User talk:Bigbluefish

This page is for discussing changes to, or changing discussions to, the user Bigbluefish. Leave me a message by adding a section to the bottom. If I left you a message on your talk page, make your reply there. This is a talk page, not an email inbox, and if I'm talking to you, I'm watching your talk page.

Hi Bigbluefish; I see you haven't yet been officially welcomed to Wikipedia, so welcome! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). We're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have, so I hope you stick around. To get started, you might find the Wikipedia tutorial helpful, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you might need to look something up in the manual of style, and you'll also want to remember a few important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 00:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know on the article talk page what exactly you find POV about the article. Thanks...KHM03 10:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I probably ought to have done immediately, but it's taking me a while to get through all the information... I'll add something now. --BigBlueFish 10:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

> While trying to clean up Paedobaptism which has a rather messy explanation of its derivation, I looked up Paediatrics and > Paedophilia to see their take on the greek stem, and both of them use different Greek words again as the source! I suspect this may > be not only a consistency problem but also accuracy on at least two articles' part. I've been told you're the best person to ask > about these things, so I was wondering if you were able to shed some light on the issue. Cheers --BigBlueFish 09:58, 8 October 2005 > (UTC)

WHO TOLD YOU THAT!? I'll sue the wiki foundation for making such a remark on my part! ;) Cabal! Cabal! It's a conspiracy, i tell you! (I fixed it, and all those words are really the same word, it's just that in Greek nouns have different ending syllables that give the noun it's gender and case (το παιδ-ί, του παιδ-ιού, το παιδ-ί, ώ παιδ-ί!) Project2501a 22:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 recommended you on irc ;) --BigBlueFish 21:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do pedobaptist denominations do with adults who are born-again Christians? And perhaps more importantly what do they call it if the answer is that they baptise them? Presumably it isn't infant baptism, but is it believer's baptism or is that too exclusive to the anti-pedobaptist stance?

We baptise all ages (both children and adults) in all ways (both sprinkling and dunking). If an adult who has not been baptised before comes to faith and asks for baptism, we will baptise them. We call it "baptism". We don't call it "believer's baptism" for adults because we see all baptism as baptism of believers: part of the point of infant baptism is that the child is already seen as part of God's family until such time as they choose not to be. Does that answer your question? The Wednesday Island 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does :). In particular it makes it clear to me that the terms infant baptism and believers baptism are not directly opposing ideologies, rather specific cases of the general practice of baptism, though with each other they are generally incompatible. The whole coverage of baptism still leaves a lot of structure to be desired. Some day I hope to have a go at sorting it out. BigBlueFish 10:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm being really dim, but what was wrong with my use of "alternate" in iTunes Music Store? AlistairMcMillan 21:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your answer see alternate --BigBlueFish 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but dictionary.com disagrees.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: "3. Serving or used in place of another; substitute: an alternate plan."

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law: "2. being an alternative <alternate juror>"

I really have no idea what the correct usage is and our alternate page doesn't list any refs, so no way to check up the accuracy of that content. AlistairMcMillan 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, you got me. :-P android79 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article discussing the advertising campaign and the 2000 hit songs. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 17:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, please take a look at my concerns about the Article Improvement Drive nomination of Cold War posted here. Thanks. 172 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Just thought you might be interested that Template:AcademyAwardBestPicture is being proposed for deletion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 10:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bigbluefish wrote:

Let me reiterate that with respect to Muse (band) on which you have reverted the spelling "apparantly" twice now, in the context of a block quoted press release that is clearly littered with mistakes. If you're using some sort of automated process, then you need to take more care. Every edit is your responsibility, and if the system can't allow you to allow for such situations then it can't be used. BigBlueFish 16:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for making this change again. However, this case is slightly different to the Nuwaubianism issue. I accept that I should notice if my edits have been reverted, however the decision to edit is a misjudgement on my part. I did notice that it was indented; however, while the tone of the paragraph is certainly rather nonsensical, as far as I can see it contains no other spelling mistakes, and also the misspelling was not marked with [sic]. (I have just marked it as such). I This influenced my decision. In future I shall be more cautious with indented or quoted material.

With regard to the question of an "automated process", I am using tools which automate the processes of searching for and retrieving articles, locating errors and recording corrections. However, I make all actual edits myself – there are no automated 'bot' edits being made from this account. The 'system' in this case ultimately comes down to my decision as to whether or not to press the "Save page" button; this decision is never made for me, so such situations are certainly accommodated for. It is my judgement that is at fault – where the situation is unclear, I have tended towards making the correction rather than leaving it uncorrected. This is something I will need to adjust for. Again, please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused – Gurch 17:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I just reverted some vandalism on your userpage for you. Hope that makes up for the above -- Gurch 17:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response :). I had considered putting in [sic]s but the whole quote is actually littered with mistakes. I've put a little note at the end to that effect, rather than littering the quote with [sic]s everywhere. I hope that makes it a bit clearer. I hope I didn't sound too harsh in my original message... I suspected that was the kind of system you used (I use AWB every now and again too) and I don't blame you for the occasional hiccup. I only just saw your correction count, and for that kind of work it's worth it if there's a mistake every so often. Thanks for the revert as well. I'm intrigued now as to who the vandal was. It was made from a college where just a handful of people from my school have moved to... stranger still that they found me on Wikipedia. BigBlueFish 12:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Litefantastic 00:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept what you're saying about the mad nigger redirect. If someone wants to delete the redirect, I won't argue with it. However, there's at least one guy on the talk page who thinks it should stay. Remember, it's only a redirect. - Richardcavell 00:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a user I the German Wikipedia and I am writing a article about the price of the cigarettes in Europe. It would be nice if you can say me what is the price of a package Marlboro cigarettes in your country and how many cigarettes are in a package. Important is that it should be the official Price of the cigarettes and not the price of cigarettes from the street. Thank you very much. —This unsigned comment was added by 84.160.199.210 (talk • contribs) .

You should read Wikipedia:No original research. I don't think this an appropriate sort of investigation to be following. You might get away with writing a comparison on tobacco duty and taxes in a different country, but you would have to cite an official source for each figure. BigBlueFish 21:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help us track down verifiable sources to bring The Game back! Go to SaveTheGame.org! Bkkbrad 19:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm persuaded on the issue. Quite frankly Wikipedia doesn't need to and shouldn't write about certain social phenomena. There is a tempation to think, "Wow, Wikipedia is so big. There is an article about almost everything I can name," but that shouldn't be the case. The Game (game) didn't help anyone who might want to learn information about The Game for research, since it is just a summary of what a certain group thinks of it. Its viral nature means that it can change from just one word of mouth to another. People who want an idea of what people on the internet capable of publishing on the internet perceive The Game to be can get one by searching for all the blogs and forums out there. It doesn't need to be collated into a piece of original research for Wikipedia. BigBlueFish 21:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism if it's humorous. I know wikipedia has a reputation to keep up, but at least we can be funny on april fool's day on Talk pages, can't we? Soren9580 08:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was for april fool's? Maybe I didn't get it because you did the same thing yesterday. Not that funny really either. BigBlueFish 08:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't like my POTUS FLOTUS joke either? What is permissible on April Fools Day? Is the joke that Wikipedia allows no Hoaxes at all? Soren9580 11:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would read some of the discussion in the lead-up to April Fools', you'll see that no, hoaxes are not acceptable like this. The April Fools' jokes must not obstruct any genuine information, and not mislead people when they are looking for reliable information. Someone today may wish to know what FLOTUS stands for. See Wikipedia:Community Portal and the Main Page for examples of mischief that is acceptable. Most bigger jokes are kept in the safe bounds of the User namespace or BJAODN. BigBlueFish 11:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. I will be sure to assign the payment as fairly as I can. First off, only people who have been working on it since the offer was made qualify for the reward. Also, people will be rewarded in proportion (or close enough) to their work. A person who has done the most work will get the most pay. I'm currently wondering if people making very minor edits will qualify for the award. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I really appreicate your advice. I still have the problem - let me clarify - the pages appear normally when I am reading them, with the exception of a few small things hereand there - the "your continued donations" for example. BUT when I open a page to edit, the entire article text appears in a very very small font with lots of serifs and things. Rolling the click wheel does increase it, but also increases everything else so that its around 72 points while the editing window text is still pretty small (though larger). It is also for sure in the same weird font. Any clue? Kaisershatner 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Oh, I'm using Mozilla an Firefox and cleared my cache. Kaisershatner 19:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds thoroughly bizarre. Also check your default font settings at Tools > Options > Content - the Wikipedia styles might be overriding these defaults in all but a handful of contexts. If it is this it ought to be followed up, since browser defaults of this type shouldn't really persist in the monobook skin. If not, I haven't a clue. A screenshot might ring some bells if you want to upload one. BigBlueFish 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and thanks again. The problem seems to have resolved. I removed popups, rebooted my computer, and reinstalled Firefox. It didn't seem to help; also strangely was using IE as the browser I couldn't bring up the Main Page - really weird - then it just got better. Thanks for hanging with me though. See you around, Kaisershatner 21:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Strange things happen... --BigBlueFish 09:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

Sure, what's the IP? --InShaneee 23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the right way to go about this; all this editing confuses me :S Right, recently I got a message about numerous changes to the Black Holes And Revelations page (though for some reason I only got it on the main Muse page but never mind) and I'm curious as to how those changes happened, which I noticed myself when comparing my versions to the one before, but assumed them just to be a bug, since the only thing I changed myself on that page was the linking brackets, and wanted to clear my name! If this is in the wrong place, feel free to move/remove/whatever it! Sorry to bother ye, hope Surrey is going well! (I might be taking music there :) )

~Toby

I've replied to you back on User talk:81.31.127.126 where I sent the original message. I find the best way to do things is to keep all discussions in one place where they were started, so just edit the page you see the message you want to reply to. BigBlueFish 16:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, Well just to tidy the discussion up, I'll leave this part here! Thanks for all the welcoming and help! :) Mr8131127126 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you have redirected Prelude in C-sharp minor (Rachmaninoff) to Prelude in C-sharp minor, and with the argument that there are no other preludes yet. I think this is a strange action, as there are obviously tens or maybe hundreds of preludes in Csharp minor. Wikipedia is still a bit deficient on classical works, so in the future there will certainly be an article about another prelude, so that the redirect will be a useless operation.

As mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music the title should contain the composer. Maybe you can discuss this issue there?

cheers, Dr. Friendly 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're absolutely right, it's a sensible convention to have. It just resembled to me the wider convention of using brackets to distinguish between articles that would otherwise have the same name, and noted that there weren't any such articles. In moving it back I've secured a redirect to the Rach. article anyway. If it's synonymous enough (which the article suggests it might be) then at least people looking for it under that name will now find it. BigBlueFish 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted by Pruneau^T 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID maintenance team.[reply]

Again, please do not re-insert the album cover, per WP:SONG and WP:IMAGE guidelines and especially Wikipedia:Image use policy's official guidelines.

Wikipedia's Image use policy states that Once there is enough text to support the image, any contributor is free to shift the image back into the article. Given the word count for the song is less than 500 words, there is no need to overcrowd the article with excess images. See featured articles for examples such as "She Loves You", or "Layla" for appropriate usage of additional photos in music-related articles. These articles are over 1500 words in length and the images provide appropriate breaks to the text and provide complimentary information.

Please adhere to official policy as outlined by Wikipedia. There are already two wiki-links to Black Holes and Revelations which is more than sufficient for users wishing to view the album cover. Thanks.

I have a very simple alternative solution without resorting to the re-inserting of the album cover on "Knights of Cydonia". Simply make a reference to the song on the actual Black Holes and Revelations page. The image is already there, and there's more than enough space to present any additional information about the album artwork. --Madchester 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant rubbish to the define the album's theme and influence? Dude, I'm totally dumbfound of some of the kinds of people, who are proudly defining themselves as "Wikipedians" and proudly delete material without any kind of explanation, hesitation and worse without a substantial base to ground their facts on. Sometimes I am just fucking frustrated from that kind of people, really. Sort yourself and be... try to... just try to be more reasonable next time, right?

Regards Painbearer 21:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry the edit seemed so heavy-handed. I acted without hesitation because the anonymous comment on the talk page made a good point about the structure and leaning of the article, and I regard such comments as insightful outside views which are worth acting upon when normally I would let an article slide as it's hard work to gradually work on the integrity of an article's structure. The paragraph on influences, however, I have no qualms about removing. The article is about Muse, not about their fourth album, and while the article on that album discusses influences, I don't feel they are relevant there. For one, they are not cited, and claiming an influence without a source is a no-no. Secondly, there is already information about general influences on the band, and the information there didn't attempt to identify what influences were new about this album. For example, I don't think there is any more Rachmaninoff in this album, if not less, than in previous ones. On the other hand, Franz Ferdinand have been mentioned by the band as an influence on the difference in sound of the album, with reference to Supermassive Black Hole which states this; maybe the album article ought to pick up more on these, but I still feel that these are deeper aspects of the album sound, rather than significant elements of their history. Particularly, the presence of influences in one album give no indication that the influences are a permanent feature of the band's future sound.

Finally, I make no claim to being any more of a Wikipedian than are you, 201.215.167.137 and the rest of the editors on here. I've tried to underline this by focusing on editing articles, rather than joining Wikiprojects, binge voting or (heaven forbid) engaging in userbox abuse, and in general, the edits I make could be made by anybody else. Please don't feel unnecessarily alienated from anyone in the community. BigBlueFish 22:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but more or less we have something of a structure. If you read carefully, each album of the article has a brief info about the album's lyrical and musical themes and objects. It's kind of a following. I did it because it was a structure from their previos ones. I wanted to follow the structure. On the other hand yep, I agree that the influences should be implemented more carefully regarding what Bellamy says and what we the listeners listen to. It's kind of part of that structure. And I like it, I have to say. I think that we should have it. More or less, I do not agree with you. I think we should find a middle way to satisfy us and the readers. Do implement, but with carefulness, because structurally it's better I think.

Regards Painbearer 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The past album sections leave a good deal to be desired, but nevertheless, I agree, if there is relevant, verifiable information to add to the article on chronological influences then it is most welcome. BigBlueFish 12:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BigBlueFish. Thanks for your comments on my work. At the present time I am not producing SVG format images because adobe are stopping their support for the format in 2008, and they make the most prominent plugin. I am also peitioning as I feel wikipedia should be natively viewable on all mainstream browsers. At present SVG is only natively viewable via Opera.

Provisionally it has also been stated by Microsoft that vistas version of IE may not support the SVG Format (though I doubt that, they often say these kind of things). You will also notice that much of my work is uploaded at large resolutions (2000 x 2000 pixels plus!). This means that for users who want to see larger versions the provisions are there. Also my diagrams are drawn at 300dpi. When printing them you will find a 2000 x 2000 pixel image still only fills an A4 page, but that the print quality is superbly detailed. More info about my views on the SVG format can be found at the very top of my user page although its mostly repeating this. I hope this better explains my position on the matter. I'm not boo-hooing the SVG format though I should point out. Its a great idea and I wish the native support for it was there, but it would be nice to resolve the current issues before I convert my work to SVG.

I'm requesting that while I research into this and hopefully come to a solution, that no-one update my images with SVG versions. I 100% appreciate that from a copyright perspective I have no right to ask that, as in uploading the images to wikipedia I accepted that they could be shamelessly edited by others and were no longer my property. But I am asking it politely as one wikipedian to other wikipedians, to save us all time in the long run. If SVG is determined to be a good and accpetable format I will update my future and past work accordingly.

In any case, thanks very much for your input and if you want more information about my SVG research, feel free to check my user page which i'll be updating as I go along. Thanks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Also just seen your a student in Surrey, Presumably at the university of surrey? I'm a student in Brighton but I'm from near guildford originally and can still be found around that neck of the woods every couple of weekends and hols. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish individual admins would quit taking abitrary decisions on this issue and seek consensus on a policy for GWA. I have been editing for years now on GWA with the occasional random block. I don't see what's changed and I don't see what blocking GWA is in aid of. Vandals using GWA are identified by their true IP because POST requests aren't proxied so edits are never made by GWA users. Blocking the accelerator just blocks the web form. If this is a permanent policy then I would like to see it written and a proper resource explaining what's going on to the users who come up against the block. BigBlueFish 21:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a preexisting policy already. Anything freely accessible that masks an editor's true IP address is covered by Wikipedia:No open proxies. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're at a few issues with this article again. If you're game, I'd love to have you poke around a bit. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am leaving you this note because I see you have recently participated on the article's talk page. I have started a general discussion on the article. Input is welcome. Thanks, Navou 12:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Itrip.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Silence.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Falsetto, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falsetto. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Noisettes debut.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that historical mistake to me. I put it right in the article. It was not Olga but Sofia of Prussia of course. Thanks for the translation. Unfortunately, the biography is a little incomplete : I could not find a lot of references about his literary work. But I'm still looking. I'll keep you posted if I find anything new. Cedric B. (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vikelas again[edit]

"Patronnage" is to be understood as "moral support", but as it was public moral support, it was important. I looked at the article about the 1894 Congress (on fr:). It is rather small, and without any sources, so it can be used. I'll look at the one on en:. See you, read you, Cedric B. (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Itrip_dock.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Itrip_lcd.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Itrip_mini.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Itrip_nano.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever script you've been using recently to clean up articles to MoS guidelines is breaking {{convert}} templates and possibly others which require a hyphen to be used to denote a negative number for the software to process it. I don't know if this has affected any of your other contributions besides that to WWII. You ought to change or at least check the behaviour of the script though. Note that templates such as this still output MoS-compliant dashes such as the minus sign even though the input needs to be a hyphen. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I totally overlooked that! (I assume you're talking about {{convert|600|mi|km|-2}}.) In principle all edits through that script must be overlooked by a carbon-based AI, but when there are lots of dashes it can happen that it misses something when the script doesn't handle something correctly. I think it's best to add the convert template to the list of exceptions, I'll get around to it immediately. Again, thanks for prodding me. Shinobu (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed now. Thanks again. Shinobu (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say many thanks for the tips you provided in the Peer Review for Navenby. Some excellent suggestions, and I have been working my way through them - until crossing paths with an over-enthusiastic editor who obviously loves speedy deletion arguements. I've emailed Wikipedia with all the relevant permission emails etc, including some for other pictures the editor hasn't yet picked on. I just hope that Wikipedia accept then ASAP, otherwise all the hard work of recent months will be wasted just because of this one person. Sorry, it is so totally not your problem, but I feel like I could scream! Doing this has also wasted the time I would have spent doing your suggestions. Grrrr --Seahamlass (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Thankyou too for emailing the Flickr guy. I've just done the same, using your words, but placed the message on his newest picture, [1].[reply]

To be fair, Polly was simply patrolling the image uploads and checking their licenses. It's an important job because of the sheer volume of material that's uploaded each day, and the fact that work which is genuinely improperly licensed for use on Wikipedia is a legal liability to it. In an environment such as this, it's best to err on the side of harshness. The worst that can happen is that the images are deleted before proper permission is established, and then when it is you have to upload the photos again. A few minutes extra work but hardly months of work wasted. Insofar as the flickr non-commercial license is concerned, improperly licensed images is enough for some people to reject a FAC, so it's only a formality which had to be done at some point.

It looks like the situation has brought out a bit of wikistress in you! Just remember that while your work is vastly appreciated, no article belongs to you, and, assuming that they are acting in good faith, others are trying to improve the encyclopedia just as much as you. Remember, there is no deadline, so don't be shy of taking a wikibreak if things really do get to you! BigBlueFish (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" - wikistress - a word I had never come across until an on-going AFD arguement with two editors trying to bully me and then this picture problem! I really don't think Wikipedia is worth all the bother. I'm going to see Navenby through to the bitter end - GA pass or fail - and then I think I'll retire. I don't much like it here.--Seahamlass (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen any comments which were aimed directly at you. I can see though that there has been various criticism of contributions you've made. If this is what you don't like then maybe yes, editing Wikipedia isn't for you. Wikipedia isn't about getting things right first time, it's about making an end-product which is. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFD has stirred up a hornet's nest and it isn't pretty. I gave one particular editor (1958) an Edit Wars warning last week,(you can check his history talk page) and this is how he has responded. I am, however, very very sorry that you have been dragged into it.--Seahamlass (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could I ask a quick question about this part of your review: "The lead has too many inline references. If the source of a statement is cited in the main body, it doesn't need to be cited in the lead as well (per WP:LEAD) since this is just a summary of what the main article says." At the moment I have nine references which, on looking at it, does seem a bit overbaord. Should I cut them all out, or leave two or three and incorporate the rest into the main piece? Thankyou. --Seahamlass (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most if not all of them are unnecessary. Some, like the first couple, are unquestionable, because population is repeated in the main article and the same source is cited there anyway. Others are not so explicitly repeated in the main body—however, this may be a problem with either the phrasing of the lead or of the main article, because the former is supposed to be a summary of the latter. For example, the fact that Ermine Street is known as High Dyke is not repeated in the main body whereas it easily could be (the reference for this is a dead link, by the way). I'm not even quite sure if it's worth mentioning in the lead itself.

Anyhow, these are just examples; use your judgement and the result will be good. There isn't a specific quota you should aim for, but for example, all of this week's front page featured articles have exactly one reference in the lead (except Sea otter from which I just deleted the remaining reference, since even that was a very rudimentary plain fact!). Ultimately, they should only be used for really controversial claims and any details which really cannot or should not be repeated in the main article body.

By the way, all of your references seem to have "date=2007" in them, which doesn't seem to be correct. The date field is meant for the publication date of the thing you're citing. Accessdate is for the date that you last checked it. In general, the references could be improved to be more semantically correct in their usage of the templates. See the documentation on the {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} etc templates. I fixed one of the references as an example. BigBlueFish (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much. Will get cracking on it tonight. Please don't move this comment for a couple of days, as will be working from it. --Seahamlass (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		A very big, and heartfelt, thankyou for all the time you have put in on Navenby. (Especially with the references). Much, much appreciated. Seahamlass (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bigbluefish!

Sorry to trouble you, but I just wondered if I could ask a favour. You were kind enough to give me heaps of good advice about this article during its recent Peer Review, which I hope I have addressed, and it is now up for FAC. I just wondered if you could cast your eye over it again and decide if you could give your support to it? . It has won Good Article status and been vigorously copy-edited since the last time you looked at it I think. I've also had to remove a lot of the photos, to fit in with FA standard, so it doesn't look quite the same, and the refs have been tightened up too. (It has two supports so far, and no opposes, so fingers crossed!). OK, I have to admit before you take a look that there are four refs in the lead, but that is down from nine... Many thanks, --seahamlass 10:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images: This is not directly an issue relevant to the FAC, but it's a shame to lose quite a few pictures altogether, although I agree that removing them has improved the composition of the article. The obvious thing to do, since I believe they are all under free licenses, is to move them all to the commons (should be done anyway really) and adding a {{commons}} template. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Happy to do this - but don't know how. Sorry!--seahamlass 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just spotted your edit: "plum (plumb bread would be rather toxic]". That made me laugh!

• • If I had time I would go through them and do them myself; however that might not be for a while. If you want to, you could either just go through them all and tag them with {{copy to Wikimedia Commons}}; this has a pretty big backlog but a Wikiproject exists to soldier through them so eventually your images will be moved. Alternatively you can register an account on the Commons and upload them yourself; the move-to-commons assistant greatly simplifies this process, and if you have all these images saved on your hard drive already even better. this page may also be helpful for a list of all the images which need to be moved. BigBlueFish (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I'm afraid I disagree with the you on this. I'm using the standard templates and following the standard format for dispaying those templates. I am familiar with WP:AGF and WP:BITE, having been around Wikipedia pretty much as long as you have. Wikipedia, as you know, is not an appropriate forum for people to advertise their YouTube uploads. In fact, we have directives from the Foundation asking us to take a strong line against such infractions, since they seriously damage the quality and reputation of Wikipedia. I disagree with your assessment of that particular user's intent - they are not here to improve the encyclopedia, they are simply here to promote their own YouTube channel. That is disruptive. Again, sorry to disagree with you on this, Gwernol 11:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

continued on User talk:Gwernol. BigBlueFish (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me a heads-up about that. I wasn't aware of that MoS guideline, so thanks for letting me know. I will make sure to keep that in mind next time :) nneonneo ^talk 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I am still learning how to do references. Caveman1949 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Caveman1949 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on API numbers and I tried to load my first table, but it did not format properly.

Can you tell me what I did wrong (or fix it)

Thanks!

Caveman1949 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to divide up the rows and columns in wikisyntax by hand I'm afraid. Here's an example with the first two rows:

State	Code	Regulatory agency	Link
Alabama	01	Alabama State Oil & Gas Board	http://www.gsa.state.al.us/ogb/ogb.html
Arizona	02	Arizona Oil & Gas Conservation Commission	http://www.azogcc.az.gov/

Haven't got the time to do the whole table I'm afraid. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just wanted to make sure that I was doing it the most efficient way! Thanks! Caveman1949 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted on a recent edit you changed the references tag from the one with pointed brackets and a slash to one with curly brackets and reflist. Sorry I don't know how to write it so that is does not come up as code. Anyway I was wondering what are the advantages of the later. I often add references and use the former but if the latter is better I'll do that. Thank you for your advice. SuzanneKn (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... it seems there is actually no consensus in the favour of either, but because WP:AWB does the replacement automatically I assumed it was standard. In the case of Pilgrims' Way I noticed the large size particularly because I had added a note to the list, which I think stylistically is worse to have in large print than a citation. But the choice is yours when adding new ones, and I shouldn't really have made a standalone edit just to make that change.

By the way, you can use <nowiki></nowiki> tags and the {{tl}} template to reproduce the relevant wikisyntax properly. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bigbluefish

I accept what you say about adding foot notes. I am an old geezer and will have to try to figure out how to add the footnotes. I will try to find time at the weekend. It easy for young people who have grown up with computers and the net. For me its a struggle. Thanks for the friendly tone of your comments. Johnadonovan (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now have some other work that needs doing this weekend and beyond so if you or anyone else has the time to add the footnotes please do so. I would be most grateful for the help. There were no relevant footnotes on the article from which the content was transferred. However, independent verification sources are already provided for ALL information, so it is not a case of no reference sources. Johnadonovan (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of prominent links to prime subsidiary articles

Hello Bigbluefish

It takes time and thought to add to an article. It takes seconds to delete what someone else has added. To do so without any discussion suggests that the person making the deletion is 100% sure that the act of deletion is unquestionably correct. Unless I have missed something, there is no suggestion by you that the group of links should be placed elsewhere on the main article. There are existing links for the controversies and safely concern articles, but there in no link to the new article covering environmental issues. The current links on the main page are disorganised and thus are not user friendly. It seemed sensible to have a common design for the links between the four primary articles about Shell. When I first started editing all of the subject matter was covered in the main Royal Dutch Shell article. It was then separated out on the basis that the article was getting too long. At least one contributor complained along the lines that important information about Shell was being conveniently buried in secondary articles. I asked how many visitors bothered to click through to the controversies article. No one could supply an answer. My guess is that it is very few. I have noted the comment about conflict of interest. That subject was recently discussed but can be returned to if you deem it appropriate. I strongly contend that there should be prominently positioned links to the offshoot articles so that people interested in Shell can choose to look at all of the facts if they wish to do so, rather than important information being buried elsewhere. I would welcome a response. I will add a version of these comments onto the discussion page for the Royal Dutch Shell article if you feel other editors should be brought into the discussion. Johnadonovan (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're talking about this edit. To answer the first part of your message, you are right in that I am sure that this edit is incontrovertible. Note that even if discussion might decide against it in the future, it's still fine to do it immediately so long as I expect it to be the most likely outcome. To undo an edit takes even less time than to create the content or delete it.

The Manual of Style advocates a structure inconsistent with the use of those links for a reason, and I can't see any exception regarding Shell. The fact is that Shell does not exist to cause controversies. The average reader is also unlikely to be specifically looking for information about Shell controversies. Simple test: the mainstream media report more on other things than their controversies. Even if you see this as an injustice, Wikipedia is not the place to escalate their prominence beyond due balance.

So somebody is reading the article, and they want to know about controversies, or they want a rounded picture of Shell so they read the whole article. They will eventually find the section about controversies, which should concisely summarise the state of affairs regarding controversies without undue weight. If this is insufficient and they want to know more, they now know to click the "main article" link to the article on controversies. This is the most effective way of conveying the information to readers both from the point of the encyclopedia, and of any personal agenda you may have (although this can only be furthered if as a secondary result of improving the encyclopedia).

I've added the new article to the See also list. If you still think that there should be links in the lead, I would suggest you do raise it on the talk page as it's bound to be a subjective issue. However, I recommend you focus on improving the quality of the coverage of these controversies themselves. As well as proper footnotes, you should focus on citing secondary sources indicating any long-term recognition of the controversies. They should also be grouped by theme unless in the case of a timeline of connected controversies; Wikipedia is not a news source. Some sections may need to be shortened and merged; not every one necessarily needs its own section but may still be important enough for a mention (remember, readers can read your sources too). Overall, they should read like any other encyclopedia article, and not presume that any reader is reading it for a particular reason. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note your statement that your edit is “incontrovertible”. Could you kindly explain what that means? When you carried out the edit you did not bother to install another link to the environment issues article and did so only after I complained. I suspect that contrary to what you may think, many visitors to the Royal Dutch Shell article have a great interest in environmental issues. It is therefore wrong for the only link to be relegated almost to a mere footnote on the main page bearing in mind that environmental issues had already been removed from the main page. I do not believe that it is proper for the main page to serve as an advertising platform for Shell with negative factual information of great importance to ethical investors and people interested in the environment being buried elsewhere on the basis that visitors will “will eventually find the section”. Most will be bored to death by the PR and other information long before bothering to navigate the maze. I also note your reference to the “Manual of Style”. I seem to recall that commonsense is also mentioned. Wikipedia is not a news site but it is on the Internet and therefore has the advantage of the ability to be updated instantly when events are reported in the news media. I also do not accept other comments you have made. I do however have a commonsense suggestion. Why not reinstall the links and leave them in place for a few days. We will then see if anyone else is as certain as you on the matter. If any further objections are made we could put the issue up for discussion on the Royal Dutch Shell talk page, transferring this correspondence so that it is taken into account. If no similar objections are forthcoming, perhaps you might then be prepared to reconsider your unilateral decision to delete on an “incontrovertible” basis. For the avoidance of all doubt, I contend that all links to the prime subsidiary articles should be displayed together in a prominent position on the Royal Dutch Shell article, not hidden away as the articles already are as a result of past decisions. Johnadonovan (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "incontrovertible" I meant that the justification in my edit summary should in my opinion suffice to identify the reason that it is absolutely not a standard structure to adopt, and that regardless of the faith in which you added it in the first place, the reversion should make it self-evident why it wasn't such a good idea as it seemed.

Reinstalling the links without the backing of at least one other Wikipedian is a bad idea, especially given the conflict of interest, and the fact that a reversion solicits the seeking of consensus before reinstating the edit. I have written on the talk page so we'll see where that takes us.

I cannot agree with your portrayal of the current Shell article less. If you seriously think that the article reads like an advert then please suggest an area which needs to be addressed. However it looks to me like it does a pretty good job. If somebody looks up Shell, then they want to know what Shell is. That article tells you that. If they want to know about any controversies they have been involved in, they will read the table of contents and find it, or simply look the main article straight up. In fact, now that I think about it, the table of contents is providing exactly the links you want, except it provides them in the right way.

Let me remind you that the reason there are separate articles for the controversies is not because they are the most important topics about Shell. It is because there is more detail than is relevant to the main article. If we had more information for the History section, we would create an article on History of Royal Dutch Shell.

If you still think the links would be useful, try explaining why they are useful to an encyclopedia reader. So far you have talked about potential investors—and Wikipedia is not an investor catalog; we present the information the way that it is most useful and relevant—and environmentalists, who will be looking for that section straight away. You also talk about "interest" in the articles. Wikipedia is for presenting information directly, not to sidetrack them on a point of "interest". In what context would somebody wanting to know what Shell is want to read about their controversies before the history of the company? BigBlueFish (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our respective opinions are so far apart that if we were to continue this dialogue, the likelihood is that we would both waste a great deal of time to no avail and end up being rude to each other. Rather than being diverted into a fruitless discussion arguing about matters of opinion, we should stick to the central issue with the objective of finding a compromise solution. I have tried to do this in my last reply to your comments posted on the talk page for Royal Dutch Shell. Johnadonovan (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I have added more comments on to the Royal Dutch Shell talk page section relating to this matter. Johnadonovan (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the links in question - please see Linking to controversies section on RDS discussion page for explanation. Johnadonovan (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote from your comments on the renaming of "Burma" to "Myanmar."

I am particularly disgusted by the notion that the choice of Western governments to use Burma should affect this decision. It's NPOV not WPOV. If any government should have weight in the choice of the country's name it should be its own.

Actually, it should really be the people of that country. Unfortunately, the people who won the last elections in Burma, and should be in Government there, have no say. (They use the name "Burma.") Instead, we have a despised military Junta who use the name "Myanmar", a name you lend to support to. Incidentally, the opinions of Western Governments should matter to you. You live in Cambridge. Not Rangoon/Yangon. Maybe you would think differently if you did.

By the way, thankyou for re-instating the comments you deleted. You were right, they weren't the most stimulating I'd read, but at least you are giving people the chance to judge them for themselves instead of taking the decison to censor them.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sure, but my sentence started with "if any government should have weight" and the Burmese people are not a government. You are also talking in terms of what the name of the country should be, rather than what Wikipedia should say that it is right now. I admit that my comments didn't fully make this distinction.

To Wikipedia's choice of a name, the plight of the Burmese is, unfortunately, irrelevant. Our guidelines are based on first the most common usage, then the official one. To decide what the most common English language usage is, we can draw from various authorities. You can't say that Western governments have a greater authority than the Myanmar government on the usage. Furthermore, people are now generally agreed that the press is almost perfectly split, and usage is split although the context and locality can greatly affect which name is used. Therefore policy dictates that the official (in the eyes of the Myanmar government and several international organisations) name should be used.

Remember that this does not mean that the article does not explain what name is used where. It just has to have the most widely used, officially accepted title to start with. Who knows, maybe not too long from now everybody will be calling it Burma again and we can change it back. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've added my two-cents anyway, so I'll leave it at that.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just randomly, a couple of your comments could be misread as being a little overzealous, though I'm assuming good faith. NPOV and keeping cool go hand in hand.Somedumbyankee (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I checked Llewellyn-Smith, p. 61-62. Inauguration of Zappeion (Zappas head included in the wall) in 1888; p. 62 "Further, a fourth Olympic festival was held, the agro-industrial show taking place in the newly commissioned exhibition hall. The athletic contests which had been announced to take place in the stadium as part of the festival did not happen. And that was the end of the Zappas Olympics."

So, OK, the athlectic Zappas Olympic Games did not take place in 1888, but Zappas Olympics in 1888 existed. I also read that Phokianos organized the 1875 Zappas Olympics. I'm not sure about the ones in 1888. At least Llewellyn-Smith considers the 1888 games as Zappas games. I hope that answers your problem. Cedric B. (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to say, apart from whatever consensus comes out of the Liebeck discussion, I appreciate your congenial and nonconfrontational contribution to the discussion. Lately, I've seen a lot of heated silly arguments on WP, and it's refreshing to see an actual discussion aimed toward betterment of the article. TJRC (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "Bigbluefish".

1. I have put a reference on the Pride of Britain Awards, which I did create during my time as editor of the Daily Mirror. You will note I resisted the temptation to use my own book as a reference!

2. Sympathetic / Defensive is surely the other side of the coin from Unsympathetic / Aggressive? Surely there is a middle ground somewhere!

Piers Morgan (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on Talk:Pride of Britain Awards about the first point. It seems that Richard Branson and a guy called Peter Willis were also involved. It would be nice to get some clarity on who did what. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk &#149; Contribs)} 13:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're too fast, Matt! I'm about to finish a big edit on the page... BigBlueFish (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the source to your diagram Image:Free Body Diagram.png? It needs to be modified, since it shows the frictional force going through its true line of action but the normal reaction going through the block's centroid, which is not, which is somewhat misleading. Thanks, BigBlueFish (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not handy. I just drew it in MS Word, then pasted it into Paint to save it in PNG format. To where do you propose to move the normal force arrow? Its exact location is not known without additional information and further analysis. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may stand to be corrected, but since the weight acts through the surface of contact, the normal reaction must act through the point on that surface vertically below the centre of mass, or there would be a net rotational acceleration. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would eliminate any moment due to the gravitational and the normal forces if they were in opposite directions, which they are not, and would not address the moment generated by the friction force. All of this only applies to the static case, which is not given. In fact, if the coefficient of friction is zero, then the normal force is correct as drawn. Otherwise, the acceleration must be known in order to correctly place the single, resultant normal force arrow. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If their lines of action intersect then there is no moment regardless of direction. BigBlueFish (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This contradicts your statement above. Since the normal force is not parallel to the gravitational force, their lines of action will always intersect somewhere, no mater where the normal force is applied. That would mean that the normal force and the gravitational force could never create a moment, which is not true. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The normal and gravitational forces only produce a moment if the weight acts outside the surface of contact. Within this boundary the forces must cross on the surface or the frictional force exerts a moment with the other two. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for a three-force member in static equilibrium. However, there is nothing about the diagram or the article that states that the block is not moving. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even in a dynamic case the block has no angular acceleration, and all acceleration occurs in a plane perpendicular to the normal reaction, so it is not affected. BigBlueFish (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No angular acceleration is necessary for angular momentum to be a factor. A braking car will experience "weight shift" to the front wheels even if the suspension and the wheels are rigid. No rotation is necessary for this to occur. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I find this a little hand-wavey. I'm not aware of any case in which the vertical force on the wheels of a braking car is imbalanced, or indeed there would be a net moment on the car. A truly rigid car has no angular momentum because its path has an infinite radius of curvature. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hand-waving necessary. It follows directly from the definition of angular momentum about a point, H_p = r_/p x mv, and the correct application of angular momentum balance. You may read about it in the Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article. The citation includes a link to a PDF copy of a statics and dynamics textbook published by Oxford University Press. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides whatever effect or phenomenon you're trying to describe, the simple case that the diagram is trying to describe either shows a block in mechanical equilibrium on a plane or a block sliding down it, both of which are cases in which the free body illustrated experiences no net moment. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no net moment only in the static (or constant velocity) case. If there is acceleration, then the net moment about any point must equal the cross product of the position vector from that point to the center of mass with the product of mass and acceleration vector of the center of mass:M_p = r_cm/p x ma_cm. Using a point that coincides with the center of mass provides no information, of course, because the position vector has zero length: the net moment about the center of mass is zero.

As for what I am showing in that diagram, it happens to coincide with option c of the three "sensible" ways to represent contact force distributions shown on page 95 of the same textbook mentioned above. One more option I've seen in a different text that is slightly more complicated is to indicate an unknown distance "d" from one edge to the point of application. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Crowsnest (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just submitted my mod project called wikiLINKIA here.Please do tell me how is this concept?

Permalink:[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnSYS (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:You're Not Alone album cover.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

You recently removed the phrase "In the field of electronics and communication" with "rm phrase per WP:LEAD." What in WP:LEAD are you referring to? It seems to me that wording is consistent with the "Establishing context" part and is useful. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was alluding to "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence". The contexts is established by the title of the article. However, I hadn't read the whole of the article properly because at the time I was tidying up various references to aeroelastic flutter, rather than signal flutter. I didn't realise that it actually inappropriately digresses into aeroelastic flutter, which is outside the scope of "Flutter (electronics and communication)". The disambiguation page "Flutter" currently links to Aeroelasticity#Flutter. The aeroelastic content should either be entirely merged into that section (there is already a lot of overlap) or even moved and merged with content from that section into a separate article. I would sort this all out myself but I don't expect to have much time for Wikipedia in the next few weeks. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all messed up. This article used to be Flutter and someone renamed it to this more-specific subportion and created the disambiguation page. I don't know the right way to fix it all, nor am I really enthused. Based on your comments, I've reverted your edit to the lede, since I think it was not improving things as a whole. If you want to restructure everything or fix all the other problems, I certainly approve, but I think, given the ways things are today, that stuff in the lede is important. jhawkinson (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info bro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liero 67 (talk • contribs)

At least while the article is in my userspace, please do me the courtesy of not removing things you don't like or things you think shouldn't be there due to your shaky understanding of WP:SELFPUB. There is a talk page; discuss things there. Neıl 龱 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator you really ought to be well-versed in WP:AGF (above), WP:CIVIL (User talk:Neil/wr) and the difference between verifiability and original research. I did assume since you were proposing it become a mainspace article that you considered it open to improvement and treatment as such, but following reading this I will leave it as you like it. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, thanks. Neıl 龱 22:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have created Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Burma. I have added you along with added 18 other users (including myself) to the list of involved parties. The ones I have listed are ones who have commented recently, or who commented on the Mediation Cabal case (except if they solely made a neutral comment). If you disagree with me listing you there, remove yourself from it if you wish. If you feel someone else should be involved, add/ask them. I hope those I have added are alright though. I also hope this step is what finally ends this dispute! Deamon138 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I'm contacting you because you were involved in the discussion concerning the renaming of the lists of basic topics.

I ran into resistance when I attempted to rename the set.

Therefore, the name change hasn't been completed, because the previous discussion wasn't widespread enough, nor announced in enough places.

I've submitted a new proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to rename the pages called List of basic x topics to Topic outline of x.

The Transhumanist 06:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Burma. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bigbluefish. I gave a quick look to your mediation proposal and I think it looks alright. I'll get back to it later, as I'm in a hurry now. Regards, Húsönd 13:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll pass, concerning Burma/Myanmar. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you mean well but I can't help but think this is pointless. Sorry!--Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 13:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are there any strict guidelines for who can add items/criteria to this list? Much thanks for your efforts! -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can add/edit items at will (except, of course, for user specific comments). c.f.

[3]

I concur that the article wasn't quite nonsense in the gibberish sense, but I couldn't get any real meaning out of it, which brought it under Part two of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, which reads: "2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." It did read very much like nonsense in that light, which is why I deleted it - and, I have to admit, the idea of emotionally abusing infants and children nudged it a little toward a G10 attack page, as well, which didn't help. Seeing as there was a PROD on the article, I don't have an objection to restoring the article and letting it proceed through the PROD process, if you like. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a heads-up that you probably ought to protect Template:Actual number of articles next time you transclude it on the main page if you do. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything transcluded onto the main page is automatically protected - it's called "cascade protection". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I remember hearing about this now. It shows how slick it's helped make things, that it struck me as unusual that a template on the Main Page should have so little editing activity, notices, warnings, padlocks etc. Sorry! BigBlueFish (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad you understand now! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the link to http://toolserver.org/sixdeg/ on your userpage seems to be broken... —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The active discussion in good faith was suddenly and abruptly shut down. You stated nearby later that I am welcome to continue the discussion by using the scrollbar but when the archive is opened it says please do not modify. That does not make sense and I do not want to invite charges of being redundant by repeating discussions now "hidden" to emphasize or extend them outside of the hidden box. And the discussion itself is long on invective and short on valid objections. Three polls have now been deleted. How does one proceed in good faith to offer concise arguments in favor of the suggestions made in good faith after so much unnecessary and uncivil carnage, given I as a newbie do not have a year to come up to speed to become expert on Wiki parliamentary procedure? I thought the talk section was intended for just the kind of suggestions I offered. Eclectix (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a quick heads up, if you give someone a notification of Barack Obama Probation, make sure to add it in the Notification section so that people don't overlap each other and hit the person with multiple notifications. I've already added the notification you gave to User:Eclectix to the notifications section. :) Brothejr (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... thanks! Bigbluefish (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you re-collapsed the FAQ, however, due to the mass-influx of users due to the most recent media attention directly on the article, I've gone ahead and de-collapsed it again as another user agreed and the talk page. At low tide, feel free to re-collapse it, but nobody seems to read it when it's collapsed. :P --slakr^\ talk / 05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out what your edit ([4]) to the article Electrophysiology changed... Shanata (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the second-to-last bullet point of Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort order. It relocates the link to the article within Category:Electrophysiology from under the "E" section to the top. Bigbluefish (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Johnadonovan_and_Royal_Dutch_Shell, as it appears you brought up an issue on COIN a year ago regarding the same editor. Best regards —Eustress ^talk 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The clause: "as long as you don't make a profit on it" is not compatible i.e. wikipedia needs the images to be entirely free to use.

P.S. I recommend archiving Your talk page.

Best, feydey (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, uploaded as: "An edited (and PNG) version of the character map for the Count of Monte Cristo. I grant free use of this picture to anyone who needs it, as long as you don't make a profit on it. I admit that I got this from the old version of the article, but it was made." So the clause: "as long as you don't make a profit on it" = NOT acceptable, ok. feydey (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you seem in such a rush on the BNP page - like you are working on a deadline? We aren't a newspaper, we have plenty of time to discuss those things - a good week or so should shake out all of the issues, and give people plenty of time to comment, and make sure we aren't endlessly repeating the same issues. On the basis of previous discussions we might have it all sorted out by next friday - the 5th of june (althought the page might get busy in the run-up to the european elections on the 4th and that might confuse things and draw the matter out further). --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's not the case but thanks for the reminder. I'd like to point out that I wasn't the first to edit the article since I started the current thread, and each time that I have it's only been immediately after comments by others which I thought vindicated a change in the article content. I admit that I was a little optimistic in that regard.

While I gladly accept there's no need for haste, I do think that improving the quality, verifiability and neutrality of articles about controversial subjects like the BNP is important. In particular, any perceived or actual bias against the BNP has the potential to vindicate their contention that they're misrepresented in the media, and helps them push the fallacious deduction that all opposition to them is misguided. It's probably one of the more dangerous and potentially politically influential issues on Wikipedia. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - keep an idea on those DOI links - I don't know why but for some reason, some code in the BNP article seems to break them. If you add one, just check it goes somewhere. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That's because "location" refers to a geographical location. I fixed a couple of links by changing them to "url". Maybe the .fr URL was right all along, but dx.doi can't be wrong. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol - I didn't realise you actually had a broken one! I was just going off my past history of trying to add links to that page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually how I got involved with the page - someone came over to the reliable sources board and asked for people to talk a look at the sources used on the page. I have no particular interest in the BNP otherwise. The page seems to have little spikes of activity then dies for months. I'll try and work the stuff you left on my page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bigbluefish!

I was just trying to find out what exactly the word indigenous means as used by the BNP and as used in the WP-article. It seems an awfully wishy-washy. I wanted to clarify. Iago2¹² 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iago. There is no official meaning to the word "indigenous"; it's simply the terminology used in the official party policy and rhetoric. That's why it's used in inverted commas in the article. You might think that the term is awfully wishy-washy and I would agree. However the talk page isn't for discussing, airing or arguing your views on any aspect of the BNP. If you were honestly just trying to understand the article then fair enough. A better conclusion to the discussion might be that the quotes mean that there is no clear meaning as far as we know from the sources we have. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have written on the talk page "This isn't the place to discuss the integrity or consistency of the BNP's citizenship or immigration policies." Given that the article deals, or should deal with, these policies, may I ask why not?93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia's job is to document policies regardless of their integrity, and any commentary on their integrity would be sourced from influential works of analysis, not the opinions of people who spend their spare time debating the integrity of BNP policy on a Wikipedia talk page. Next question? Bigbluefish (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bigbluefish. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were opposed to FAC2 of Inauguration of Barack Obama. FAC3 is getting long in the tooth and could use some decisive feedback. We hope we may have your support at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mallard at Trinity College is an actuality - although some of the section you deleted was apocryphal.. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued... the section didn't make quite clear whether this was a dead duck, a live duck or a model. One thing is for certain; when a web search for the mallard is dominated by Wikipedia mirrors and no mention exists on Trinity's website, unlike the Great Court Run, Henry VIII's sceptre, etc, it's not of great note for the article. Bigbluefish (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Dominique perben.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure the unrepeatability bit wasn't in the boilerplate when I uploaded the photo. You are of course right that it is repeatable, and by these standards for fair use you can go ahead and delete the file. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Season's best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:TITLE. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:TITLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:UNLINKYEARS. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:UNLINKYEARS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, a) it looked like it was useless, and b) the edit summary you used in creating it was "just testing something".

Just a misunderstanding, though. I note you've re-created it, so that should be fine now. DS (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the Cambridge meetup on Sunday, not least for the chance to meet User:Sadads who while in the UK is looking for Campus Ambassadors. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ipodui.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mtking (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bigbluefish. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a series of Paralympic History workshops and a meetup next Saturday (26 May) and Sunday. In attendance will be University of Queensland faculty members and Australian Paralympic Committee staff. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/5. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how I ended up on the invite list for this event. I could hardly live further from Brisbane! Thanks all the same... Bigbluefish (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for replying. In a desperate attempt to invite as many folk as possible to what I hope will be Australia's biggest event to date, I found you here, and I couldnt see any evidence that you were not in South East Queensland. Apologies for casting the net too wide. From where do you hail, if you dont mind me asking? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a pretty sound explanation! Your guess is as good as mine how I came to wade into that discussion. I often browse off on tangents but that one is particularly impressive. I in fact hail from the UK. Bigbluefish (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]