User talk:Rewinn

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



Charles Swift[edit]

Hey, thanks for your message -- I haven't figured out how to do that, so I'm responding here.

Yup, I'm an SU alum -- you too? I know SU has been in touch with Swift, and is darn tickled about his work. You might contact the Dean's office if you're looking for an SU speaker, or, of course, Doug Honig at the ACLU-wa . . . I am theoretically still on the ACLU speaker's bureau, but it's been a long time since I've made any appearances. My practice is almost exclusively state law, and our state doesn't raise the sort of civil liberties issues that the feds do! Or at least, few I can comment publically on as a faceless government bureaucrat. Lutanite 01:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hiya! I tried responding on your user talk ( ) let's see if that worked! rewinn 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[edit]

(in reply to your post on my talk page) Re edits, glad to hear it, thanks. By the way, on the Kyl and Graham matter, if you want to have a stab, that would be great. I'm new to editing legal pages and am a bit reluctant. Ya, I should get around to creating a userpage I suppose. Crust 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help out! =)[edit]

Ahh, I thought that may have been you, but generally I become suspicious when an IP or anonymous user edits a userpage, so I reverted just in case. Hopefully I didn't inconvenience you too much!!!

Feel free to borrow my userboxes. I think I may steal a few of yours. =)

Let me know if I can be of service. Srose (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for telling me how to de-column my userboxes. It was seriously getting on my nerves.Umlautbob 16:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Timon and Alcibiades[edit]

I must admit the reconciliation aspect of the play confuses me. It comes up in many commentaries but it doesn't seem like what is going on the play. Perhaps the language is confusing me there, or maybe I'm just thinking the logical end to the play is an attack. I've read it numerous times and I just don't "get" that this scene is a reconciliation beyond being told that it is. So far no one who has read my screen version found my interpretation of the ending comfusiong, unless they've kept silent. This confusion is why I tried to paraphrase the language of the play. Thanks for responding.

By the way, where do you get those user page labels? I've seen several pages with them.

Scottandrewhutchins 04:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins

Reply on Alcibiades[edit]

Thanks. IIRC, in my screenplay (which I wrote 4 years ago), I sort of used a Macbeth/Lear sort of ending, in which Alcibiades's platoon took the Senate by siege and Alcibiades killed the two senators most responsible (I conflated the "Senator" with Caphis and the "First Senator" at the soldier's trial). Throwing down the glove in the screenplay was definitely more interpreted as a challenge, but screenplay basically ended with the Senate under siege, not so much a war as I suggested. I hope this isn't a significantly less true reading of the text than say, Branagh killing Osric. I didn't change any dialogue except for some gender and number issues. I made about half the characters female since I placed it in a modern setting, and wrote in a lot of unspoken material to flesh out the characters, and things like that.Scottandrewhutchins 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Scottandrewhutchins

Ambulance Chaser 'article'[edit]

I agree with you 100%. At best, it belongs in a 'Wictionary' (is that what you called it?) It is not an encyclopedia article, but a derisive term. How can we go about doing this?jgwlaw 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is a game "civiliazation"?

Thanks for the tag. REading it now, my fear is that lawyer bashers will take the opportunity to 'expand' it to be more than a Wictionary entry. SIgh. Please keep an eye on this and on 'tort reform'.jgwlaw 15:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


Can you tell me what I did wrong on the L. Frank Baum user box? There is supposed to be a purple border and yellow text, but only the link text shows. I don't want to make any more until I figure this out.ScottandrewhutchinsScottandrewhutchins

Wow, I'd love to help ... but maybe I was just too slow. Did you fix it already? rewinn 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Coolcaesar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration[edit]

I have noted you as an involved party and/or commenter upon the behavior of user:Coolcaesar in the filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I greatly wish that you would comment on his behavior, and add references, links, etc. supporting your particular view to the current evidence already there. Please also explain his attitude/comments/witnessed behavior with detail about your experience in dealing with him. I do greatly appreciate it, and note that your reputation is protected upon comments at arbitration, and cannot be used against you. Thanks for your Time. --Mr.Executive 08:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but I'm too busy[edit]

Thanks for the invitation, but I'm a bit too busy at the moment. Maybe some other time. --Coolcaesar 06:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


I swear we had a slide on the Chevette, before it became associated with "ugly POS". Actually in an edit skirmish over that car as we speak. Will fix. --matador300 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06[edit]

The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal has been established, as a starting point for those wishing to learn more about the subject, with information and links on a wide variety of issues. It also contains news regarding the continent's various tribes and nations. It's a graphically pleasing site, and everyone is encouraged to check it out.
The project's home page has a new design, featuring tabbed subpages on participants, templates, articles, categories, and the to do list.
The Article Classification lists have been moved to their own subpage due to size. This is a sign of progress in the ongoing work of this project.
The project's talk page template has been updated, along with the classification system, to include the assessment on the talk pages of the articles that have been classified and assessed.
As the Project reaches its first six months of activity, the great effort all of you have invested in it has turned the vast information available on Indigenous North American topics from a deorganized cumulous into an excellent and easy to consult database. Although much work is still in order, few WikiProjects are able to obtain the amazing results we are proud to show today. To all of you, thank you and congratulations!
The assessment of articles within the scope of the project is still an ongoing process. We need people to help in this who are not contributors to the articles they are assessing. Also, there is the ongoing need for identifying and cataloguing articles that fall within the scope of this project. As of today, nearly 1,500 have been identified within the Project's scope.
Signed by
Aaron Walden & Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Crystal personal.png

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


for your behind-the-scenes tagging of articles with the WPBiography project banner, thanks! plange 06:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmmmmm! Cookies! Mmmmm! rewinn 23:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mother Damnable[edit]

So, did you actually have your hands on Thomas S. Phelps's memoir, or did you find him quoted somewhere else? If the latter, we should indicate the intermediate citation. If the former, great, it's fine as it stands. - Jmabel | Talk 04:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you gotta good point. I read the quote first in Speidel's books (which I do have ... they are hilarious!) and then on some historysites. But it's still an indirect quote. I will order the book through interlibrary loan (they are available on bookfinder too) but until I can verify them (...which is the correct thing to do, I was just lazy...) how is intermediate cite handled? I appreciate your attention to quality! rewinn 15:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I found (...or rather, someone else found & I noticed...) Phelps' report on the web, so I editted the article to quote from that. There were a few different word IIRC; minor changes but that shows the value of going as close to the source as possible. rewinn 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Plame Affair[edit]

your edits to the Plame Affair have been superb! i just wanted to commend you on a job well done!Anthonymendoza 00:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words - your edits have been very good as well. It's great to collaborate!! rewinn 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006[edit]

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Excellent reason to remove the Al Qaeda paragraph - I've been wondering if someone would. I will be putting it back in though, with Galloway's response - as soon as I have finished preparing it. It may well be put back in sooner by people who I call the Galloway police. The only way round them (and the best route to go besides) is to keep showing both sides.

Lynette Warren[edit]

I noticed you were attempting to wiki chat with Lynette. You may wish to ask her why she contributes to a journal that made a joke about 2 aboriginal children dying by burning to death in a house fire on our reserve last month. She's one sick puppy. She also wrote something once about how listening to her own language spoke made her feel nauseated. Ask her about that too. Cheers... Somena


I noticed you in the WP:biography place. I'm working on Paciocco a university prof in law. Perhaps this article may interest you. --CyclePat 18:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Franken edit[edit]

Thanks for actually making judgments. All I do is try to make it read better but didn't know that the topic just doesn't fit as written. Chivista 16:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks for taking your unpaid work seriously. ;)

Fun, isn't it! A little bit of creativity, a little bit of construtivism. Too bad about the "unpaid" part tho... ;-) rewinn 21:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I put a s protect on Franken for anon editors. If you think somethin else should be done, or if the sprotect shold be lifgted, do so. :) Chivista 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter[edit]

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism[edit]

I am sorry to bother you again, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 17:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lawyer joke[edit]

The only thing that I don't undersand, to be honest, is why you think that I didn't understand the Shakespeare quotation. My comment was that it's not funny, and it's not clear to me that it was meant to be — but in any case it's not a lawyer joke (by any stretch of the imagination). Whether there should be an article on this topic is another matter entirely. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007[edit]

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issue. BetacommandBot 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My error haste[edit]

Sorry about my mistake with sourcing the list of resisters. HG 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh goodness, please don't apologize! You put me on to sources that I just never got around to incorporating. It complelled me to actually create a Kyle Snyder (soldier) page and do more research, based on the links you provided. I must thank you! rewinn 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure thanks. I put back the hatnote. Take care, HG 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD Ryan Johnson -- Iraq resister[edit]

FYI there's an AfD on him. Not sure if I should comment there or not cause any further problems... HG 02:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Seattles speech[edit]

I think you are wrong in believing that "most people know him for having a city named after him" - and you are definitely wrong in thinking that if that is true it is a reason why his speech shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. According to WP:LEAD all the main points in the article should be briefly mentioned in the lead so that peope who only read the lead get the full picture. Whether or not Seattle is more known for the city or for his speech his speech is certainly widely known and often published - it is in the interest of the casual reader to know that he didn't in fact make any such speech and that it is a hoax.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of our respective beliefs on the subject, the speech is one very small incident in his life and does not merit inclusion in the introduction.rewinn 03:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I take that that yo still haven't read WP:Lead. You really should.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 04:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss the article, please do so on the Talk page. Do not post insults on my talk page. rewinn 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Can I steal some of your userboxes, counsellor? Bearian 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You can use them surely ... but I stole them myself ;-) rewinn 03:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5[edit]

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

Your Recent Edits[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Your recent edits, such as those you made to Fairness Doctrine, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Fairness Doctrine appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem}}. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.}}

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fairness Doctrine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. 17:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the first two warnings, but the third I endorse. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Which one would that be? They aren't numbered.
  • If you'd look at the edit history of this talk page, you'd see that the "EditWar" warning was put in by the anonymous editor himself. It is not correct for someone engaged in an edit war to put an edit war warning on someone else's talk page.
  • If you'd look at the substantive page in question, you'd see that the last batch of edits in which I was involved were the restoration of substantive content that the anonymous one sought to delete leaving only a couple of definitely POV items. Since a third party came onto the page and did some reasonable edits, I'm stepping out for a while (as was noted on that page's Talk page).
  • I am highly amused by the anonymous vandal, who is sinking a lot of effort into POV'ing a mere wikipedia page. What's the point? rewinn 00:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism By Anonymous Coward (above)[edit]

The above was added by an anonymous editor (Slashdot more accurately calls such Anonymous Coward) and not by a real admin. I am amused! rewinn 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. warning templates are not for the exclusive use of admins.
  1. a nickname doesn't make you less anonymous than an IP. in fact, in the real world, it makes you more anonymous.
  1. in the fifty times you've brought the words "personal attack" up in your communication with me, this thing you wrote above is the first actual violation of WP:NPA instanced. 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  1. This is my talk page. You come here, you takes your chances.
  2. What damages can an anonymous coward suffer? You are anonymous!

Petrified wood[edit]

I don't believe that this edit is vandalism. Lesvos and Lesbos are the exact same location, with Lesvos, I believe, but don't quote me, the Greek spelling. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait a freaking minute? Are you an SU alum? SUNY Upstate Medical School grad plus an MS in Biochemistry from SU, here. Go SU. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, it seems the same user wishes to remove the photo of the boy once again. Interested in your thoughts. Kesälauantait (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've replaced the photo and requested an orderly poll: shall the article keep the photo illustrating blond non-European, or delete? Until this poll is complete, any deletion of the photo should be considered vandalism. However I doubt that the individual who keeps deleting the photo is has no agenda since it won't cooperate on the article's talk page. rewinn (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a poll is certainly fair. The reason why I had removed the photo again was because I felt a person with a second opinion should restore it instead of myself again. It does seem that it's only the one person who wishes to remove it. Kesälauantait (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello. You are the one removing the image and thus vandalizing. So please do not throw around false accusations and threats. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You are deliberately vandalizing the page. If you persist, the procedures will be followed. Your edit history suggests that you are new to wikipedia and have difficulty with procedure. rewinn (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it is you who are vandalizing. Don't try to scare me. I know what vandalism is. You are the one removing the image. I will now be reporting you for senseless edit warring and violation of 3RR. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In light of your edit history, I will be rfc'ing and therefore it is not appropriate for me to communicate further except to urge you to work less confrontationally in your edits. Really, this is only wikipedia and not worth wasting your time in a losing struggle to impose your will. rewinn (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring and breaking 3rr. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rewinn (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Hiya. This problem arose from talk's disruptive editing on Blond; please see Talk:Blond and the angry reason that editor gives for [[1]]. When I stated on Talk:Blond that I would seek RfC, talk seems to have posted a request for blocking. Eh, I don't really mind having us both thrown out of the pool to cool off. I hope, however, that some way to get talk to work toward consensus would work; I am of course not without fault but it appears from Talk:French people and talk's multiple ad hominem attacks on Talk:Blond progress remains to be made. rewinn (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's an appropriate and very brief block. — Athaenara 05:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

I support your unblocking, and have noted such on the AN/I thread. I suggest you reapply for relief from the block. It's an unfair block, and short doesn't balance being unfair. ThuranX (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

:: Thank you for your kind support, and I agree with you completely. However, I think it's more productive to have a cold beer instead. May I draw you one too? rewinn (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's your choice. I think you're getting screwed. It's clear from a review of the pages that your block was quickly decided, based on CA's skewed presentation of the situation. I spent about 10 minutes reviewing the talk pages and history, and can clearly see that you aren't really at fault for anything but not running to tattle fast enough. If you choose to fight it, or ever find that others use this block against you, I'll be glad to affirm that your block was objected to by outside editors, and shouldn't be held agaisnt you, ever. ThuranX (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC on User:CanuckAnthropologist[edit]

Hello, just to let you know that I support your intiative of an RfC on this user. If you need help, just ask. :) have a good one!--Ramdrake (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?[edit]


I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

  1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
  2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.


JnWtalk 05:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here is the link
Pretest webpage
If you have any question during pretest, please contact me.
Please finish it before 25 June. Thanks a lot. :)
JnWtalk 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


just remind you to finish the pretest as soon as possible. It won't take you too much time. Thanks. :)

JnWtalk 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ok. Done, and I left comments on your talk. Good luck! rewinn (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks a lot. It's my omission. The number of testing articles should not exceed 30.
Another questionnaire is designed. It will be much easier than this pretest. Please help me again. Thanks a lot. :)

JnWtalk 05:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:

evaluation questionnaire

thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)

JnWtalk 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just remind you to complete the questionnaire.

My thesis's oral defense is on next Wednesday. So please complete it as early as you can. I believe it would just take you 5 miniutes. Thanks a lot. :)

JnWtalk 08:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks a lot for your help on filling out the questions on the pretest and questionnaire. In order for us to interpret the answers you gave, I have three additional questions to ask you. In the questionnaire, you check ‘free’ for the compensation of answering the question. Now there are some scenarios:

  1. If the users need to pay for asking questions through our knowledge service, will you still answer the questions for free?
  2. If the users pay a certain fee for each of his/her questions being answered, will you receive the compensation for answering the question or allow us to donate it to the charitable institutions?
  3. For the questions which you may ask for the compensation, how much percentage of compensation do you consider it is proper if we want to donate a part of compensation to the charitable institutions?
  4. Do you have any comments on the knowledge service which we plan to develop? In this knowledge service, we will allow users to ask their questions, and the system will forward these questions to the users who edited wikipedia and were identified by our system as the domain experts. Which business model do you think is more proper? The expert can be compensated by the fee paid by the seekers or do it for altruism with no charge.

JnWtalk 13:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pig War vs San Juan Island(s) Dispute[edit]

Your edit is true if the latter title were used for the article; the Pig War was the military episode at its onset, it's the Dispute that went on for thirteen years. Worth noting that during that dispute other wars talked up, though of course none went forward - the main one from BC's side is the colonist leadership's agitation during the American Civil War, for military action to take back Puget Sound, to which Admiral Baynes demurred and of course London wanted anything but. I could go on about the scenario, but motly dropped by about the terminiology; another user and I or three, maybe on the article's talkpage, started a discussion about it; it may be on a related island or strait page. (talkpage).Skookum1 (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, nice to talk with you! The consensus of the histories I've seen appears to be to refer to the entire decade-long episode as the Pig War. Is there evidence that San Juan Dispute and its variants are anything but names made up for this article? rewinn (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Magdala[edit]

Hi! Could you please advise the source for your comment on the article "Fifteen elephants and almost two hundred mules were required to bear the loot across the Bashilo River to the nearby Dalanta Plain?" I am curious as to where they came from! The only evidence of Elephant usage I can locate relates to them being used to transport the Navy Brigade rocket battery and their supplies. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The immediate source is an article by contemporary historian Richard Pankhurst (not his notable ancestor Richard Pankhurst) who appears to be author and/or contributor to numerous historical text on Ethiopia. As the editor of Simpson's diary [2] I would tend to trust his word on the subject, but it seems prudent to put a qualifier into the article ("According to historian Richard Pankhurst, .... ") until one can read a closer source. It is scarcely to be wondered at that there would be a great deal of loot taken by the conquerors, based on the results of the auction. rewinn (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:James Hansen[edit]

Hi. I wonder if you could look at this edit by you and work out whats going on. It seems obvious to me that somehow the edit has unintentionally removed some text and added other text, but I can't work out exactly what do to to fix it. --TS 05:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello & let me apologize for this problem. Ever since I install firefox3, wikiedits have often gone bad. I have had similar problems with blogspot - information gets dropped. I'm avoiding editting at this point. Please feel free to back out my edits or whatever makes sense. rewinn (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Eric Rücker Eddison[edit]

You January edit of that article left it in a strange state... AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Hello & let me apologize for this problem. Ever since I install firefox3, wikiedits have often gone bad. I have had similar problems with blogspot - information gets dropped. I'm avoiding editting at this point (things seem to work o.k. here at the library). Please feel free to back out my edits or whatever makes sense.rewinn (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group[edit]

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

TY. I'll sign up 4 apr8. rewinn (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey based on ideas gathered during the Wikipedia focus group you attended[edit]

Hello again! As we mentioned when you attended our focus group back in April, our goal was to use your feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what you thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you.

To take the survey, click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Even if you are unable or unwilling to take this survey, we want to thank you for attending our focus group. Your generous contribution of your time and ideas was greatly appreciated! Commprac01 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum[edit]

Hi Rewinn,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

  • Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
  • It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
  • Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.
  • I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.
2. If you're a law student,
(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)
3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category?
Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary.
Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 13:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talkcontribs)

AfD nomination of Ehren Watada[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ehren Watada. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehren Watada (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[edit]

5 years later, looks like you were right! Decora (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Marking changes as minor[edit]

I noticed you tend to mark your changes as "minor" fairly frequently; however, in my view you may be misunderstanding the definition of a minor change. Per WP:MINOR:

A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

Examples of changes you've marked as minor that I wouldn't consider to be such: adding discussion to a Talk page, adding significant text, undoing vandalism. As I understand it, the main point of marking edits as minor is to allow editors the option to ignore such edits on their Watchlist; I don't see why editors watching these articles wouldn't want to see these edits that you've made. The first and second examples are specifically listed as "When not to mark an edit as a minor edit" (and while the third is not so clear-cut, I'm not sure why you'd want an editor watching that page to get the impression that the most recent edit was the vandalism and not your subsequent clean-up). Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Wilco. rewinn (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What is appropriate for Politians' Legislative Histories[edit]

I disagree with your position that when a Congressman sponsors major legislation that passes, the only thing that should be covered in his Wiki article is the intention of the legislation. Case in point, Jim McDermott was the sponsor of the bill that gave an $8,000 home credit to new home buyers in an effort to stimulate the economy and put a floor under home prices. At the time the legislation passed, that would have been a good summary of the law for Wikipedia. However, it's my belief that the short history of each piece of major legislation should include not only the intention...everything is well intentioned...but the actual effect and outcome, when they are known. In this case, the bill cost every American household $200, according to the latest issue of Smart Money, but had no measurable long-term effect. So when only the intention is reported, sounds great! However, the outcome is a dismal failure by every follow-up report I've been able to track down. So please stop deleting the portion of articles that chop out cost and effect of legislation once the passage is far enough in the rearview mirror to measure.Senor Island (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your evident passion on the subject is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a blog. Please consult with more experienced editors; your POV is welcome but all edits must be encyclopediac. rewinn (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for your assistance with the Thomas Pitt, 2nd Baron Camelford article. That was most helpful in my modest attempt to improve the page.--Skittles the hog (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Sinfest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Iraq sanctions[edit]

Hey Rewinn: Sorry, I wasn't meaning to edit war. I'm pretty sure the user removed my edit by mistake, and I was just undoing that. From looking at his edits, at the time he reverted me, he was correcting tons of vandalism by IP users, and I think he just saw my edit and reverted it because he thought I was vandalizing the article without verifying it from the source (which is why I think he posted no explanation). If he read the source, he would see that what I put in there is just saying exactly what the source said, instead of saying something else that is more broad/vague. If we put "500,000 civilians" as the upper estimate, then this is a blatant misrepresentation of the source, because the source is saying 500,000 children under 5, which (if true) means that the total number for all civilians is far higher. Those numbers might not be right, but they are what the source says, and editors shouldn't rewrite the article to say something that the source doesn't say. I won't do any more reverts there, but I'll ask that you verify that what I put in is indeed what the source says, and revert yourself. Thank you. (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Idaho State Bar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Dr. Arnold Lorand.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Arnold Lorand.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Schlock Mercenary[edit]

How do you suggest I add sources if all the ones I found were total shit? They were just tangential mentions, name-drops, barely even said a thing about the strip. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Potty words amuse me.
2. I just added a source. It didn't take long to find.
3. You can't seriously argue that Schlock Mercenary is not notable.
4. Why are you bothering? rewinn (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • 2. The source is ok. 3. It's called WP:WEB and I am serious. Almost 99% of the sourcing in the strip is the strip itself, and everything uncovered so far in the AFD has only been passing mentions which do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. 4. See WP:WEB and WP:SIGCOV again. Existence ≠ notability. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1. Please use tabs ( colons ) when editting this talk page so the conversation is more easily understood.
2. Your math is incorrect; 99% of the sourcing is not the strip itself.
3. Otherwise, the questions you raise have been asked and answered in the proper forum, which is the deletion discussion, not this talk page. If you have difficulty understanding the concept that notability is ruled on in toto and not by dismissing each individual element, or difficulty understanding that web-based materials can be adequately sourced with web-based sources such as the review to which I linked, then please go to that forum and talk there, not here. rewinn (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lawyer Trust Account discussion[edit]

Hi, I am inviting you to contribute to a discussion at Talk:Trust_money#Possible_merge_with_IOLTA_and.2For_creation_of_Lawyer_Trust_Account that you may be interested in. Philiashasspots (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sanctions against Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)