User talk:Steinsky/Archive1

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


Photo copyrights[edit]

Hi, what is the copyright situation of the images you are uploading? Did you shoot them yourself? Image:Old Harry Rocks, Dorset-(aerial).jpg looks like it is taken from here -- note that with few exceptions, you cannot upload images to Wikipedia unless you are the copyright holder or have received explicit permission to do so by them. See also Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Eloquence 21:54 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. I found the image on a site unaffiliated with Dr West, or the Uni, with had no notice, attribution or claim to image. I have just emailed Dr West asking him whether he could confirm he is the copyright owner, and requesting its continued use for the project.
I'm just following up a couple of the other Jurassic Coast images, all the others are mine or in the public domain. I can scan a couple of Jurassic Coast photos if neccesary, they just won't be as good as the aerial photos.
Updates will be posted soon.
--Steinsky 23:45 19 Jul 2003 (BST (UTC+1))
Update: The photos are cuttings from an old copylefted file used in many places. --Steinsky 15:04 20 Jul 2003 (BST (UTC+1))

Could you add source information to the image description pages? --Eloquence 14:19 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Unfortunately your editing of percolation makes it look as if the meaning a percolation theory and the one having to do with filtering are completely unrelated, rather than just slightly different ways of looking at percolation (with emphasis on slightly). Michael Hardy 20:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

They appeared to me considerably different ways of looking at percolation, in terms of the scale and the situations in which the terms are used, but I'm not an expert on either. The Percolation theory article doesn't bear a great deal of resemblance to any situation I've ever used it in either chemistry or earth sciences though, and doesn't explain percolation in terms relavant to any such article linking to it. From here I'll leave it to everyone else to decide where it should go, but it definitely needs work. --Steinsky 21:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey I see you flagged ear piercing - I listed this on pages needing attention, I don't know if I should unlist it or what? Sorry this is my first day. Pakaran 19:52, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC) pakaran

Well, it definitely needs attention, so I recon you probably did the right thing! -- Steinsky 13:14, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

RE: Can I request a clarification of the "right side": I think you refer to the right side of the lake? I think it should be banks of the lake. diwiki

Just a hint - there is definitely a second meaning for all M1 till M102, as it is the common name for the Messier objects - but so far only few of them are created yet. So you should make sure that all highway links point to the actual place, not the Mxxx article - when yesterday someone added several of the Messier objects I did change several of them already, but I am not sure if I catched them all. andy 20:11, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Hello! I note you are changing the "groin" to "groyne" on many pages. Personally, I like "groyne", as distinct from from between your legs (or is that groyne too?), but it is wrong spelling from an American perspective. In fact, I had never seen "groyne" before and I do work in the marine environment as professon. Would it not be better to do this groin for those locations in America or where America is spoken? - Marshman 03:34, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Concordant coastline[edit]

Hi, just a quick thanks for the concordant coastline link on Natural bridge — I hadn't thought of looking up the compound name; just "concordant" itself :-( I've similarly corrected the "discordant" case now. Lupo 12:24, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wareham photo[edit]

Hi, thanks for taking the photo off the Wareham article. I'd done a bit of Googling, found a Wareham address for the Bankes Hotel, put two and two together, and evidently came up with three.  :) - Hephaestos|§ 04:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Evolutionary Biology[edit]

Hi. Are you interested in this? we've got three population geneticists so far, so it might be a bit biased. Duncharris 15:34, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Evolutionary biology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy). If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Duncharris 17:27, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

What would it involve? I already have loads of biology pages on my watchlist that I review.. --Steinsky 00:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
First job really I think is to try to pull them together the rather disparate sections that have grown up a bit higgledy-piggledy. But I suppose its mainly useful as a discussion forum. Let's just see how it develops? Duncharris 10:24, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

UK and GB[edit]

Thank you for your support on the UK versus GB issue. For some reason, people insist that the default is GB unless it is proven that NI is involved. Bizarre. It has been debated widely on Wikipedia and even on my own talk page. Thanks again.
Bobblewik 17:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Clifton Cathedral[edit]

I've put a new picture of Clifton Cathedral up, showing the north side. I think it's an improvement on your picture of the east side, mainly because it shows more detail, especially in the spire. I'm not entirely sure, though, and would welcome your opinion. I've also taken out the explicit width from the Image code, which makes it a bit smaller on the page. --rbrwrˆ 15:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Usage of WP:PR[edit]

Hi, the usage of WP:PR (Peer review) was changed a little lately. Now we put requests on top, and not at the bottom. I've fixed Greensand's entry. Have a nice day. =) Johnleemk | Talk 14:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Canal Lock[edit]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've sorted the diagram out now. Ta, -Nommo 00:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kukla, Fran and Ollie[edit]

FYI, Marknyc has asserted ownership of the website which gave rise to your copyvio report on Kukla, Fran and Ollie and asserted he is in a position to licence the text under GFDL, and so the copyvio has been delisted and advice posted on Talk:Kukla, Fran and Ollie. Just thought you might like to know how it was resolved, lest you be unhappy with any of it. best wishes --Tagishsimon

Removal of Bristol Bridge pics[edit]

I'm sorry Steinsky but I have removed your pics on the Bristol article. I don't think the quality of your Summer/Winter/Spring Bristol Bridge trilogy is quite good enough for WP. I've substituted a pic of the cathedral. I hope you won't be too offended by what I've done but I'm aiming for a high quality of illustrations. - Adrian Pingstone 19:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) .


my stubby article page is cool. i dont think you should have made it a candidate for speedy deletion. it is a serious page, there are heaps of stubby articles out there on the wiki

Brilliant intervention![edit]

In my opinion, your intervention was brilliant to remove the rambling from Talk:Creationism. I was too involved to even see that option at the time. Your intervention was brilliant because it provided an effective thumbnail index to the subpage and allowed the work on the controversy to continue where it should--on the actual subpage itself. ---14:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bristol Harbour[edit]

I agree that it would be nice to have some top quality articles on local topics, though I must confess that I got some books out of the library with this intent a couple of months ago then didn't get anywhere.

I will give Bristol Harbour a good long hard look over the next few days and kick off some discussion on the talk page. I take it the scope of the article is meant to be the Floating Harbour - i.e. from Totterdown to Hotwells, post-1803. If that is the case I think we should nevertheless make sure that the appropriate supporting information about the Cut, the Feeder, the docks pre-1800, Avonmouth, Portishead and Portbury and the railway lines and so on is all in place. Some of this will also feed back into the main article on Bristol, as the port was for so long inseperable from the town.

Have you read Derek Robinson's A Shocking History of Bristol? That has a chapter on some of the less glorious aspects of the way the port was run over the years. I have access to a few other books that may be useful, too. --rbrwr± 22:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is continued at Talk:Bristol Harbour.

Contact table[edit]

I've kinda stolen your 'contact me' table for my own page. Sorry :p. If you have any problems with me using a similiar design, please get in touch. Barneyboo 11:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's fine, everything's free on Wikipedia! --Joe D 11:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good man. :) Barneyboo 11:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Cabot[edit]

I've removed your pic of John Cabot because, being a big-headed so-and-so, I reckon my pic is better than yours :-) If you've the slightest objection just revert to yours, I won't mind. (PS My son is doing Economics and Marketing at UWE, final year) Best Wishes, - Adrian Pingstone 19:34, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Cabot was born in Geona,Italy on June 24 , 1450.Dead in 1498.He traveled with Christopher Columbus.[edit]

What to do about's insistant vandalism?--FeloniousMonk 22:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Geography of the United Kingdom[edit]

Thanks for putting back the main article link to Geology of the United Kingdom (that section in Geography of the United Kingdom is a pretty long and transparent précis of that article anyway). I must have accidentally deleted the link when playing with the geology map image. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category Order[edit]

Nicholas, is there any pattern to the way you're rearranging categories? i.e., moving Category:Dorset for no obvious reason? Joe D (t) 19:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just that 'location' categories are usually at the end of the list - I try to arrange categories in a Most Relavent -> Least Relavent order. Nicholas 19:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

British Trade Unions[edit]

Hi Steinsky. Thanks for adding the categories bit to National Union of Ship's Stewards and Amalgamated Marine Workers' Union. I just wondered, did they seem okay to you? I'm new at this and whilst I've read and partially digested the rules I'm still nervous that I'm screwing up the whole thing. I created those two, by the way, though apparently I wasn't signed in at the time. Cheers, Mattley

The articles look good, one possible addition would be references if you have any.. Joe D (t) 17:12, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I do indeed have some and I will build them in. On another topic, I note you have done some stuff on Bristol Harbour. I'd like to contribute some articles on the Port of Southampton and the Port of Glasgow. Do you think it would be worth creating a category of 'Ports and harbours of Great Britain and Ireland' or some such? It could be a nice series. All the best, Mattley 17:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's a good idea, if you create the category I'll help populate it. I was in So'ton on Friday and am currently preparing photos of the port etc for wikipedia.

You were? Cool. Okay. Where were you planning to put the photos? I don't want to tread on your toes or duplicate work if you already had something planned. On the other hands, ports seem poorly covered and I'd be happy to make a start redressing that. My interest is mainly historical, however, and would have a hard time sustaining an article past 1930. If you have stuff on Southampton's more recent history, many that wouldn't be a big problem. Cheers, Mattley 18:08, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Don't we need to wait until 6pm to decide whether Religion in the United Kingdom or Monmouth Rebellion becomes WP:UKCOTW (24 hour voting extension, given both were tied at 4 votes at 6pm yesterday)? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure actually. On Talk:UKCOTW it said we were using the "Golden goal" system which I assume means the first one to take the lead wins, but I'm not sure if that's how its been done before... Joe D (t) 11:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The UKCOTW page iteself talks about a 24-hour extension rather than golden goal, but I guess we can use golden goal if we want to - this is the first time a tie has happened, so we can make it up as we go along, but we need to make sure the UKCOTW page is consistent. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My "Vandalism"[edit]

Uhm......I didn't vandalize anything....what I did was changed days ago and I haven't done anything......what are you talking about? 04:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Internationale[edit]

Hi, Joe. You took this out from The Internationale (album), calling it an "incorrect statement"...

This is unusual for Bragg: though he is known for his association with left-wing causes, overtly political songs are a minority within his repertoire.

What part of that is wrong, then? Overtly political songs aren't a tiny minority, but they are still a minority: a quick count of the tracks on Must I Paint You a Picture suggests perhaps 35%. And The Internationale is unusual as an all-political release: only "Between the Wars" really compares with it. And don't tell me that Bill isn't known for his association with left-wing causes. I'm confused by this edit. Please help. --Baffled of Bristol±

Over half of Back To Basics, well over half of DTTAH, 7/12 of EHE (the most recent), half of William Bloke, just under half of Reaching To The Converted and just under half of Victim of Geography are overtly political. Gigs and the Mermaid Avenue albums are also about 50%, not a minority. It is notable as an all political release, but the rest of the albums are also extremely political. Joe D (t) 20:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we differ on what constitutes "overt" politics - I make DTTAH 7/16, for example. (Yes, I have been counting, and I almost posted lots of long lists). I would still stand by a figure of... well, more like 40% than 35%. That's probably more than straightforward love songs, but it's still not a majority.


Obviously the disputed sentence isn't NPOV; I'll try again.

--rbrwr± 21:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ps. I have been too lazy to do anything about Bristol Harbour yet, for which I apologise. --rbrwr± obvious copyright problems[edit]

Hi! I noticed your polite question to User_talk:, as well as I've been anoyed by his/her messy and probably wrong contribution to Digital sigature for example. Do you think we should revert this contribution now, or wait for more explanations from this user, though I doubt it will happen? --ClementSeveillac 22:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to be sure ;-) See you around! --ClementSeveillac 03:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion on references and citations[edit]

Hi Joe:

At the end of October you began to do some work in the article on Apoptosis. You began to change the way references and citations were handled en that article (since they took up a lot of text), and used one of the accepted and respected styles; namely, to create a References section and refer to the citation by (Author, year). After giving it a thought, it occurs to me that the best way to handle this in Wikipedia is not by (Author, year), but to proceed as follows: 1) Make a direct hyperlink to the summary of the article in the on-line journal or a hyperlink to the on-line book, as long as they are free and require no registration (examples: a hyperlink to an article summary in PNAS, or to The Molecular Biology of the Cell); 2) If the direct link to the article is not possible, the hyperlink should be directed to solid and reputable public sites like PubMed or (example: when citing Nature or Science, which require subcription); 3) Use (Author, year) as the last resourt, because it is quite bothersome to Wikipedia users to search the publication and go back-and-forward to the References section. Thanks in advance for your attention to this note, and please use the discussion section in the Apoptosis article to tell me if you agree with this, so I can proceed to make the changes throughout the article. JaimeGlz [1]

Culture of the United Kingdom[edit]

You voted for Culture of the United Kingdom, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Creative Commons[edit]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that you can use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template on your user page to update your Creative Commons license to include version 2.0 as well as version 1.0. -- Ram-Man 03:35, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

St. Mary's Cathedral[edit]

Hi there,

I would like to know as to why you saw fit to move this page to Limerick Cathedral? It is not, nor ever has been, referred to as such. For one thing, Limerick also has a second cathedral, St. John's Cathedral. Please do not move this page again.

zoney talk 15:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because it's not wikipedia standard to name cathedrals only by the saints they are dedicated to (you can surely see why doing so would be problematic?). If there are two Limerick cathedrals, the page should be named "St Mary's Cathedral, Limerick". (By the way, the dot in the abbrev of saint is also generally dropped, though this isn't strictly enforced it makes things easier.) Joe D (t) 15:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The place is called "St. Mary's Cathedral", the article should reside at that location. I have never heard of such nonsense as hiding the real name of places on Wikipedia in a clumsy attempt to be politically correct. Meanwhile, appending ", cityname" is only used when disambiguation is necessary, or by convention for particular topics (For example, US towns always have the countyname appended even when no article resides at the town name - this is only because many were bot-created and others have to match. Irish towns reside at the town name by default). I can assure you that our convention with Irish topics is not to add this suffix to article titles unless necessary for disambiguation.
A final point, the inclusion of a dot or not after St. is indeed discretionary - but neither one nor the other is preferred officially. The dot is more common with regard to the actual place in question. zoney talk 16:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm referring to the page name, as I'm sure was obvious. With the regards to appending the city name, I'm aware that it's only used for diambiguation only, and that's why it should be named as such. There were three St Mary's Cathedrals on the Irish list alone, there must be many throughout the world, and people may be searching for any one of them, not just the one in Limerick. Joe D (t) 17:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Once again, I disagree with your reasoning. First of all - no other St. Mary's has an article at present. Secondly, of the St. Mary's in Ireland, the one at Limerick is by far the most notable. So if articles are created for the others, we will continue to have the Limerick one at St. Mary's Cathedral and the others linked to on a disambiguation page, linked to by a line at the top of the main St. Mary's page.

This is all quite standard. Until such time as someone has a more notable St. Mary's Cathedral to place at the main article location, I suggest the Limerick one remains there.

And yes, I know you were referring to the article title - I was simply pointing out that one generally calls a spade, a spade. That is the case on Wikipedia also, unless for technical reasons it is not possible.

zoney talk 17:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This discussion was concluded on IRC.

List of places in County Durham[edit]

Note on Talk:County Durham. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Odd bit'o code mangling[edit]


In this edit of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits some of the table code got messed up. Any guess as to why? --Ben Brockert 00:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea, but I'm assuming it's something Opera has done automatically, though I've never seen it do it before, and I can't tell you why it chose those particular tags to mangle. If the list were to use wikitax ({| |- | | | |- |} etc) I expect the problem would go away. Anyway, I have no reason to edit that page further, so it shouldn't be a problem. Joe D (t) 11:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've seen effects like it before, it must just be an Opera bug. No big deal, I just thought it was odd. Thanks for looking at it, and of course you're always welcome to update that page. --Ben Brockert 00:19, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Osborne collection template on the commons[edit]

Hi. I have added the proper copyright tag to commons:Template:OsborneFossils. Hope this is Ok with you -- Chris 73 Talk 00:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Victorian era[edit]

You voted for Victorian era, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India[edit]

You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.


The article you have placed under Category:Villages in Kent is solely to do with the one-time megaliths found near the farm of that name (and now apparently lost!). The article says that Cossington is a "farm settlement", but the OS map 188 at TQ 761616 has no other buildings other than Cossington Fm in the area. It lies right on the M2 south of the Medway Towns conurbation.

I have therefore deleted your category reference: there are well over 400 villages in Kent without adding "settlements"!

Peter Shearan

Thanks, I don't know Kent at all so i was just guessing at the category from the information in the article. I've corrected the categorisation based on the new info. Joe D (t) 12:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

National Health Service[edit]

You voted for National Health Service, this week's UK Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shoplocal spammer[edit]

Have we reverted them all now? --rbrwr± 19:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) answer my own question, I'd missed Portsmouth, but it's done now. Both IP addresses involved ( and are almost certainly AOL proxies, so there's almost no chance of the talk page messages getting through to the right people. Oh well. --rbrwr± 20:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image tag[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni 04:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

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

Irish places[edit]

Hi there,

I notice you've made a group of edits to Irish location articles. I would suggest that the "stub" format for external links and see also is retained on those articles which are stubs. You will find it is an accepted option, and one that we use for Irish location article which aren't well developed (it looks tidier when there are no other sections/headings).

Also, as regards Northern Ireland... By and large, Irish topics are treated apolitically on Wikipedia thus far. Certainly as far as geographic articles are concerned, the island is treated as a whole. After all, the current partition is only a modern political development, and the region, while part of the United Kingdom, it physically/geographically, culturally, etc. remains Irish (the culture aspect is certainly trickier, some aspects are "simply British", many are most definitely truly Irish, and others are fudged as "Northern Irish", though that is a somewhat contrived term).

In summary, I would suggest you rename the UK geo-stub to GB geostub.

It does not make sense to distinguish the separate jurisdictions in Ireland when referring to things in an apolitical geographic sense.

Thanks, zoney talk 17:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The heading format may be accepted, but it seems the Ireland places are the only articles that actually use the format. Which looks tidier is highly subjective, and I prefer the standard heading format.
As for the towns, these are not entirely geographic and apolitical: in an encyclopedia article the country which a town is in is just as relevant and important as its physical location, and these stubs rightly mention the political geography in the article. Using either stub 'plate would be factually correct, but IMO following political boundaries is more useful in the case of categorising stubs (we may differ on this because I use the templates in order to categorise the articles, while you may be more intrested in the text they add to the article). I am particularly against using Great Britain as an area, as it has no political meaning whatsoever, and excludes all those other little islands that make up the UK, and belong on this category.
Perhaps this is one of those cases where Northern Ireland does derserve its own boilerplate: one that includes both categories? Joe D (t) 17:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While I still suggest the Ireland templates are perfectly fine, I guess as a compromise a Northern Ireland template can be used, with it being a member of Irish and UK stubs. This has been a compromise on a number of other issues. (Categorising NI separately and NI cats having UK+Irl parents).
zoney talk 10:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clifton Suspension Bridge - sorry[edit]

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the rollback buton on you. That was rude. But I have explained myself at Talk: Clifton Suspension Bridge; the original County of Bristol was tiny - it didn't even include Bristol Castle - and Clifton wasn't incorporated until the time of the Reform Act. --rbrwr± 14:39, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Just to let you know ive taken the unusual step of re-reverted your reversion :D erm have a look at Talk:East_Sussex/to_do i put your list back as you suggested but I thought that the other categories i had mentioned were helpfull -- It looks like we are working on similar stuff (as we have similar interests) so maybe you can point me towards what lead you to create the todo if theres something I should read. I generally dislike the "list of..." lists but if thats what people want, I don't have a problem with it :) What I had started to do was create geographical categories as well as political ones in a small way -- anyway enough rambling....


Duplicate Stretton[edit]

I see you have reverted my removal of Stretton, Cheshire from the list of places in Cheshire. I have no objection to that, but there are links to Stretton, Warrington from other articles. Neither article has yet been written, so this may not be a problem for a while. --Etimbo 20:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duel (with an e) versus dual (with an a)[edit]

Hello. Before you write any article titled duel-carriageway road (mentioned in your median (disambiguation) page, or challenge a rival to a "dual" you may want to consult a dictionary.

But ignore the paragraph above. I appreciate your attention to the formerly messy median page. Michael Hardy 22:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening[edit]

You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grunt   ҈  03:33, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)


Thanks for the tip G-Unit

Articles on the X and the Y chromosomes[edit]

Please see the new comment at Talk:XY_sex-determination_system. I think we need to remove two of the redirects, and allow Wikipedia to develop one article on the X chromosome, and one article on the Y chromosome. What do you think? RK 22:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Creatoinism nonsense[edit]

Hello there! I see you've had a run in [2] with the ever irritating (aka, aka Lucky you! I've been trying to combat his general nonsense and vandalism on RNA world hypothesis, abiogenesis and origin of life. I have placed him on the list of vandalism in progress but nothing has been done. He is also now blatantly violating copyright [3]. We are currently voting in the talk page of Talk:RNA_world_hypothesis on whether to include one of his creationist links.... This is, to me, one of the single most irritating aspects of wikipedia. The amount of valuable time spent by editors who genuinely care about the project and who actually know what they're talking about on reverting absolute BS and completly anonymous vandalizations must be huge. I'm contemplating giving up on wiki entirely because the creators/admins seem to not care a whit about this.--Deglr6328 10:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:requests for comment/


Why is it so necessary to emphasise Cornwall is in England all the time? Surely using "Britain" and "British" is neutral enough to suit both POVs, and is still factual.


Hi! The forms with -ize are perfectly good British English too (check the OED and Fowler's Modern English Usage for why they might be better: 'The suffix itself... is in its origin the Greek -izein, Latin -izare; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic.'). But I agree with you that it's good to have consistent spellings within an article. Lesgles 13:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that it wasn't I who wrote "the Stonehenge Organization"; you are right that we shouldn't change proper names. Lesgles 13:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Justify yourself[edit]

Seem like you think me pointing out a user is a vanddal is personal abuse, well I find your attack to be personal abuse. Refrain from it, your being a hypocrit.--Jirate 17:29, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

You have no evidence that the user did not act in bad faith and you have rushed in to calling the user a vandal instead of asking the user to stop or discuss the edits. Therefore it's up to you to justify your calling the user a vandal. So far you have done no such thing, and the way you've dealt with this issue has made a very bad impression on other users. Joe D (t) 17:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The evidence of the users distruction is evident all over the place as now is your support for it. The user is demonstrably untrustworth, wont engage in debate, and does what they like.--Jirate 17:46, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
Then point it out. Your comments on User_talk: have not established that the user is a vandal, untrustworthy or acted in bad faith. The user's contributions appear to show that (s)he was simply standardising the categories and it appears from the comments I've seen that you have overeacted. You have not demonstrated that the user is untrustworthy. I have not supported the user's edits/"distruction" I have only asked you to justify your comments. I have not engaged in any main namespace edits on this matter so your claim that I have supported the distruction is unfounded, or even supported the user's edits, I am simply asking you to provide the evidence that you claim is so obvious, but which have failed to provide. The fact that you are now attacking me on this matter has convined me that you are unwilling to take part in civil discussion and the community side of wikipedia. Joe D (t) 17:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Very simple look atall the cats I have reverted, look at his lack of explanation, stop deleting my warning to other users, just because your don't care about wikpedia doesn't mean that others don'either. You last comment is typical of the personal attacks people like yorself use and encourage others to use. I see no eveidence that you are prepared to engage social activities but lots of indications that you will cary on blidly ignoring the world around you. It's just a pity you seek to abuse wikipedia with your missue of it, to boolster your own ego.--Jirate 18:56, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
Sorry for interuption, I came here by chance, to appreciate Steinsky on his help to recover vandalism on other project. I ask both of you to try thinking once another party was on a good faith but a manner to deal things was different from your own style? And try to think misunderstanding came from the gap of those difference? It is sad to see two good editors say bad thing to the other.

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irate.


Thank you for your cooperation! --Aphaea* 17:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issues about school articles[edit]

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sorry about his destruction. He happens to be a co-worker. All edited pages by the person from seth up are blankings --SgeoTC 18:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the award[edit]

It is truly a badge of honor. Joshuaschroeder 02:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hi. Why have you reverted the edits made to Bournemouth today by I can't see why. Also, can you say when you have reverted back to please, as it makes things easier for people trying to see what has happened. --John 21:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I reverted because I didn't consider the edits to be an improvement / encyclopedic. The edits were basically only prose rather than content changes, and IMO they made the prose worse. Joe D (t) 21:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that it was all bad. I have put some of it back, and done some of it differently. Se what you think. --John 21:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks good now, thanks. Joe D (t) 21:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


Hi. I don't know which page you are referring to but I'm guessing it was a constituency one. Can I point you at Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Parliamentary_Constituencies therefore. If a different page let me know. --Vamp:Willow 23:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


Talk pages are not held to the same standard as articles. Besides, the discussion you keep deleting is indeed related to the article. Removing other people's discussion is also inconsiderate. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 15:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Meme.

Reverting 'substub' to 'stub'[edit]

If you're going to revert {{substub}} to {{stub}}, could you at least explain your reasons for doing so? This "article" (Survival techniques) seems pretty clearly to fit the 'substub' criteria. --Dcfleck 12:13, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I was removing the articles from Category:Substubs which is redundant and looks to soon be deleted. Joe D (t) 14:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

RE: Lyme Bay[edit]

Thanks for helping out with Lyme Bay, I didn't expect anyone to pitch in so fast, thanks! WikiDon

TFD logging[edit]

Thanks for helping with the maintenance of TFD, but please note that we log debates differently than VfD does. We use two logs, one for deleted and one for not deleted, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log. We don't use the talk pages, because those are deleted along with the template. Would you mind archiving the substub debate, since you're the one that delisted it and "made the call". -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Punctuation question[edit]

I've seen a few people do this, but you were the most recent so I thought I'd ask you. On the talk page for Robert Anton Wilson I noticed that you replaced a couple of apostrophes with some coding. I'm curious as to why. As I say, a number of people have also done this but I was told Wikipedia automatically formats punctuation. For example you'll note I've used several apostrophes here without coding and they look fine. Is there a policy I'm not aware of? Thanks. 23skidoo 13:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't actively change the RAW article. The apostrophes on that page were non standard (something other than ') and most browsers automatically change nonstandard charactors to html code. Joe D (t) 13:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware it was something that was automatically changed. Thanks for the clarification. 23skidoo 14:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Stub stuff[edit]


I am absolutely in awe at the number of stubs you've sorted recently. Do you find time to eat? Blink? Exhale? Joyous 01:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, when stub sorting be sure to watch what you mark as a minor edit. Adding the nonsense template to an article puts it on speedy delete track - that's not minor. And cream pie is a sub-stub that needs writing, not nonsense. I put bogus text there because people clicking from articles about cream pie flavored yogurts, ice creams, etc, were being redirected to the porn term creampie which is not at all what the linker is looking for. SchmuckyTheCat 18:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you gave Astrampsychus a biographical stub, again, and over my protests without explanation. Here is my argument:

1. Astrampsychus wasn't a person. 2. Astrampsychus is not something a general biography buff is going to know anything about—mooting the point. 3. There is no good stub category for it. Someone tried "writer" stub before. Magic-Occult is better, but not right. Divination seems like magic now, but in Antiquity it was not, unless you were diving through the dead or something like that.

Any ideas?

(For a better idea of the topic, see the Wiki Classical Dictionary.

Roman-stub combined with magic-stub would probably be the closest Grutness...wha? 14:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Astrampsychus.

Thanks for sorting the stub on the 'Nessy the Dragon' article. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and didn't know how to do category-specific stubs. --Psyk0 19:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting my article on deductive databases. Was about to do it myself (I'm new here :-S) and noticed you'd already done it. Thanks!  :-D GeorgeBills 12:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi Steinsky - I'm a little concerned about this one... you've done enough stub sorting to know that WP:WSS likes to go through a debate about new stub categories before they're created, to make sure that they don't cut across the hierarchy of stub categories that already exists. Well, this one does, quite thoroughly. You've got articles in the category which should have {{station-stub}}, others that should have {{Tvseries-stub}}, some {{Radio-stub}}s - it's a bit of a problem, really. I've listed the stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria#Newly-discovered stub categories - if you'd like to comment on the category there, feel free... Grutness...wha? 14:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria.

Unfossilised dinosaur bones, etc[edit]

On this debate, I think you should try to let the argument drop for a few days. There's no way that "Truthteller"'s "article" will survive Vfd, and its ultimate deletion will speak for itself about what Wikipedia thinks of his POV-pushing. In the meantime, I think everyone should just quietly let it be deleted, without debating "Truthteller" on any of his non-policy points. If "Truthteller" tries anything stupid, like reincarnating the article, we can put him before the arbcom and get him banned. Debating anything other than policy with him is only going to inflame the situation.

Hope I didn't seem too sanctimonious. Cheers, →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:28, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Lyme Bay Map[edit]

I changed the size of the text on the map instead, I just thought it was hard to see at 300px. WikiDon

WikiProject UK subdivisions[edit]

Definatly willing to help, although my knowledge is limited to London, Hampshire and Staffordshire. Grunners 18:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design revision[edit]

Thanks for the feedback. Where do you think my information fits best? Dbergan

Spoken Wikipedia[edit]

Hi there. Keep up the good work on WP:SPOKEN. We need more non-American contributors.  :) — Chameleon 14:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I second that - keep up the good work! :-) Just one question, this RSS code on the Spoken page, bloody good code, but my computer is trying to open it in "Microsoft Picture It!" but then fails, could you let me know what it is? Thanks Craigy Flag of the United Kingdom.svg (talk) 01:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


Hi - a recently signed on creation type has been removing evolution from the theory article and posting quite a bit on the talk. I thought you might want to take a look and comment on the discussion. Thanks, Vsmith 01:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation headers[edit]

I heavily disagree with the many removals of the disambiguation headers you've done. Not all users understand the disambiguation process, so please stop deleting them. Cburnett 18:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sydney harbour bridge pic[edit]

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I have the high resolution version now of this image up for featured picture. Thanks, --Silversmith Hewwo 23:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

English coast and countryside by county[edit]

  • Could you please stop implementing this "decision"? I do not accept that there was a concensus. Nominator plus one supporter is a quite inadequate basis for such a sweeping change. Another objector has since emerged. Thank you. CalJW 12:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This archive was created for our dicussion to be moved off the Abiogenesis talk page; and personally I don't it on my talk page. - RoyBoy 800 06:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UK constituencies[edit]

Aagh! Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies! It's reckoned that because so many UK constituencies need some sort of disambiguator, and quite a few need "(UK Parliament constituency)" - because of Scottish, Canadian constituencies etc. - that all should have the same disambiguator. As far as I am aware, there is a rough consensus for this. Also, 611 of the 646 constituencies already had the full disambiguator, which was why I was just mopping up the last few this morning. sjorford →•← 13:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your sensible moves to (constituency). There is no such consensus as claimed above. The idea that another constituency named Epsom & Ewell exists is absurd. Dmn / Դմն
Well, it's clear to me there is no consensus one way or the other. Please note that I'm not trying to aggressively push this - I initially was in favour of only disambiguating when required, but it seemed to me that we had decided, for good enough reasons, to consistently use the same disambiguator for every constituency. I'm restarting the discussion on the WikiProject talk page, to try and settle this properly. sjorford →•← 13:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


i just wanted to tell you, your AIM contact links to a disambig, (you might want to pipe it to AOL Instant Messanger or something along those lines). Also, can i steal that idea? i like it a lot. thanks, -mysekurity

Family trees[edit]

Thanks for the feedback; I've answered on my talk page. Dewet 19:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)