to cure its length and to cure the length of its ToC. This draws attention to what i might call your defense of the distinction between Muller and Müller.

I am of course glad to see you again taking an interest in structuring the tree.

My meta-comment on it is that it is at odds with a well-established (tho admittedly undiscussed) policy stated at LoPbN#Alphabetizing these names. (No one has ever commented on it that i recall; i wrote it singlehandedly; doubtless at least a handful, and conceivably multitudes, have read it and are counting on it to continue; there has been no contrary approach put forward on LoPbN or Talk:List of people by name#Alphabetizing or Talk:List of people by name/Individual Entries.) IMO:

  • Implementation of your idea should get discussed on the talk page. (Whether or not the sections in question stay your way: if you were to reply "Have it your own way" and refuse to communicate further, i'd discuss it with myself there.)
  • The urgency of having the policy and every last page in sync is not enuf to justify even the quick change of reversing what you did on Mu.
  • Having the example you created at hand to point at is an advantage during discussion of the policy.
  • Hence what you did should stand at least while we find out how much discussion there will be.

My (non-meta-) comment on it is:

  • Of course you are right: they are two different names, and filing them separately serves to clarify that fact, and to encourage people to keep them straight. And yes, we're here to inform, but NPoV precludes our trying to change readers' agendas. Those who want to get solid info on the spelling would look not at LoPbN but at Müller (which could use another sentence or two) and individual bios and perhaps umlaut; it would be an unacceptably PoV goal, to educate for reform the many who think that umlauts are useful only for punching up the visual impression.
  • Whatever may be true in "real" articles as opposed to the access-tool quasi-articles of the LoPbN tree, accessibility is the core criterion in this. The implicit LoPbN policy i have been practicing is alphabetizing based on the 26-letter English version of the Roman alphabets. If it looks like a modified version of one of them or of a digraph of them, treat it identically to that one; the biggest need for an exception to that rule is that edh and thorn don't look much more like TH than anything else.
    • The rule you implicitly followed, that "any modified version any of the 26 comes between that letter and the next of the 26" is simple and intuitive, but incomplete. Where do modifications of the same letter (French accents on A, O, U) go relative to each other? And where do equivalents of digraphs go, e.g. where does ...B-AE-T... go? Would we want
      ...B-A-D-Z... / ...B-AE-T... / ...B-A-E-A..., or
      ...B-A-E-Z... / ...B-AE-T... / ...B-A-F-A..., or
      ...B-A-Z... / ...B-AE-T... / ...B-B-A...
    Unless we create a collating-order list of far more than 26 chars (the "Insert" list below every edit-page box looks to have about 150 additional chars and thus probably 75 more when case is ignored), occasional confusing areas of LoPbN are going to result. It being created, few will be willing to consult such a list even when they are editing, and i can't imagine an intuitive rule for ordering the something like 20 different variations of a single letter that the marks included in that list suggest. (I can begin to imagine: marks at the top before marks in the middle or at the bottom. But beyond that, the mind boggles.)
    • Your implicit rule is in conflict with what i take to be standard collating-sequence approaches, namely all non-ASCII characters follow rather than precede Z.

I urge you to propose a change in this year-plus-old, de facto policy, which is quite formal and explicit even tho it has undergone no Wikipedia:-name-space discussion (mainly since it needs in practice to appear on the article-space page, and having it on a WP: page seemed redundant) and had an explicit request for comments on it on the talk page (now in a topical-archive sub-page) starting six months ago. And of course please forgo any analogous further changes pending consensus.

--Jerzy (t) 18:49, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, which among its other virtues draws my attention to my previous note to you (re the VP(p) exchange) which i only vaguely recognize!

I'll discuss your pts (1) and (2) in more detail at LoPbN's talk page, making a lk to it from VP(p), but burden you here only with these briefest responses to those matters:
(1) Besides it being far from clear what "different names" even means (Are Prokofiev and Prokofjew the same or different names in your sense?), LoPbN is merely an access tool, not in itself a name authority, so that is a red herring. The question abt alph order in that tree is abt how we can facilitate access to bios via the list, a purpose that requires us to

  1. put names where readers, who've seen or heard them somewhere, will know to look for their best recollection of (or guess at) how to spell them, and
  2. therefore intentionally include wrong versions of some names -- namely in the cases where they won't stumble on the right one when they go where they expect their (wrong) one to be.

(2) Because of not just that, but also what i'll mention elsewhere, i'm pretty confident that, as far as alpha order is concerned, we must ignore the differences between u & ü, and ignore the connection that you and i (but not all readers) recognize between ü and (some but not all instances of) ue -- e.g, we don't want to promote

appearing too near each other.

Thanks for what you have done; what i intend is to

  • collect the previous discussion in one place,
  • add a refactoring, focused on LoPbN-tree use specifically,
  • respond to what's been said so far in light of my experience as the principal one trying to make sense out of the LoPbN structure and alpha issues for over a year,
  • solicit as much interest as is available,
  • see whether new policy emerges, and
  • carry on from there accordingly.

--Jerzy (t) 06:46, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Efficient learning method[edit]

Hi, I just came across your article on Efficient learning method and decided to write to you about it, not knowing that someone else had already done the same. Now half a year has passed, and I think we should do something about the article. I think it could/should be merged with some similar educational topic, but I wanted to contact you before being bold. What do you think? <KF> 00:36, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

It is a new topic, but it is also what every one think/want to achieve. So be free to do the edit. I have posted my idea in the talk page. And I do hope the article could become a qualified article.
And a suggestion, you could move some of your article(talk page) by making a page with this kind of link User_talk:KF/archieve 1 06:20, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hi KF,

i would like to know, under which license you got the picture of Image:Elisabeth.jpg - I guess it is public domain, but please specify on the image (because we also use it in the de.wikipedia)

Thx! -- da didi 11:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:Mia Farrow cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Mia Farrow cover.jpg[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for adding the image Image:Mia Farrow cover.jpg. It currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, and I was hoping that you would add one as untagged images may be deleted eventually. (You can use {{gfdl}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks! --David Iberri | Talk 19:14, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)



I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:33, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


I would like to nominate you for adminship. Would that be OK? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be glad if I can be of service. <KF> 21:01, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

More images[edit]

I just noticed that Image:Al Jolson Jazz Singer.JPG had no copyright/licencing or whatever note or tag. Yes, I too remember back before Wikipedia had image tags; I've been adding those to things I uploaded years ago, as I guess we are now supposed to. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 00:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Actually, the main purpose of the edit was to correct the heading level. Adding the &quot;s" was just something I did because I was editing the page anyway.

As far as being canonical, the project to correct external links endorses that form. Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Standard_appendices also just mentions "External links" without saying that the singular form should be used for articles with only one link. Maybe canonical is too strong a word, but I'd just rather everything was consistent.

I agree it's silly to worry too much, like I said, if I wasn't correcting the heading level anyway, I wouldn't have bothered. Shane King 01:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, Karl! Kurt![edit]

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ach! I've known more Karl's (and Carl's) than Kurts, I reckon. My apologies! Cheers, Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abuse of speedy deletion[edit]

"(2) The other day an anonymous user had vandalised a biography; then someone else, without looking at the page history, had the "patent nonsense" speedy-deleted" Could you point me to where this happened? Mr. Jones 11:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It has been dealt with and the page has been restored, but it happened here. All the best, <KF> 11:11, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Hello KF. Just so you know, "External links" is the standard title and part of the standard for the External links, so if in the future you could please not revert these necessary system-wide fixes to these headers, that would be great. Thanks. Marknen

KF, on what basis is using the heading "External links" for one link a mistake? "External Links" is a section and I believe using "External link" when there is one link would be just as senseless as using "Reference" on a paper that has one reference or "Footnote" on a page that has one footnote. While yes, technically one of anything should be refered to in the singular sense, when a convential heading name is used, plural is safer. Thats my take. Marknen 15:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could we pleeeeease stop this? I'm not going to justify my using the singular form if I'm talking about one of a kind as opposed to two or more. I believe I'm not the only person who does it that way. However, feel free to distribute your s-es all over the place. I can live with the fact and I'm not going to intervene now that I've realized, when you re-reverted the Robert Schlumberger page, that you are really serious about it. But you can't, and won't, convince me that you are right in this respect.
Let us look at your two messages again from a theoretical/philosophical point of view.
(1) ""External links" is the standard title." Says who? And where do they say so? But even if you could answer those two questions, I would challenge this assumption/assertion.
(2) You're talking about "necessary system-wide fixes to these headers". In what way are they "necessary"? In other words, what would happen if those headers were not fixed? (As always, no rhetorical questions.)
(3) What exactly is wrong about calling a footnote a footnote? Why do some of us have this urge to subsume it under the name of a category?
(4) Finally, and maybe most interestingly, you write that "plural is safer". Why do we want to be on the safe side in the first place? Is taking risks such an awful thing to do? Are we afraid of something?
I hope you'll think twice about continuing this debate with me. All the best, <KF> 16:20, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

You still have not dealt with the fundamental idea that when dealing with headers, it is sometimes acceptable to use plural forms even when something isn't strictly plural. You said "But you can't, and won't, convince me that you are right in this respect". Seeing how any authority I may be able to present will be rejected merely because it conflicts with your opinion, and also how you have stated that you are unwilling to open your mind to argumentation, then I might as well not continue this "debate" with you. Marknen 16:58, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Star (disambiguation)[edit]

Gruss Gott, Kurt!

Hab' ich wirklich die Pünkte rausgeschmissen? Nu, nur aus Âhnlichkeitensgründe in einer Liste, wahrscheinlich... Manchmal sieht man solche Sâtzen mit ";" oder "." Soll ich's wiedergutmachen?

Pedant17 11:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Victoria Cross Recipient I don't know squat about Norman Holbrook just a bit about his links with the township of Holbrook, NSW which is what I added. The main part of the Holbrook enrty was I would imagine transferred from the Victoia Cross Reference site [[3]] owned by Mike Chapman. I take your point however and will try to find out the details and add them. albatross2147

Rachelle Waterman[edit]

Please see the Featured Article Candidate nomination for the Rachelle Waterman article.

  1. If you approve of this article, write "Support" followed by your reasons.
  2. If you oppose this nomination, write "Object" followed by the reason for your objection.

Thank you for your contribution!


--DV 11:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

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...

  1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
  2. ...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 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

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:


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. -- Ram-Man 18:02, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Da hier schon sowieso teils Deutsch gesprochen/geschrieben wird:

Die Attacke bzw. Vorwurf von einer nicht ausreichenden Kooperation ist eine Anmaßung. Unterlasse bitte solche Lügen.

Quote= I understand why you keep blanking your talk page. //

You don't.

Ich gebe zu,dass dieses Fest nicht mehr stattfände falsch war. Jedoch ist meine zweite Begründung gerechtfertig,auch wenn ich den Satz zu eingängig geschrieben hatte. Die Zeit hat es nicht erlaubt. (weitere Informationen auf der Diskussionseite des Artikles) --ThomasK 14:38, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Otto Hermann Kahn.jpg, Image:Ovomaltine .JPG and Image:OvNB.jpg. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. 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, Edwinstearns 20:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

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 GNU Free Documentation License, {{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 imagesand I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 23:59, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

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 GNU Free Documentation License, {{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 imagesand I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:40, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Unverified images[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Paternoster.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, jengod 00:29, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

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 GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 03:37, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.


I know that I uploaded images without putting a tag on them, for the simple reason that there were no tags at the time. The more images you add here the longer it's going to take, especially with Wikipedia in read-only mode. <KF> 10:52, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
We certainly understand. But this is important. If they were worth the time to upload in the first place, it's worth the shorter time it takes to go back and tag them. Otherwise they're likely to be removed. (And if copyright means they need to be removed anyway, the sooner the better for Wikipedia's sake.) Thanks for your help and understanding. Below are a few more that need your attention. Thanks for your contributions! --Kbh3rd 05:59, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound like a broken record....[edit]

but here is another image of yours that needs a copyright tag: Image:Pulpit.JPG. Thanks. Evil MonkeyTalk 06:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

AIDS Kills Fags Dead[edit]

Per the discussion on WP:RfD (which I am leaving up in case anyone wants to comment), I have put this back in operation, added the reference to the prior discussion/voting to the talk page, along with a warning not to mess with it (a la CheeseDreams), and put a do-not-modify warning and a pointer to the talk page in the redirect itself. Noel (talk) 01:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

Actually, I have just decided to delete the listing - it's been up for several weeks, time to move on to other things. Noel (talk) 01:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sure, no problem, glad to help. Noel (talk) 01:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the encouraging word - yeah, I'm enjoying my time here on the Wikipedia. It's alot of fun writing articles, because I always learn something along the way. Have a good one, Spangineer 17:35, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Image tag[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image, and for not sending me a nasty note about this 935th untagged image reminder:

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 wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni 03:47, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

I have to add that Image:Aesculus hippocastanum.jpg needs a tag too. --[[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682 (talk)]] 00:28, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

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 GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:20, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.


Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

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 GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 20:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Schicksalstag and POV[edit]

Gunntach der Herr, I just noticed you have a link to Schicksalstag on your "future reference" list (which, by the looks of it, seems to be your to do list), along with a note that you're not exactly satisfied with the article's NPOV status. Since I'm the one who originally started the article, I'd be interested to hear what makes you think the article is so fundamentally POV...don't take this the wrong way, I am interested in improving the article, and I'm definitely willing to discuss :) -- Ferkelparade π 20:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ferkelparade (whatever this name is supposed to mean), you got me wrong on practically all counts and I'm glad that I can clarify things.
First of all, User:KF/For future reference is for my future reference and therefore does not contain any headers, explanations, or whatever. It is the exact opposite of a to do list—it's a list of articles other people have already written which I find interesting, useful, good, excellent, debatable, funny, eccentric—whatever. I'm not planning to add anything to any of the articles there unless they are stubs.
Secondly, my own writing has been met quite often with exactly that phrase: "How can this ever be NPOV". See, for example, Talk:Losers in literature (now renamed, but I don't remember the new title), Talk:Remake, or Seminal work, which I had expanded greatly and which was considered so POV that it was put on VfD and actually deleted. (You can find a salvaged copy farther down at User:KF/For future reference.) With my comment I was poking fun at Maveric149 et al., not commenting on Schicksalstag. You should let sleeping dogs lie: If an NPOV fanatic discovers your article that may very well be the end of it.
All the best, <KF> 21:23, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

image details[edit]

Can you provide details of the Image:Hester Prynne.jpg you uploaded. thanks. Jay 10:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:H Gorbach.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:H Gorbach.jpg. Please leave a note on that page about where you got the image because of copyright law. If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. --Ellmist 13:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Hadda Brooks.jpg[edit]

The same applies to Image:Hadda Brooks.jpg and Image:Hadda Brooks II.jpg. Thanks again. --Ellmist 14:17, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Apologies - I reverted your deletion of ETA etc, assuming it was an error, before reading the Talk page.

Maybe they should stay there pending creation of a Hoffmann page (but we'll need a cross-reference as users may be uncertain about the spelling) rossb 09:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No more[edit]

No more from me if Wikipedia remains unmanoeuvrable. <KF> 20:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


Just so you know, there's been vandalism reverted on your userpage a couple of times recently. You should start bragging! Smoddy | Talk 17:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Collingwood[edit]

Well, it was about a bum, who was simultaneously brought up in a wealthy family, played the cello, and then lost his fortune and gave "sexual favours" to pay off his debts. It had been deleted numerous times before, with essentially the same (or worse) content. Adam Bishop 21:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, thanks...that was added back in September, but I assume it must have been vandalism that was never caught. Adam Bishop 21:24, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Simon Wiesenthal.jpg[edit]

Hello. I was image tagging, when I came across Image:Simon Wiesenthal.jpg. I was unable to determine the copyright status, so I tagged it as "unverified". Could you add a proper image copyright tag to it? Pictures without tags will eventually be deleted. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

"film" -> "movie"[edit]

Dude, why is this necessary? Notably Teacher's Pet. Cburnett 23:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I assumed it was an isolated case deviating from an ancient convention here to call films films or movies in articles but always movie in titles, for the sake of uniformity and easier access to entries for users looking for a particular motion picture.
During all the years here at Wikipedia I had come across maybe three or four uses of film in the title and changed them accordingly to movie. I was quite surprised to see Ben Hur under film (immediately after my moving Teacher's Pet) and have been wondering since if I have missed out on a change of policy. <KF> 23:16, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I wish there was such a policy. Cburnett 23:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As I tried to point out above, there is. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Movie_titles. All the best, <KF> 23:32, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (movies) doesn't fully support what you linked. Cburnett 23:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So what? What do you want? Which of all the possible replies I might make now would give you the greatest amount of pleasure? I can't do more than actually point out a matter of policy to you which you said didn't exist. We all know, don't we, that Wikipedia is work in progress, and that unanimity is impossible to reach anywhere in this project. <KF> 23:44, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Margaret Oliphant Oliphant[edit]

Hi KF, I added books by Oliphant to the List of literary works with eponymous heroines. Do you happen to know why Oliphant appears twice? Wikikiwi 22:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No idea. It could be some sort of joke, but I see you have already asked a question on the talk page. Let's wait and see. Thanks for the contributions! All the best, <KF> 00:34, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


I'll work on finding where it's written, but, yes, I believe the manual of style indicates there should be an intro before the first header. If you want to suppress the TOC, I believe you can use __NOTOC__. Niteowlneils 15:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Best I've found so far is a bit indirect: Wikipedia:Guide_to_Layout#Introductory_material says "...because the first paragraph, above the first header, should be the introduction to the article.", but it also describes itself as "Wikipedia Guide to Layout is an annotated, working example of some of the basics of laying out an article." (emphasis added), with that sentence coming before the first header. Niteowlneils 16:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Much of Wikipedia's success has been attributed in writing to one "c", consensus, but I believe a less written-about, but equally important factor is a second "c", compromise. And goodness knows, there's plenty of precedent for people raising questions about Wikipedia's "rules". Niteowlneils 16:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical order and umlauts[edit]

(from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy))

I was just going to add Michael Häupl to the alphabetical list of people when I realized I had no idea about our policy here. As "ä" can be transcribed "ae" (and "ö" can be "oe" etc.), there are basically three options. Considering alphabetical lists in German, I have come across all of them, sometimes even within the same list (telephone directories). I'd like to avoid that kind of chaos in Wikipedia, so who can point me to a reference?

The three options (as I said, all taken from real life) are:

(1) ä regarded as a: Habicht, Hall, Haller, Haubner, Haunold, Häupl, Haupt, Häuser, Hausman, Hawelka.

(2) ä regarded as ae: Habicht, Häupl, Häuser, Hall, Haller, Haubner, Haunold, Haupt, Hausman, Hawelka.

(3) ä as a kind of addendum to a: Habicht, Hall, Haller, Haubner, Haunold, Haupt, Hausman, Hawelka, Häupl, Häuser.

With more and more German names being added to Wikipedia, I think this is something that should be discussed / clarified. <KF> 22:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the paradigm here that ä and a are two different letters (in German) just as different as a and b? If you accept that argument, the question reduces to where ä appears in the collating sequence. Assuming that there is no natural answer, we usually make an arbitrary decision in favor of the ordering in the character set that encodes the characters, which (I think) would put ä after all of the more normal letters (just putting 3 before a is an arbitrary decision. Morris 02:50, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)


I responded to you on Talk:Vienna Opera Ball Przepla 18:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


It is the Winnemucca cemetery. A little joke of mine that nobody ever got (notice what the sign in front of the cemetary says: "Welcome to Winnemucca , Proud of it!" - I always thought that was funny :). --mav 18:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical order and umlauts[edit]

I responded, late in the discussion, to your question on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) by linking List of people by name#Alphabetizing these names, which is on the page you were editing. --Jerzy(t) 08:36, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Love Among the Ruins[edit]

No problem, go nuts... let me know if I can help somehow. Katefan0 20:53, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of books set in New York City[edit]

Hey, I don't know where to put this, but I just wanted to thank you for adding to the list of books set in New York. It's a project that won't ever end, there are just too many new york books so thanks for making it a little more complete.Bremen


Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Year in the Merde, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Walter Junghans[edit]

Sorry about that; no, there's no policy or anything you were violating. I was wikifying the article at the same time you were, and got an edit conflict, and apparently didn't succeed in merging in all the changes you had made to my version. --Delirium 20:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Best PD Copyright Notice[edit]

I expect you've resolved the question of the best PD copyright notice long ago but, just in case you haven't, click on the pic in Pulpit for how I do it - Adrian Pingstone 18:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quiz images[edit]

Can you add image tags to your quiz images, Image:Qu1.jpg to Image:Qu14.jpg, please? Gdr 22:38, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Yes, I understand they are copies of other images. It would be nice if you could add a note to each image along the lines of "This image is a copy of another image from Wikipedia, used in User:KF's quiz" together with the original licence. The presence of {{GFDL}} or {{PD}} or whatever won't give away the answer. Gdr 13:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Thank you! Gdr 10:36, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Image:Capretto lozenge.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning The image Image:Capretto lozenge.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Earl Hines.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning The image Image:Earl Hines.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:53, May 31, 2005 (UTC)