User talk:Lou Sander/Archive 1

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

Hi, let me be the first to officially welcome to you to Wikipedia (I'm assuming you're the Lou Sander with whom I corresponded). Here's the "standard" greeting :-)

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers!

Oh, and a side-effect of having nearly 140K articles - many of them already exist, such as Liberty ship, which makes Liberty ships semi-redundant. You might want to compare the two - in general we tend to use the singular case in titles. The link to the plural from Newport News Shipbuilding was a typo, probably mine (sorry!). Anyway, when I'm ready to create a new article, I plug my proposed title into the search box, just to check on what's out there already - surprising what turns up sometimes! Stan 23:56 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Wikimedia.png

Contents

USS Rankin (AKA-103)

Hi, thanks for stopping by my talk page and leaving a nice thank you. I mentioned on my talk page as well that if you are interested in contributing to other such ship entries, you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Tolland Class

Hi Lou, I responed to your comments on my talk page again at User_talk:Malo#Tolland_Class_Again. In your last message you mentioned that you didn't know of other source for such info. Well let me tell of the ones I use. First there is DANFS which can be found at http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/ This site is very useful for finding info on US Navy ship, its only real problem is that the info therein only goes up to about 1969 or so. The other major source for info on US Navy ship I've found is Navsource http://www.navsource.org/ Unfortunately neither seems to have info on the Rankin class, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. I hope this helps. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 03:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:USSShadwellLSD15.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:USSShadwellLSD15.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ship tables

Hi Lou, there sure are tables ready for use. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Tables#Table_of_statistics_for_a_ship You will find that there are two widely used versions for individual ships, and another table used for just for classes. If you know that you want to put together many articles for an entire ship class, then I suggest that you create a template of sorts in your user space. I did this for a bunch of different classes, you can see some examples at User:Malo/Allen M. Sumner class destroyer page template, User:Malo/Tacoma class frigate template, or User:Malo/Bagley class destroyer page template. I made these pages just so that when I knew I was going to create a new article on a ship in that class, I could go to one of these pages in my userspace (hence they all start with "User:Malo/") click the edit button and copy it to the new article and work on it from there. I found this very help when working on a class of ships. Let me know what you think, or if you have any other questions. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mersey Ferry

Glad to be of service. There is a link to the Mersey Ferry on the page about the Wirral Peninsula. I have now added a reference to the song on the Mersey Ferry page. I think it wasn't there before because it was too obvious to local residents. JMcC 09:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Links, association football and caterpillars

I have added in some famous English golf links, including Hoylake on the Wirral. I have added a section describing cup football in the article on football (strictly it is Association football) which you know by its abbreviation of 'soccer'. However I have exhausted my knowledge about the Caterpillar Club. Why don't you go and do some research? JMcC 12:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the Caterpillar Club! JMcC 16:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ammunition Ships

Hi Lou, I think I can help you out. Ammunition ships are different the conventional cargo vessels in that they have specialized cargo handling equipment (ammunition hoists, etc.). Additionally their ammunition holds spaces are fitted with all of the safety features you would find in a magazine (deluge, etc.). Other than that, they are a cargo vessel in the truest sense.

Check out : http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/washops/jtca/take.html for information on the USN's newest Ammunition Ship.

Jmvolc 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Deluge ... Magazines in many Navies have sprinkler systems and the ability to flood the space in case there is a severe fire. Obviously, everything in the magazine (lights, swtches, etc.) is explosion proof.

There are also restrictions on what systems (electrical, fuel, water, etc.) that can enter a magazine.

Jmvolc 18:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

tolland class and other work

Wow Lou, you've really been contributing a lot lately. Good work. I will try and put together an article for the general class of Tolland ships. As for templates, when you notice them being used as say

{{Tolland class amphibious cargo ship}},

that means they can be accessed and edited from Template:Tolland class amphibious cargo ship.

As for the categories: you can for example edit Category:Tolland class amphibious cargo ships, although the only real thing I typically do with a new category is add it as a subcategory to an existing category. For example if you go and edit the Tolland class category you will see that it is already a subcategory of Category:United States Navy amphibious assault ships, which in itself is a subcategory of both Category:United States Navy ships and Category:Amphibious assault ships. I hope this helps answer your questions. Oh, I also just created a new category.. Category:Mount McKinley class command ships, as I noticed you seem to have started adding ships in that class. Keep up the good work. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just created a new category for the Adirondack class, Category:Adirondack class command ships. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 15:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The image you were looking for is called Image:IIH.png, I have already added it to the Wasatch article. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature of naval guns

I think I see what you mean. I did some research into it and it seems that there really isn't a standard means of naming such weapons. I remember seeing Talk:5-54 Mark 45 a few months back and the discussion there was of Category:Naval artillery and how there really is no such convention yet. Also there doesn't seem to be an article yet on the gun to which you were refering. Which I know makes creating and naming a new article that much more difficult. However i did seem to find a nice website that has a large write up on such naval weapons: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm I propose we start naming such guns but their "Mark" titles. For example, this would be either Mark 12 gun or Mark 12 naval artillery, and I hesistate to name them just Mark 12 because of the potential ambiguity between the guns and biblical references. What do you think? -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 17:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the topic. And I am not really certain as to which title/format is the best. However as a rule of thumb, the most common title it usually the best. I'm sorry but I probably can't be of much help to you on this topic. I'll be sure to look on articles in the future and try to avoid the typo of the period in 5"/.38, but as for a quick way of removing all such instances, I can't think of one. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

ASF National Championships

I would like to thank you on your recent contribution to these articles, as they are still a work in progress i look forward to any other changes you would be able to help me with, such as previous award winners, and teams, and shield history/storys. Also where abouts did you find those photos of the shields? afew of them are quite old photos, just wondering.

cheers mate --Dan027 12:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

All rounders

Hi! I think the reason is probably quite simple - batting and bowling are very different skills! Batsmen spend most of their time practicing and training for batting (and perhaps some of them have no great urge to be bowlers), while bowlers spend most of their time training for bowling. I suppose, particularly in the early years, it's simply a matter of talent and inclination. I suspect there are similar reasons why, in baseball, hitters become hitters and pitchers become pitchers. Are there examples of pitchers who started as hitters, and vice versa? There are certainly fine specialist batsmen who started as bowlers. There are also bowlers who are good batsmen, and batsmen who are good bowlers, and just a few genuine all-rounders. But then there are always people who, by being sickeningly talented in every sphere, become exceptions to every rule! I assure you that the sight of a non-batsman (the parlance is a "tail-ender") trying desperately to cobble together a score while being bamboozled by the bowler is one of the charms of the game! Hope this helps answer the question. Best regards, RobertGtalk 16:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

re: "POV Pushing"

Hi... I'm sorry if my edit summary seemed too brusque, it wasn't my intention to offend. I personally agree that Coulter's remarks about the 9/11 widows were, like almost everything else she says, outrageous beyond the pale. However, we can't engage in original research here. I explained my changes on the article's talk page.

The section beginning "Outrageous remarks" is certainly POV, as it expresses an editorial opinion. This is not encyclopedic. You can rest assured I will exhibit equal zeal in removing pro-Coulter editorial opinions, and have done so many times in the past. If Coulter's remarks are outrageous, we must find a source which has said that, and cite that source. Furthermore, going to lengths to point out discrepancies between reality and what Coulter says is original research by any definition of the term. Pointing out that Coulter fails to make a convincing case is also original research.

I hope this puts your mind at ease. If you're still concerned, please reply at my talk page or on the article talk page. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see you were referring to my changes to Jersey Girls. I thought you were referring to my similar changes to Ann Coulter, which had very similar material which I also removed. In that case, no, I did not comment on the talk page; sorry. I commented on the talk page for Ann Coulter, and my remarks can be seen there. Kasreyn 22:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Dozens of Edits

In your watchlist, you should see two links next to each watched article, "diff" and "hist". If you click on diff, then you'll only see the last change. If you click on hist, though, you'll see a list of the last 50 changes. Note that on the history page, there are two radio buttons (the circles that fill with a dot when clicked). The button on the left is "before" and the button on the right is "after", so when you click on "compare selected versions," you can see ALL the changes between any two edits of your choice. You're correct that some people do try to "hide" bad edits, but using the compare feature on the history page, it's always possible to catch them. Finally, if you REALLY want to get high-tech, you could consider something likeWikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups, which you can install on your browser. --M@rēino 14:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

civil rights - coulter

Please fix the civil rights opening. I don't want to get zotted for reverting. A testy anon thinks Martin Luther King is being demeaned...84.146.231.122

Ann Coulter poll

Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter edit

as if i'm supposed to know what was discussed on the talk page before i do an edit...right?

Yes, you have that right. I also find that checking the Talk page is an excellent habit, especially since people often leave uncited facts there which we, as editors of that page, could have have some sources for. Thanks for all your good work. --Duncan 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page. In terms of who is going to monitor Ann to see if she resolves it, I would imagine that googling for "Ann Coulter" and Florida registration would pull up any news story about it. In terms of whether it's newsworthy I'd say that it made the news. Probably lots of things make the news about her, but this issue was mentioned by at least a few people so it seems like it makes the cut to me. As to the question about what the article does or doesn't say. If you can replace part of the paragraph with an exact quote, to me, that would be better. Paraphrasing is always subject to spin. Wjhonson 18:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Slurs

Hey, check this out: WP:NOT. Generally, Wikipedia is not censored for content. So it's not common to omit or censor racial or sexual slurs or other profanity in articles. You bring up some valid concerns, but Wikipedia doesn't worry about stuff like that. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, but that's the way it is... Psycho Master (Karwynn) 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Different kind of "bibliography".

For more explanation, see here. Hope this helps. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure about the quotations thing. I think I've fixed the notes, see Talk:Ann Coulter. — getcrunk what?! 16:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bombing the Times

Hello Lou, Thanks very much for your compliment and comments on my contribution to the Coulter article. You're right, a cite for the Times article she was discussing would be useful. Also, go ahead and move the bombing blurb to where you see fit. I admire your respect for fairness. Wv235 20:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk page slurs

Hey, would you have any objection to me removing the examples of swear words and slurs you provided me with on my talk page here? They're... aesthetically deficient :-( And I didn't want to remove them without your permission. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 15:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Achiving

Anyone can archive a page. It's not very hard. See WP:ARCHIVE for more info on how to do it. As to the quotation discussion... it is still there in the archive, so you can see it there. If it was a completed discussion, it should probably stay there. But if it wasn't finished, feel free to bring it back from the archive. Or even more simple, just start a brand new thread on the page. That way we don't clutter up the talk page with too many completed discussions. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, FYI, there are threads about the quotations in almost every one of her 10 archives. It's an ongoing battle. The most recent real thread is located Here. Hope this helps. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution: "is believed to" vs. "may"

I'm an open-minded skeptic of speciation claims. I'd be honored if you could provide me a citation or two about speciation having been observed in the lab. Folks I argue with claim that it hasn't. Lou Sander 16:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (Former 10-year public library trustee)


Sure, our article on Speciation has a few, though I will admit it is a bit bare. More are found [1], [2] and [3]. Nowimnthing 20:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC) copied to 2 talk pages


Actually the better researched creationists that I have talked to don't really have a problem with speciation per se. It is more of the evolution of one 'kind' to another. What that 'kind' is is a bit more fuzzy getting into various interpretations of the bible. Some actually depend on fast speciation for support of young earth/flood theories, see [4]. Nowimnthing 23:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Article for Deletion

Yep, as you've noticed, "notablity" isn't policy... a fact that is indeed surprising to many newer AfD voters, since it's brought up so often at AfD. (And any attempt to got notablity explicitly mentioned as part of the deletion policy is probably doomed to fail, for reasons that escape me but I guess mostly hinge on it being an overly subjective policy.) So when somone says material should be deleted (or at least merged) due to notability, do we ignore them? No. Why? Several reasons:

  • Wikipedia runs on consensus for the most part, and if there is consensus that something shouldn't be in the encyclopedia -- even for a non-policy reason like "notability" -- then that something shouldn't be here.
  • Notablity is explicitly hinted at in several policies. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, under "Problem articles with alternatives to deletion", lists "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article". The recommended solution is to merge. In this case, I thought there wasn't enough encyclopedic material in Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory to merit a merge. The next bullet point will discuss that a little more.
  • Lack of "notability" very, very often corresponds with violations of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No Original Research. I think this is a serious problem with your article too, in fact, and I really would ask you to read those two policies carefully. I believe the following portion of your article is unverifiable Original Research:
The imagine, perhaps and might, italicized by Coulter for emphasis, refer to what she believes is the speculative, mythical, "made-up-story" nature of the theory that species evolved through random mutation and selection.
The "fundamentalist Christian nut" material refers to what she believes is the tendency of evolutionists (to her, an intolerant religious cult) to respond to criticism by name-calling. Her book presents examples of that tendency.

This is, I think, your description or interpretation of what Coulter means, right? Offering original explanations is outside of Wikipedia's scope. We should only be presenting secondary sources' interpretations. And there's where notability raises its head agan: there are no reliable secondary sources discussing this concept. All we have to go on is the original source material, which cannot offer critical analysis or discussion of itself. I admit your current interpretations are pretty straightforward, but a topic with no secondary sources leaves no room for expansion other than more violations of WP:OR. So that's what I really mean by notability: Are there reliable secondary sources discussing the subject matter that the article could be based on?

You also asked me "do administrators have plenary power that transcends the written rules?" Everybody has such power; Wikipedia runs on common sense and an attempt to set down descriptive, rather than perscriptive rules, not on a formal system of codified law. WP:IAR is a pale attempt at codifying this. And note that although I'm an administrator, I haven't done anything here that any user couldn't have done. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding my original research suspicions: although there is still an interpretive element in summarizing pages worth of material, I admit it is minimal and that it is a commonplace practice to do so. I didn't suspect that Coulter actually spent time syntactically analyzing her rather clear argument; forgive me. I still claim that a topic is not worth encyclopedic coverage unless if secondary sources have discussed it; in the context of a concept like this, the book is a primary source, I think. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Backatcha

Thanks for the compliment Lou. shift6 17:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

POKE 54296, 17

I think you might have published a lame little C-64 sprite-animation thing I sent into RUN sometime way back in the 20th century. If it wasn't your column or magazine, I certainly remember your name anyway. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I looked it up! I misremembered! I meant "POKE 54276, 17". Oh well, that's pretty close considering I haven't owned a Commodore in 17 years. No, I'm not an international terrorist, last I checked -- scratch one more off your list! Nor did getting published there do much for me other than falsely buoying my teen hopes that I could somehow make a living off that sort of thing and avoid having to get any sort of real job as my parents for some odd reason desired. I guess I've been successful by some measures, but I feel obligated to note that becoming a Wikipedia admin is generally more a measure of unhealthy addictive obsession than any real accomplishment. ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My eyes are bleeding

Thanks for your note. My eyes were bleeding after reading the last two sentences; really I almost had an anurism. My brother likes to do that to me all the time. Haven't had a chance to get to that link you offered, but I will soon. School work is consuming my summer currently, though, so I should say "hopefully soon". I wanted to ask your opinion on this: WP:QUOTE. I'm hoping it might help for the notion of quote sections in articles (you've had some input on Coulter's quotes). Stanselmdoc 18:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

gasket problem

I blew a gasket Lou, re the Coulter article. You have been very patient, but the leftists are not playing by their own rules. Good luck. 84.146.202.187

Please comment on plagiarism

Thanks. Here you go. ____G_o_o_d____

Coulter

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory and done. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 14:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant Raccoon redirect.

I've started the deletion process here - as I understand it this should go pretty quickly. Artw 16:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Cunt

Hm, didn't realize it had been there long; I apologize for making it a minor edit. I thought it was a bit silly and unencyclopedic, so I decided to be bold. I can't imagine, even if were a widespread thing, that there would be a secondary source giving some sort of evidence of it. To me it read like someone speaking of one of their pet turn-ons and assume they're universal (False consensus effect). Hopefully no one opposes the edit; if they do, I'll certainly be more up-front about my position. Thanks, though --Tothebarricades 21:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Average and over

I have replied at my talk page. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your nice words. I am a student of political sciences at Palacký University in Olomouc, African American history is one of my hobbies. Unfortunately there is still a lot of racism in our country. By the way, I would like to buy John Hope Franklin's From Slavery to Freedom in future. I have read only positive reviews about this work. -- Darwinek 21:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's a great proposition from you. Thank you very much, it would be excellent and I would very appreciate it.


  • My address is:
    • Name: Adam Krumnikl
    • Street: Bezručova 38
    • City: Český Těšín
    • ZIP: 73701
    • Country: Czech Republic

Thank you very much. I am very grateful to you. - Darwinek 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Surface mail

I will certainly wait for that book. - Darwinek 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Giant Raccoon

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/July 2006#Giant raccoon .E2.86.92 Raccoon. The redirect was nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus. Personally, I don't see much merit to keeping it, but consensus is needed for a deletion nomination to be successful. You can always re-nominate it, but you would need to provide rationale that overcomes the previous keep votes for it to be successful. -- JLaTondre 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yo

Just wanted to say hi, and that while I might disagree with you on a lot of things, I enjoy the spirited conversations on Coulter. That's all, hope we're still cool :) --kizzle 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, hope your userpage revisions aren't directed towards me! :) --kizzle 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:CaterpillarClubPin.jpg

I was looking at speedy deletions and I noticed your message on Image:CaterpillarClubPin.jpg. Based on your message on the talk page, I have replaced the speedy deletion notice with the correct tag. Please consider, in support of this tag, adding some more information to the image description page. For example, who is the author of the photo? In what manner did they release all rights to the image (eg, personal correspondance, notice on their website, etc)? If you yourself are the creator of the image, you may want to consider replacing the tag with {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. BigDT 12:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Coulter "Biography"

I think there's been so much discussion on the talk page lately that I must have missed that part. Anyway, I still think that 'biography' is a bit better for that section. When I think of 'early life', I think of birth through high school. College and law school are a bit later than that, more of the transition between your early life and your career. Dr. Cash 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thirteenth ring of the clock

You used this phrase in Talk:Negro. It seems very apt, but I hadn't heard it before. Is it some sort of Romanian proverb, or ???? Lou Sander 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's American or British; I'm American, despite my strong interest in Romanian topics. I've known this one since childhood; I think it's approximately late 19th century, though I couldn't say whose. - Jmabel | Talk 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Parcequilfaut

Hi Lou! Thanks for your message.

It is supposed to have that "'Cause it's there" sort of vibe. It got started when we went through the unrepentant-nerdiness phase of translating movies in real time into (usually execrable) French...we were trying to figure out how to translate Johnny Depp's line in "Sleepy Hollow" -- "No, no, I mustn't...you do it." We decided "I mustn't" was "Il faut que non", and kept playing with the concept, until "Parce qu'il faut" became the no-comeback response, like "Because I said so."

Anyway, thanks for being the first to leave me a Wiki message! Have a good one!

Order of the Coif

Thanks for your message. I agree; it's somewhat confusing. Students are elected to the Order of the Coif just before, at, or just after graduation, depending on the law school (my school notified me by letter a few weeks after graduation). Membership is based on law school grades but you can't actually become a member until you graduate. I will clarify the article. CoramVobis 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree that it should be de-stubified. Done. And a couple other updates. CoramVobis 04:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Thanks for the message, Mr Sander, I totally agree with you. However, I try to do what I can, when I can, to at least keep up the appearance of NPOV. :-) By the way, I just read your user page...great stuff...I actually laughed out loud (except for the part about your wayward son -- I'd convey my sympathies, but somehow, I don't think you need them -- so I'll just pass along my best wiki-wishes and good thoughts).--WilliamThweatt 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

email

an e-mail was sent to your address in search for this elusive and thought-provoking picture. Stanselmdoc 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Skins

Why: MediaWiki skins are (from what I can determine) mostly in existance because of the various redesigns that MediaWiki (the name of the software that runs Wikimedia) has gone through. This allows people who got used to the old styles to go back to those styles wherever they go. For example: standard (also called 'classic') is bare bones and not very complicated, and many old timers prefer to use it as it used to be the default. However, monobook is now the default and almost everyone uses it.

What: A skin is basically a block of HTML for generating a page, and some CSS for formatting it (and sometimes Javascript for tools, such as the edit macros).

How: A wiki is designed for editability, so, users are allowed to edit the CSS and Javascript associated with their skin choice (monobook in 99.99% of cases). There are special pages made for this, for example mine are at: User:Splarka/monobook.js and User:Splarka/monobook.css. These are protected from editing except by admin and the user they exist for. You can see more user styles help at: m:Help:User style.

But basically: If you want to have underlines printed, you can put the @media print line from VP/T into your User:Lou_Sander/monobook.css and it should work (and should not affect any other aspect of monobook). You may have to clear your cache though, after each edit to that page.

 @media print {
    a, a.external, a.new, a.stub {
        color: blue ! important;
        text-decoration: underline ! important;
    }
}

This should make all links underlined and blue, whether they are internal, external, red (new), stubs, visited or unvisited. If you'd like to make all these different types of links different colors, let me know (but test that the above works first). Cheers. --Splarka (rant) 23:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:USS Troilus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:USS Troilus.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job on Ann Coulter

Your additions of the examples of so-called plagiarism were FAN-TAS-TIC! Nothing like having the truth out there for people to decide for themselves.  :-) Lawyer2b 17:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen to that. But he put those up a while ago. Lawyer, keep up with the times, bro! ;) --kizzle 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Amphibious Ship Edits

Thanks. I've been trying to improve some of the US Army division articles. I'm the opposite: I'd like to work on ship articles, but my knowledge of them is limited. As time goes on, I'll probably be adding more links in ship articles to ground units, but it's a sloooow process. Are you a member of the WikiProject Military history? With your interest in naval ships, you could be quite an asset; we are always looking for people knowledgeable about the military to join. We even have a maritime warfare history task force. How long were you in the navy? Sorry if I don't respond quickly; late here and bedtime for me as soon as I finish typing this.--Nobunaga24 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Danger of addiction??!! With all the ship articles you've created, I think the addiction is already there :-). My time in Pittsbugh was brief - perhaps a day, although I've spent some time in central PA. The officer's letter is interesting, but maybe a typed transcript would help - was hard to read. Japan's view of World War II is perplexing. Living here, I can attest to the fact that many Japanese even now have a very limited view of the war. Everything comes down to the horrible, horrible atomic bombings - you would think that the US dropped it unprovoked. They acknowledge, occasionally, that Japan did some "bad things," but then (and this has happened many times) go back to the subject Hiroshima/Nagasaki. What is even stranger, I have never brought up the subject of WWII - they always do.--Nobunaga24 02:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Message

I see there is already a warning message in her Talk page. As of now, I have not directly run into problems with her, so I prefer to AGF until proven otherwise. Thanks, Crum375 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may ask, what do you mean by "my eyes have recently been opened, however, and now I no longer wonder"? Crum375 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Ann Coulter

You may be interested in this article. It is really pretty bad and I'm considering nominating it for deletion. I think it is redundant to the material in her bio and only serves as an attack article. I'd be curious about your thoughts of whether this article is necessary. Thanks. -- Malber (talkcontribs) 20:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Tranmere/Viking

It just seems a bit of an odd claim. Firstly, the name 'Tranmere' is of Viking origin; it is not 'Viking'. Secondly, has the author of this claim checked the origin of every single place name in the English football league....? --Robdurbar 14:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

e.g. Sunderland (home of Sunderland F.C.. --Robdurbar 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've kept the etymology information, and moved it to the history section, but divorced it from the link to the football team (which, after all, only takes it name from the place anyway). --Robdurbar 14:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done. Yet another example of U.S./U.K. cooperation for the betterment of mankind! Lou Sander 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
hmmm, is that sarcastic or not? can never tell on the web. --Robdurbar 14:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, the m² is meant to stand for 'square miles' - should be clearer I guess! Robdurbar 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikimeet?

I'm thinking of organizing a Wikimeet in Pittsburgh. I invite you to discuss this at Wikipedia:Meetup/Pittsburgh, since it appears that you live in the Pittsburgh area. (If for any reason you don't want to participate, simply ignore this message.) Scobell302 03:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayapura

Hi, I'm delighted to see that you have a genuine interest. As I would assume you are aware this was MacArthur's staging post for his big push through Asia. Of course the A-bomb meant the big push never happen, and we can only speculate whether Mr Ford & Rockefeller shared such info with their Foundations that were so fast to fly members of the Jakarta elite to the US in the months after the war; certainly the corporations have hundreds of billions of reasons to have the US public forget about West Papua. As for info about the specific bases, I have Papuan friends who knew a number of these themselves. I would hope to see at least a partial listing of Army, Navy, and Air bases would be in order, which I think would be better. But I think a single listing does seem to give an errorenous impression without adding substance to the article.211.30.222.139 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Peanut Gallery

Thank you for correcting the article with "the better wording". You were right. The unfortunate term "Nigger Heaven", can be "googled" or searched on MSN or Yahoo, and can be sourced by yourself if you so choose to do so. Are being a stickler for protocol, or have you truly never heard of the expression? It's honestly not important enough for me to bother with it. Be my guest one way or the other. Dr. Dan 03:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Jayapura, Papua

Thanks for your comments on my talk page, you'll find my response there as well. BTW, seeing as how you have an interest in the area I should have mentioned that the place I spend most time at in PNG is within view of Jayapura, although I haven't yet been there myself. Old people in villages along the coast on the PNG side of the border have told me they remember seeing the ships of Macarthur's fleet covering the horizon. Must have been a pretty impressive sight! Dougg 01:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburgh meetup page

I agree that refactoring needs to be done, but I can't decide on how to do that at this time. I do recommend, however, that discussion go on the talk page while anything that has been finalized go on the front page. Scobell302 21:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and refactored the front page. I've moved most of the front page comments to the top of the talk page, and left a note on the front page that discussion should go on the talk page and that the front page should only be used when something is finalized. Scobell302 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Disclaimer on Userpage

I really like the disclaimer on your userpage; it is nice to see that you acknowledge the vandals' efforts. For someone who is so experienced and has achieved excellence in virtually every field, perhaps you could explain what it is that you believe the Wikipedia project to be about. A free, accessible, accurate encyclopedia for the masses, or an excuse to remind people that you are "probably older...smarter...tougher...and quite a bit more experienced" than the rest of us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.118.122 (talkcontribs)

Lou, could you tone down your user page? Some people, who are very insecure regarding their own accomplishments, are apparently threatened by it.  ;-) Lawyer2b 22:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I keep that stuff in there as a nostril magnet. Or maybe it's another opening... FOR THE NOSTRILS: If you like to read user pages, maybe you can tell us which fact in the basketball paragraph is incorrect. Lou Sander 00:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
For Lawyer2b: I put a second warning at the end of the user page. Lou Sander 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a response. If you believe in Wikipedia the encyclopedia, why don't you simply put a link to your personal website rather than pasting most of its contents on your userpage. I've seen the site, if my name was Lou Sander I'd be very flattered.

Oh, and Lawyer2b, don't even get me started on your user name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.118.122 (talkcontribs)

I know EXACTLY what you mean. I haven't known whether the 2b should have been "Lawyertobe" or perhaps "Lawyer2bornot2b", or "LawyerJr.2b" (in case my father was a lawyer, but in that case it might just as well be "LawyerII,2b" or "LawyerTwo2b". (sigh) Decisions, decisions. Lawyer2b 00:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Lawyer, don't get him started! From his concise and self-effacing user talk page, I see most people are trying to get him STOPPED!! Lou Sander 00:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The naughty word

I enjoy the occasional fell swoop: it keeps life interesting, although someone will surely criticize me for it in about 10 minutes. Joyous! | Talk 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That word again. You know, the "c" word....

If you want to do a complete reversion of the article to the previous version, go to the history page and click on the version you want to revert to. An edit window will open up: just hit "save." You'll get a warning message that cautions you about editing a prior version of the article, but that's ok. It's what you want to do. I've looked over MilitaryTarget's other edits, and it appears that (s)he's a pretty good editor, especially in cleaning up convoluted grammar. You might drop MT a message asking him to discuss the changes on the talk pages. Joyous! | Talk 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

ChrisGriswold's meetup idea

ChrisGriswold says that it's better to "advertise" the Pittsburgh meetup via WikiProject Pittsburgh and e-Mail. What do you think of this idea? Scobell302 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Ann Coulter protection

I've reverted it to the revision before the vandalism. Hope that helps (See WP:REVERT if you're unsure how to revert pages). -- Steel 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Ann Coulter on Evolution

Thanks for your polite note, Lou.  :) I'm really not against the removal of the paragraph, assuming it is transferred to the article on Godless. I just feel that at least a sentence noting Coulter's pro-ID views should remain in the article. It doesn't have to be anything large; "In her book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Coulter states her position in favor of Intelligent Design in the Creation-evolution controversy." Then the reader can check the article on her book if they want to know more on her specific views. How's that sound? Kasreyn 19:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Navy ship disambiguations

Sure, send me the list and I'll take a look: jagged @ zotzed.net

I tend to get sidetracked down other disambiguations anyway and I will see if I can take them on. --- Jagged 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for Adminship

-- Malber (talkcontribs) 12:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Though I respect your decision, I can't say I'm not a little dissapointed. (BTW, it's been rumored that adminship is no big deal.) Wikipedia really needs more...ahem...mature admins. Let me know when you're ready and I'll be happy to renominate you. I personally put more credence in non-self-noms (though not all do). —Malber (talkcontribs) 17:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Ed Poor is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 13:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RTFQ

Sorry about redirecting RTFQ without informing you. I actually have the content in a text editor right now, I was working on incorporating it into the RTFM article, so I didn't intend to "kill the content", I know you put a lot of work into it. I've restored it and suggested a merge. Regards, Canley 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Negro Almanac"

Hello Mr. Lou. Have you sent that book yet ? Thank you. - Darwinek 10:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will let you know when I will get it. - Darwinek 09:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Lou. I took that book from local post office today. Thank you very much for sending it! I greatly appreciate that! The Negro Almanac seems quite interesting and is also a valuable reference, although outdated in some cases. Maybe I will use it as a reference in Wikipedia in future. Again, thank you! - Darwinek 22:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Kudos on having an interesting userpage. So many are dull, mine included, I'm afraid. Two things: 1) I love Rusted Root and used to listen to them in ciollege when pulling all-nighters and 2) I have a working edit counter located at the top of my userpage if you want to steal it. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 20:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Coulter consensus

I support removing it. Raphael1 hasn't responded on the talk page and even those who have commented in it haven't made any real arguments about keeping it, rather they argue about semantics over the request. Silly really.... Kyaa the Catlord 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for coming back with some reasonable edits. I was feeling lonely. :) Kyaa the Catlord 23:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I'd certaintly be very glad, if you'd share you constructive ideas with me. My last edit on the page has been removed, because Kyaa the Catlord seems to consider it to be a minority POV, which I regard difficult to verify at best. Raphael1 17:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Image:Hallicrafters SX-28A Super Skyrider.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hallicrafters SX-28A Super Skyrider.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Resetting the Pittsburgh meetup page

After having read other meetup pages like NYC, Miami, and Philadelphia, I now think that it would be better to reset the Pittsburgh meetup page to a format similar to the three aforementioned meetup pages. (I've been VERY, VERY busy with school work lately, so I haven't thought about this topic for quite a while now; however, I'm currently considering Spring 2007 for the first Pittsburgh meetup.) Scobell302 15:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:William G. Tifft could use some contributions

Hello Lou. Since you previously edited this Talk page I'm assuming you may have views. I'm trying to get an opinion from each person who previously submitted to Talk or has edited the article. See the bottom of Talk:William G. Tifft for my attempt to poll the recent editors. User:Iantresman and User:ScienceApologist have agreed to hold off on editing for a week so the remaining editors can arrive at a consensus. I hope I am correct in believing that in a week's time, the other editors can coordinate their views. EdJohnston 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Lou. I'm hoping that you and I and User:Dr. Submillimeter will be able to agree on a common draft of the Tifft article. As I look over the present article and the data in Redshift quantization, I am starting to like the most recent version of the article, the one whose main content was set by User:ScienceApologist's last edit on December 7. The changes since then (including one by you) have been basically grammatical. Can you tell me if you would like to see the present article substantially changed? More references, for instance? I wrote to Dr. Submm to see if he wanted to do a rewrite, but have not heard back yet. If you are basically OK with what's there now, the only other thing to settle is ground rules for expanding the article, since we can't freeze it forever in the present form. That could be the subject of a later post. Let me know what you think. EdJohnston 19:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Lou, please take a look at the new draft of the Tifft article written by User:Dr. Submillimeter. It is on my Talk page at the bottom of the 'Tifft' section [5]. Get back to me when you can, since we have already used up the week of 'truce' granted by Ian and SA. EdJohnston 14:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your previous comments. To be sure we keep up our forward momentum, I created a draft in User_talk:EdJohnston/Tifft_draft. I suspect you already believe we are doing too much, so please reply on my talk page if this direction seems inappropriate to you. Add your own edits to this draft if you wish. EdJohnston 19:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Lou, I updated the draft at User talk:EdJohnston/Tifft draft on 17 December. I'm now happy with the language, though references are waiting to be filled in by Dr Submm and me. I tried to restate the info about Tifft's citations. See if you could live with this version. I took out the 'vast majority' wording. Please edit this draft directly if you can see a possible improvement. Leave any comments on my Talk page, since unfortunately the draft doesn't have its own talk page. EdJohnston 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Lou. Draft is now finished per Dr S and me. (User_talk:EdJohnston/Tifft_draft) If you like it, we can release it right away. If you prefer further improvements, please consider editing the draft directly. Either way, please get back to me. Thanks, EdJohnston 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for taking on this task. It's all checked in to the main article now. Let's hope the consensus continues! I'll be asking an admin to delete the draft article. EdJohnston 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link note, it is now fixed. I forgot to add the closing "]" --Iantresman 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Luminarium

Hello. You may be interested in another Luminarium-related discussion here. Regards, El_C 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin

I put your name down as oppose for my recent adminship, just giving you a heads-up. --kizzle 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Website & Google

You said on your user page that users can Google your name to find out more about you. However, I realized that in recent days your website no longer appears in the top 10 in Google searches. Do you know what happened? Scobell302 04:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Darwinek wishes you a Merry Christmas!

Hi! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. - Darwinek 20:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Marjorie Sterrett Battleship Fund Award

Yes, I think I will have to strongly object. It's only one entry, not particularly an important one, and out of place. If it goes anywhere, I'd say putting it into the existing table would be appropriate, with a request for other entries for Pre-WW2 winners. It'd be one thing if there was something notable about that submarine winning, but there isn't, and just including it there seems out of place. FrozenPurpleCube 19:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, another problem with the entry is that no source was cited for it anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, the reason for my objection is that it's trivial, and offers no real information. It's fine in the article on the ship, but to just drop one date on its own, with no other notability? Looks weird. FrozenPurpleCube 21:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)