User talk:SFC9394/Archive2006

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Toolbox | ToDo | Sandbox | WIP'S | Commons | Meta-Wiki | Wiktionary

Please click here to leave me a message.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, SFC9394/Archive2006, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --TimPope 10:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Principality of Marlborough

Hello. I noticed your AFD vote on Principality of Marlborough and thought you might also be interested in these similar votes that are currently underway: [1], [2], [3] and [4] --Centauri 02:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:66.122.0.126

Yo! You guys contribute stuff to your user pages, why can't I contribute to the User:66.122.0.126 user page. In my oppinion this is not an article, so I have more freedom to do stuff to that page. I also understand your side of the argument. I will not upload more images to that page, But can it be kept the way it is for now? PLEASE? --BorisFromStockdale 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

comment removed

User:66.122.0.126 - have a read of Wikipedia:No personal attacks before you bother posting on my talk page again. SFC9394 20:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

New page creation

I'll submit the information because it is valid information. How well known the information is does not make it more or less qualified as Encyclopedia information. Examples such as Digg, half.com, slashdot.org, are all of the same family as UniversityNote.Net. I find it quite disturbing that information is policed in such a way that number of "google hits" is a determining factor as to the relevancy of the information. Optikshell 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attack

Leaving a message with no personal content or reference does not qualify as a personal attack. Optikshell 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

About Copernicus

I'm not the one starting the war. Copernicus was and is Polish astronomer. The problem with wiki is that some German nationalist try to insert German propaganda from WWII. See articles about Copernicus in any serious encyclopedia like Britannica, Encarta, Columbia. He's always described as Polish there. Ak47K

GIS & Mapping software

Following our discussion about Scottish Infobox Map Standardisation... I have breifly looked into generating maps with freely available tools and data. FreeGIS was quite good, but I was still overwhelmed by the amount of software available. Can you give me some pointers on the software/data you used to create the Scotland topo map. cheers. Hellinterface 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving that info for me so Quickly! Hellinterface 17:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sky News/Horrocks comments

Hi, fair enough changing the source - I was searching for a better one before you edited. Closest thing I can find to Horrocks saying other media news offices prefering Sky News over News 24 was this Daily Telegraph column [5] (third story down), but seems to be the columnist reading into things a bit. I guess it depends whether "key opinion formers" is interpreted to include news media. Anyway cheers for the edits, my major objection was the anon IP blanking stuff with no apparent effort at checking for a source. --Matthew Humphreys 15:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

BEANS

Forgive my memory, but there are so many wiki acronyms that I don't know them all! - what does this one stand for? I recognise what I was posting was potentially useful to certain individuals - but surely something should be done about it rather than just ignoring it? It is a live problem (it struck me when I first went to the talk page), so it is something that certainly needs to be fixed. SFC9394 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It stands for WP:BEANS. A lot of wiki acronyms are shortcuts, so just adding the pseudo-namespace WP: usually works. --cesarb 00:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

SFN

Yes SFN is notable enough to have an article, other sites with less have one so its only fair :)

Speedy Deletion

Hi SFC, I was working away clearing out some backlog at WP:CSD. I see you have started tagging redundant Scotland infobox maps - GREAT. Some of them, however, are not totally redundant yet (Image:Forfar-Scotland.png for example). Can you please make sure that all linked pages have been updated with the new image before tagging for speedying. If you prefer, you can just pass me a list for deletion in due course and I will work my way through it as part of the effort. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, quite a few of the images still seem to be linked to the relevant page though. Technically speaking, these are also not speedy candidates because they are not identical duplicates here on WP, but different alternative versions on Commons. If you were the author of the original dark green versions, then they would be speedyable at your request having created alternatives. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I forgot, but I have encountered this problem before. Local filenames WILL be preferred before the same Commons name. What you are doing is correct though, retaining the same filenames. If you are the only author / editor of the original and have created a replacement on Commons, then it can be deleted at your request. Given that I know the history of this effort, and if you created all the dark green maps I will work my way through them, marking as deletion at author request. The nice new topo ones should then appear :-) Other maps that you did not author will need a different approach though, probably WP:IFD --Cactus.man ✍ 15:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've cleared out the backlog of your dark green / red dot maps. It all seems fine to me now, but you might wish to give it the once over as there were a couple of intermittent, dodgy results. Let me know if there are any problems. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Selkirk

That is not a "second Infobox" that I restored to the Selkirk article, it was the original one! Somebody had created a 2nd Infobox, despite a polite request at SCOWNB not to, pending conclusion of discussion. You also managed to blanket reveret many other edits at the same time and revert to the broken layout. Please do not blanket revert, but rather only revert specific items to which you object. --Mais oui! 12:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wise words. However, I'm afraid that I subscribe to the WP:BOLD school. If you do something that other Users dislike it will be reverted or altered, and rightly so. If we all sat on our bums waiting for naturally argumentative people to come to agreement then Wikipedia would brake to a snail's pace: it would utterly ruin the entire project. We have come to consensus to Keep a single, standard Infobox. However, now we need to come to a new consensus regarding the content of that Infobox and whether or not it should have suppressible fields. Give it a couple more days and then we can start that new topic. All will be well! --Mais oui! 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Help with a topographic map

As you are an expert on topographical mapping and I am a complete waste of space at anything computergraphical, I'm after a favour if at all possible. Please. For using in Scottish historical articles (and the demographic and economic history ones that aren't done yet), it would really very useful to have a simplified "land use" map of Scotland (ideally extended south in England to the Tees and including Ulster as far west as Lough Neagh, but beggars can't be choosers, and that could just as well wait until I figured it out for myself). Stealing someone else's good idea for a simple solution, because a proper soil and land cover map would be impossible, showing just three elevations would do. That would give an idea of land use possibilities (farmland, grazing, mountaineering). The limits would be =<200m, =<600m and >600m. Is that something that would be possible ? And if it is, would you be interested in making such a map ? Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely magnificent. There's more than enough detail, the Great Glen really stands out. Only one question (isn't there always !), do you have data to include as far as Shetland and the Outer Hebrides ? I am a happy, happy, happy bunny ! Thanks very much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The colours seem just fine to me and sensible too: green for grass, brown for bracken and dark brown for rock. A key would indeed be a very handy thing to have and I'm glad you thought of it ! Again, very many thanks ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks magnificent. Thanks very much for your help. Much appreciated. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Snooker championship pages

Wow, these wall-chart things are really impressive. I'm always pleased to find that wikipedia can still throw up surprises like this. Good work! What's the reason for the colour coding in the headings for 'First round', 'Second round', etc? Flowerparty☀ 05:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think I got a new message bar for your last message. I only ask about the headings because I generally like to see colour used only if there's some meaning to the colour scheme, but it does brighten the thing up. No, it works really well - you don't get a nice tree like this on ceefax! Flowerparty☀ 12:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I had to find something to do while the servers were down yesterday ;) Flowerparty☀ 12:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, good idea. Never thought of that! Flowerparty☀ 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Compliments on your Snooker pages

I just found out about your pages on the World Snooker Championships, the template tree looks good and is clear. Keep it up! - Nick C 19:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on the snooker results I added. I will try a lot more information on Snooker on Wikipedia! - Nick C 18:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You could also join the Snooker Wikiproject here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Snooker, which can be a place for us and other people who contribute to snooker articles to discuss stuff, and to see what there is to do. - Nick C 18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very impressive - I would like to start working on using your template on all the various world snooker championship years e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Snooker_Championship_2002. Do you know any good online databases which provide this information which I can use to fill the data in for the various years? --Marksie531 12:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

After some research the http://www.snooker.org site seems pretty good - goes back to 1995 anyways. --Marksie531 13:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest to my talk page

This is the excerpt from Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes:

Deleting your User Talk page or removing text from your User Talk page. Your User Talk page is the best way others have of communicating with you. It's OK to clean up or archive old content, but please be careful before removing content from your User Talk page; it may look as though you're trying to hide criticism. --ComSpex 01:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I agree on the opinion meta:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles. That's the reason why I usher users into login page before writing to my talk page.--ComSpex 01:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be afraid

Any POVs having nothing to do with the sole purpose of Wikipedia are not necessarily reviewed by busy editors so intensively, save that I respect your freedom to advocate your own POV about talk page. I'd like to know why you are so much interested in my talk page among many other talk pages similar to mine.--ComSpex 02:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Eager McBeaver - posted a fake warning here due to me reverting his/her vandalism SFC9394 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• and he has now posted fake warning number two (and I have removed), when will vandals learn that they can't get away with breaking the rules? SFC9394 00:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, users are free to remove whatever they want to from their own talk pages. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Eager McBeaver warning

I wouldn't worry about his warning on my talk page, the user is a vandal who is just unhappy because I reverted his vandalism (see Physics history for a full run-down of situation). Ironically I am currently in discussion with User:ComSpex on the very issue of how much control a user has over his/her talk page. Aside from reverting obvious vandalism (as I have done with Mr Eagers warning) I would probably air on the side that comments should be made available for other editors to see - which is what comspex is disagreeing with. SFC9394 20:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a user should leave all comments, negative or posvitive, on their talk page. However, I feel that the user retains the right to alter it in any ways he/she sees fit. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 20:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

They ultimately retain the right - there is no policy that currently says any different (apart from deserved warnings - with the grey area on that being how long a time should be left before the warning is said to be 'spent' and can be archived) - however a user that constantly deletes/hides comments with no explanation for doing so is generally not going to be held in very high regard by other editors, and most people are going to fairly quickly assume bad faith is at work. SFC9394 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's case by case. Users' discretion varies and depends on situations. I wish freedom will not be confined into narrower space.--ComSpex 05:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

198.54.202.146

I don't want to block that IP because it isn't adding spam links right now (within a few minutes), so it isn't an imminent threat, and it is registered to "African Network Information Center", which no doubt has multiple users. I hope that cleared this up, if you really think this IP should be blocked post a message to WP:ANI. Good luck, and happy editing! Prodego ^talk 22:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a spam list here, but I can't add to it (not a meta sysop). Prodego ^talk 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

comment removed

219.105.45.236 originally placed (another) sock warning here - which I replied to below pointing out the wonders of checkuser (both that it would clear me and implicate him) funnily enough he then removed the sock warning. SFC9394 18:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Because 219.105.45.236 - or should I call you User:ComSpex?? There is a wonderful thing that we have here at wikipedia called Checkuser - editors don't have access to it, but some higher ups do - and they can prove in a jiffy that I am no sockpuppet. The wonderful irony of your vandalism is that it is you, ComSpex, that will end up with a warning for sockpuppetry by making false accusations as an anon to avoid linking to your user account (fortunately that same wonderful checkuser can tie an IP address to an account - so it is a trivial matter to check whether 219.105... is comspex or not) SFC9394 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry tag

I have removed this - anon IP - 219.105.45.236 (who I am in no doubt as to who it really is) seems to think that I am a sockpuppet of someone else - and someone else is a sockpuppet of me - clearly doesn't have a very good handle on exactly what sockpuppetry is - or on providing any evidince to back up a completely and wholly false claim. I shall be reporting to RFI shortly. SFC9394 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hello, my puppet master and sockpuppet. :-P --Scott Wilson 18:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Snooker infobox

Hi,

I have made some changes to the Snooker infobox, check it out at the Marco Fu article. Thanks. - Nick C 19:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Discussion_of_Stub_Templates, we need a category to put all the snooker stub articles in! Thanks. - Nick C 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

removed

Another fake warning by the vandal Eager McBeaver - seems he/she is on a fastrack to a ban. SFC9394 15:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• And another one - yawn SFC9394 00:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for vandalising your page. I'll stop now.

Belated thanks for the welcome

Dear SFC, Just a quick note of thanks for sending me all those great links in your welcome message. It was much appreciated...and it has kept me so busy I forgot my manners. Well, belated thanks. :). Best wishes, Pia 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

stop vandalism

If I see any more vandalism from you on the "Snooker" page, I'll ask to have you blocked from Wikipedia. bigpad 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Given I am the one removing vandalism from the snooker page I would advise you to retract your accusation. Please check the snooker page history, Bigez was the one adding a load of chimp rubbish - something he has been warned for (by me once with a test4 - the warning you added to his user page was in the wrong place - warnings should go in the talk page, otherwise a user doesn't know they are there) and I removed his vandalism [6]. Please check the sequence of events more carefully before you throw around accusations of vandalism. Thank you. SFC9394 10:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have sent you a private message to apologise for the mistake on my part and am sorry for the mix-up over the vandalism. Thanks for reverting the page. Patrick bigpad 13:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Map expertise

You appear to have some great skills (and software) for topographical mapping & I have neither of these so I was wondering if I could ask a favour. I've been doing some work on the Chew Valley page & have just put it up for FA status but it really needs a map. If you look on the talk page there is a big discussion about the water catchment area versus common usage & I put in a request for a map to make this clearer in March - but no one with the expertise has been forthcoming. Cheeky I know but I really would appreciate any help you could offer. Rod 13:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Yes the valley is really the area within your red line & perhaps we could zoom in a bit on the valley itself. My ideal would be something like - shading (or similar) to show the water catchment area (or perhaps two maps as you suggest - I'm not sure which is best & really have no expertise); including villages, rivers, lakes, SSSI's etc - in fact everything on Template:Chew Valley but I think this would get too "busy". There are no rail services (just a disused line roughly parallel to the A37). It would be nice to also show the A368 & possibly go as far as the A38 in the west - but this would depend on scale & shape of the map. The rivers, lakes & tributaries really define the valley so they would be the most important features & most of the settlements are at points where it was possible to bridge/ford the rivers. It definitely needs to go from Chewton Mendip (grid reference ST597531) to Keynsham ST654684 & include as far west as Winford (grid reference ST540651).

It also need to have North pointer of some kind & a scale (the one someone made for me of the lake at Image:Chew Valley Lake map.PNG has been criticised for not having a scale). I really appreciate your help & I'd be guided by your expertise. Rod 06:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on map progress, happy to look at drafts etc & comment but I'm no expert. Rod 18:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the latest draft - the area seem fine. Just one comment on colour - the blue/gre for minor raods means that it is quite close to the rivers and streams & that could be confusing for those that don't know the area. I'm not surprised the lake doesn't show on 1890 maps as it was only created in the 1950s. I'm currently in Korea & get on a plane back to the UK in a few hours so may be able to come up with more comments in a few days (when I've recovered from jet lag), but as far as I can see at present it seems fine. Once the settlements are marked I think that will help to orientate people to the area. — Rod ^talk 22:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for ther final draft - I like the one with the dotted line marking the basin - but would it be possible to make the text for the smaller villages a little bigger (It may be my eyesight but I find them hard to read). They are so much better than anything I could have achieved. It would be really nice to get these up before the Chew Valley Artilce appears on the front page (no date set yet) — Rod ^talk 08:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant work - thank you - the village text font "just smaller than than mid-level size" would be great. I did have one other thought it would be nice to label the high ground (SW of map) as the Mendips (if you did then we ought to add Dundry Down to the north, the Lulsgate Plateau to the west, and the Hinton Blewett, Marksbury and Newton Saint Loe plateau areas to the east, as well.) Otherwise I think that it's done & will be a really useful addition to the article.— Rod ^talk 15:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "Chew Valley" is OK as the title as that is what the article is called the other chew valley near Manchester is Chew Valley, Manchester. RE: Highpoints there are some Marilyns, Beacon Batch (Black Down, Somerset) probably doesn't make it on but Dundry Down should. — Rod ^talk 19:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional (from my son) wireless station grid ST499568 & another with trig point at ST546537 (284m) & possibly site for building the 335 foot (102m) turbine.[3] The planned 2MW turbine will be built at Shooters Bottom Farm (Grid reference ST595503). — Rod ^talk 19:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on Image:Chew Valley Map.png. I have now added it to Chew Valley and River Chew articles, although it's just been pionted out to me that you have put a label for "Stoke Village" just south of Chew Stoke - however I believe this to be Stoke Villace & only consists of a fe houses. I will have a think about any derivatives. I'm sure you know more about the valley than many people who live here & maybe one day you will get to visit! — Rod ^talk 18:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of physics

Hello.

It was I who initially changed the definition of physics so let me explain myself: the physics article has been recognised as an important one, and as such required a proper definition. I will not personally change it back to my definition but I will outline the reasons why I think the current definition is terrible in the discussion page. I would like to get as many people as possible talking about this so if you have an opinion, please let it be known. Thank you. Krea 17:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome! (Although, it's not much of a "home page"). An agreement about what everyone - or at least, people who know anything about physics - prefer is all that I hoped for. Hopefully, my counter-response made the point that I was labouring to get at: I sure do hope people start talking about the issue as it's very important. Anyway, I won't bother you again on you (much better) home page about the topic: I'll leave that to the discussion page... Krea 19:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We'll give it the weekend then; although, I don't expect anyone to make a contribution: I've noticed people seem to disappear for long periods of time after I make my opinion known (for some reason I haven't quite worked out). Anyway, I'll be very busy until Thursday so don't be surprised if it takes me a while to get back to you, or the discussion page; I should be relatively free after that. Just give me a shout when you're happy to proceed. Until then, Krea 12:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've re-formulated my definition and placed it on the physics talk page: let me know if you have any objections. I'll make my own intro section and see how people like that (or not, as the case may be) soon. Later, Krea 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. P0M seems to be happy with the definition (I hope). Do you have any comments about it? Also, nobody else seems to be bothered to contribute, so what now? Krea 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perth Airport

Good one, I've merge them both together: Perth Airport (Scotland) /wangi 21:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

spam

You need to ask about stuff being put on the spam bloacklist here:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist

Geni 11:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Helloo, what about links

Hello, why you delete links? for example look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_26 http://www.tnl.net/when/12/26 and **** why you remove this?

Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.38.164.139 (talk • contribs) .

My Reply -- Your links have been removed because I see them as Spam - other links in "day" articles, such as the tnl.net ones will be getting looked at as well - as I would judge that they are spam as well, but I will see what other editors say. Please stop placing your links in the various date articles - I have already posted spam warnings to your IP pages, but you keep changing your IP address. Wikipedia is not a place to dump links to your websites - here again is a spam1 warning so you can read how wikipedia works with people who add very many links to articles without adding any worthwhile content: *spam1 notice* SFC9394 14:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok then —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goga123 (talk • contribs) .

Edit summary

rv edit by Gavin@... - addition doesn't have an article, and if it did I doubt it would meet WP:CORP

It didn't: "13:38, June 23, 2006 GraemeL deleted "Plan B (company)" (content was: '{{db-empty}}[URL removed] Plan B, Scotland. Tourism Marketing and Management.')"

Thanks for doing the cleanup. My machine crashed and by the time I got back to check the rest of his edits, you had tidied up. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

Sorry but what is wrong? I add a new site with informations about Gran Canaria, Im living there and all informations is up to date. I have the same site on danish language without any problems and all the communities in the island know my site. If we not can add some new sites by ourself there is a lot of sites on wikipedia there not can be on the site.

Best regards, webmaster canario.co.uk

Nothing is wrong - I re-added your site once I had checked out the situation. The articles you added the link to have previously been the target of spamming commercial sites, thus any new additions (particularly to both articles at the same time from an anon. IP address) will be treated with caution. Once I had reviewed the site and decided that it is probably a useful addition then I re-added them. Other editors may take a different view and remove them; nobody has a guarantee of having their links added to articles. SFC9394 12:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

68.224.247.234 on Physics Intro.

The use of "treats of" in the exposition is not improper as the Webster's Dictionary, 1913 definition of physics employs the same diction in a similar context. Also, as I have aforementioned in the history of the article in question, replacing "treats of" with the "study of" transforms the second sentence into another definition of physics, while unneccessarily ridding of a proper encyclopedic tone. Further, snickering over someone's inability to revert an edit until twenty four hours have elapsed is not amusing nor proper conduct of a Wikipedian. -- 68.224.247.234

Thank you for the reply - I will have a close look at the situation and comment fully in due course. As to your "snickering" comment - I would advise you to have a look at the history tab - I made no comment on 3RR or any reversion rules (or peoples inability to revert again) - so please direct any comments you may have to the correct editors in future - I don't appreciate people making false accusations against other editors or calling into question their conduct when that call is baseless. SFC9394 22:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a mere oversight that I have just noticed and I apologize. First of all, as the statement was directed to another (User:Jim62sch), I see no reason to take offense and do not appreciate hostility over an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.248.147 (talk • contribs)

Apology accepted - mistakes happen. However you called my conduct "nor proper of a Wikipedian" - I have been here for a year and try to be a good wikipedian, so I didn't really appreciate having that called on me - hence my response. SFC9394 23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove the comments on the hearts board

Remove the argument between you and me on the hearts discussion. They no longer serve a purpose since I no longer debate the issue of the definition of country. Snowbound 02:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a WP guideline, WP:TPG, that text should not be deleted from talk pages. There is no reason to archive or delete anything from the hearts talk page. The control you have over your own talk page is greater than an article namespace page, and what you can and can't do with it has been the subject of some debate in the past - I don't think you should have deleted the NPA warning that was posted to your talk page - but ultimately that is little to do with me. What I do care about is article namespace talk pages being arbitrarily blanked because you deem discussions to be no longer serving a purpose - the community as a whole decides when things do and don't serve purposes. One of the core principles of WP is to Assume good faith, so any past editing activities will not necessarily prejudice the integrity of any future editing, unless things become overwhelming, so my best advice is to forget about it and move on. SFC9394 09:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I will delete anything I damn well please on MY talk page. As for your pompous "advice". You know where you can put that. And kindly stay the hell away from my profile. Snowbound 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments, such as this one are completely incorrect - valid warnings posted to a talk page cannot be deleted (certainly not in any near timescale), other wise the warning/blocking system would fall down. Please also check the record of events before you go throwing around accusations - "Would that be the same rule you broke when you deleted my message about you on the Rangers board?" - I deleted nothing from the rangers talk page (WP is not a forum, talk pages are not boards), User:Oldelpaso deleted the personal attack you made against me, as per WP:RPA - a guideline which some disagree with. If you wish to correspond with me in the future please read and follow WP:CIVILITY, telling other users who point out wikipedia policies and guidelines to you that they can "know where you can put that as well" is uncivil behaviour, and unacceptable to me and the vast majority of WP editors. Best wishes for your future editing. SFC9394 14:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems you're a tad confused about how this place works, despite claiming to be a big contributer? I'll remind you of what you said shall I?

"The control you have over your own talk page is greater than an article namespace page, and what you can and can't do with it has been the subject of some debate in the past - I don't think you should have deleted the NPA warning that was posted to your talk page - but ultimately that is little to do with me."

Bit of a contradiction is this not? On the one hand you're chastising me for wiping the Hearts discussion page, which is fair enough, I hold my hands up that that was against the rules. In the same breath (therefore still on the subject of board clearing) you claim I have more control over MY OWN discussion pages. Hinting that I am able to clear anything on there.

Further more, you more or less claim that it is in black and white that I cannot clear warnings from my talk page, and yet you also say this is still being debated? Is it a rule or not? You also say that these issues are little to do with you, but at the same time are quite prepared to moan about me doing it? My point is that you seem to be contradicting yourself all over the place and giving out false information. As a fairly new editor I will admit I have made a few mistakes. However as a supposedly "experienced" user of wikipedia, you need to stop giving out contradictory information to people. Snowbound 22:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No confusion - warnings should not be deleted (in immediate timescales), but in the same breath they can be, i.e. you retain the right to delete them, but that is not to say that it is correct to do so. I am personally not bothered if you do, or don't in this case (I didn't give you the warning) - that is not to say I am permanently of the opinion that warnings should be deleted, just I don't have any strong opinions on the warning given to you. The reason this issue is not absolutely black or white is that there is no clear guidance on how long a warning should remain. When is a warning "spent", 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? It has been the subject of debate in the past and no clear consensus was reached. The warning posted to you was around 2 and a half months ago (and was pretty low on the scale, i.e. it wasn't a high level "red" final warning or anything) and the other edits you have been making have been decent (i.e. you are not going around vandalising pages like the historyfan04 example - who is now permanently banned). Therefore I saw no reason to go mental over you deleting it. As you accept, article space talk pages are different, as the talk page allows the discussion that guides the development of an article to be tracked and archived for possible later reference. For the record I am not claiming to be a "big contributer", in the scale of WP I am a pretty low down the edit count, but I have spent the last year slowly learning how the place works. SFC9394 23:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright lets put this nonsense to bed shall we? I apologise for any offence I may have caused you. You seem like a fairly decent bloke and I probably took things the wrong way. Like I said, I am new to all this and am still trying to find my way. Take it easy. Snowbound 05:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. WP can be a bit too complicated for its own good sometimes. That complicatedness can unfortunately lead to misunderstandings now and then. Good luck for your future editing, SFC9394 13:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Chew valley map

Hi, I've just been looking at the great map that you made for the Chew Valley. I was thinking of making something simmilar for a parish that I'm working on and wondered where you got your information from and what the resultant copyright status would be? Hope you can help, take care Mammal4 14:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, I suppose you got me from the industrial revolution page. I just started editing wiki, I like to 'dig' and debunk myths, and sometimes I do small alterations to articles. I currently specialise in industrial revolution because I'm a libertarian, very rare in The Netherlands.

Opera text-to-speech

I noticed you added a bit about Opera on the WP:SPOKEN main page, but have you ever tried having it read WP though? It pauses at every link, which on WP means it becomes intolerable pretty quickly. If there's a way to fix this perhaps you could shed some light on it - for both the page and my own use. Thanks. Moulder 04:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Physics review

Thanks for your note about the Physics review, SFC9394. My approach in recent weeks has been to stay away until things settled down, but perhaps that is unlikely to happen without the current drastic move. My own interest is in the foundations: historical, etymological, and philosophical. I am equipped to contribute authoritatively with these things – not with the detailed content of the rest of the article. I can help, though, with copyediting for structure, grammar, punctuation, consistency of various kinds, and the like. I'll take a look at the proposal now. Noetica 01:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Physics Article WIP proposal

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I am starting to look at the state of the article, and hope then to go on to help.

Recent articles in Physics Today say that explaining (teaching) physics to non-mathematical people is still an "active area of research".

Perhaps one thing I can bring is my memory of an unusually fine early introduction to physics. If we could repeat what I heard when in high-school and before, to readers, the problem might be half solved. David R. Ingham 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I already see inconsistencies. Wikipedia seems now much better at detail than on general subjects. Reading on. David R. Ingham 05:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

May I hijack your section David and also thank SFC9394 for so kindly requesting an input from myself. I am sure that I will be of less use than the many distinguished editors here but I hope that I will try my best. Thank you again for thinking so highly of my opinions (although we shall soon see how justified you were in making such an extrapolation!). Krea 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Noetica, M is not a physicist. He appears to be a protein specialist who enjoys the process of argumentation, and who has said that is how he learns. Thus this talk page is serving as a tutorial.

SFC9394, might it be time for a vote? -- Ancheta Wis 12:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Physics/wip"

User:Wikinorthernireland

This edit by an IP address looks very much like the work of User:Wikinorthernireland. Thanks. --Mais oui! 12:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Map

How do you do those nice maps for the infoboxes? --Mais oui! 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Physics development activity

SFC9394, I was delighted to see what you have done to initiate the next phase of development of the Physics article. To be perfectly honest, I was worried that the process might be ready to stall; but things are looking very promising, now! A couple of procedural points I would like to air, here rather than there:

1. If dialogue takes off as we hope it will, I suppose the written structure of the discussion will get very complex very fast. Who is addressing what points, and so on. I do hope that you will feel free to re-organise the text of the discussion, annotating it as required, so that the whole can be readable. I guess you could request that someone else take care of that, because it is a separate role, and you will have enough to do.
2. I make this approach here to you because of that very point: the discussion needs to be kept orderly. It is possible that other conributors will hesitate to have their say, if some definite procedure and well-defined set of locations is not put in place. Here, then, is a concrete suggestion: Determine early what distinct areas of discussion are emerging, and establish a separate section for each of them, into which relevant discussion is channelled (and boldly shifted, if necessary).

I hope you don't mind my putting these ideas to you. I want to help, of course: and I'm sure others will too. Meanwhile, congratulations on a fine start! – Noetica 00:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

SFC9394, Please view the Physics developmentpage --Ancheta Wis 21:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam username

Yes, I agree he's a spam username; however WP:AIAV isn't quite inteded for that sort of thing, I would take it to WP:ANI. I'll block him though ;-) The Land 10:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of OIC flag

You have said on my discussion page:

" An edit like this is also incorrect. The flag is copyrighted and has been tagged as such. It is used under United States Fair Use rights - wikimedia servers are based in Florida and content here is under the jurisdiction of Florida & US laws. The flag can, and should, be used - it is not illegal to do so."

This has nothing to do with Florida and US laws nor anything to do with copyright. What it has to do with is the law of arms in Scotland. The flag that was being displayed is the banner of Orkney Islands Council (OIC), it displays the arms of OIC - that is the arms of the body OIC, not the arms of Orkney the Council Area of Scotland. These arms are used on official seals etc. of the Council. The laws of arms in Scotland are strict. The way the flag was being used in the wikipedia template implies use or endorsement by OIC and so in Scotland is illegal. In the absence of an "official" Orkney Community Flag (there is an official one in the offing, by the way), I replaced OIC's banner by the unofficial Orkney Community Flag, as this is widely recognised as "Orkney's flag", both within in outwith the isles and, furthermore, its use infringes no law.

When it comes to Orkney matters, by the way, I DO know what I am talking about (which is why I have so resented the constant harassment I have been subjected to by User:Mais oui! ). I would love to be able to contribute my knowlege to Wikipedia, but unfortunately I cannot do it without constant attack by the aformentioned.

Regards, Mallimak 12:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

? map for K&A Canal

Ages ago you helped me with a map for Chew Valley & wondered whether you might be able to help with another map. It's not actually Bristol, but not far away. I've been doing some work on the Kennet and Avon Canal & have put it up as a FA candidate. One of the comments made was that it would be improved by a map. I've seen maps here, here and here but don't have the knowledge or skills to create one. — Rod ^talk 20:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another user has kindly volunteered to do this for me so please cancel the request. — Rod ^talk 16:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry cancel last comment - thanks for volunteering that would be great & I will go & tell other user that its being done.— Rod ^talk 16:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It was User:Yomangani at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kennet and Avon Canal/archive1 who suggested a map of the course would help to illustrate the article & it might be worth showing them drafts as well. — Rod ^talk 08:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking good - perhaps depending on space/font etc the names of the surrounding hills. If there is space the K&A locks would be great, but I doubt if you'd be able to fit them all in - perhaps just the major flights eg Bath, Seend, Caen Hill, & show the summit & Bruce Tunnel above Crofton Locks. Aqueducts (Dundas & Avoncliffe) & pumping stations (Claverton & Crofton) would be nice as well - but if you put all that on it's going to get v busy. Hungerford & Bradford on Avon should probably be shown as well.— Rod ^talk 18:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - you did suggest marking on the related rivers & canals - obviously key is the relationship with the Avon & Kennet rivers - is it possible to show where it is canalised river as opposed to "new build"? ie Bristol to Bath & Newbury to Reading. On a related note I've been working on the Somerset Coal Canal & will probably be told this needs a map to help explain the location of the arms etc... A K&A map with all the locks for the list page would be good if you don't think it would be to cluttered. Thanks again. — Rod ^talk 07:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking good - could we include the routes of the Somerset Coal Canal & Wilts and Berks Canal as they were important for the economy (or otherwise) of the canal. Nothing else I can think of apart from the key. — Rod ^talk 20:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Final version looks good to me.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think both the K&A canal map & the locks map are brilliant - will you link them from the article pages? Thanks again for all your work on this. Any chance of Somerset Coal Canal one? — Rod ^talk 12:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

By link I meant put them into the articles - I've done it now - but not sure if best layout. For the SCC probably towns & villages ie Paulton and Timsbury via Camerton, an aqueduct at Dunkerton, Combe Hay, Midford and Monkton Combe to Limpley Stoke where it joined the Kennet and Avon Canal. From Midford an arm also ran via Writhlington to Radstock, with a tunnel at Wellow. + Cam & Wellow brooks. Hope that makes sense. — Rod ^talk 14:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just revieved this on my talk page from User:Arpingstone can you help "Rod, I very much like the map of the Kennet and Avon Canal that has been added to the article. However there are 2 oddities on it. First, the Somerset Coal Canal is shown as though it exists along its full length (I know you know it doesn't!). I assume the explanation is that light purple means old canals: if so the Legend doesn't tell me that. Secondly, the Avoncliff and Dundas Aqueducts are shown as though they are in the same place! Again I know you know that Avoncliff is just on the Bath side of Bradford on Avon." — Rod ^talk 17:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see here for my comments on the changes to the Aqueduct labels and the SCC colouring - Adrian Pingstone 20:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thought - we should really show the rest of the course of the River Avon, Bristol up to it's source near Chipping Sodbury, as you've done with the Thames at the eastern end, & showing the close relationship between the river & canal to Bradford on Avon - otherwise it looks as if all the water in the Avon Navigation comes from the K&A.— Rod ^talk 20:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates - hopefully it will make the article clearer for everyone & once again thanks— Rod ^talk 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, the following comment has been made by User:Moonraker88 on my talk page: "This is a bit picky, sorry. On the high-resolution version here you've got the Avoncliff and Dundas aqueducts marked, but the canal stays on the south-wast side of the Avon. It's right on a river bend and would be hard to show, given the width assigned to the canal on the map to make it stand out. This is pointed out with deep apologies because, as you may remember, I can't draw at all! ATB." - This is actually correct but I didn't spot it previously & don't know whether you could possible do anything about it?— Rod ^talk 08:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the bit of the Avon between the aqueducts on the K&A map - can you save a copy of the new high res one as the low res version? The SCC one clearly shows the relationship between the canals & the rivers. Can we colour the bit (southern arm) in a different colour & label it as originally course of canal & then of railway?— Rod ^talk 18:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

SCC map looks good - I would suggest adding Paulton as there was a terminal wharf there, otherwise looking good. & thanks for the tip on making the K&A map show the latest version.— Rod ^talk 21:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks fine to me & I can't think of anything else - but I'm sure someone will find a problem once it's up on the page :-(— Rod ^talk 10:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to Stranraer carried out by the sock puppet of someone who obviously feels it was wrong of me to revert their earlier vandalism. Fraslet 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sushi Picture

Where do you think they got it from? The got it from here in Wiki! http://www.20minutestolessstress.com/nemo%20sushi.jpg DocEss 21:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Physics/wip

Hi SFC9394. Thanks for all the good work you're doing on the Physics/wip project. You might feel you already have enough to do with your moderator responsibilities, but I don't think that those are incompatible with your contributing to the discussion as well, if you want to. This project will only work if there are a good range of editors, and the numbers at the moment seem a bit low. --MichaelMaggs 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We may almost have beaten eachother to some sort of consensus on this. Would you have a look and see if you think it's now time to guide editors towards a final conclusion? (I'm away all next week, btw). --MichaelMaggs 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You may need to jump in again to stop more discussions which are going nowhere.--MichaelMaggs 10:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tools for finding copyright images

Hi, you recently had a dicussion with a user regarding a copyright image of Nemo as sushi. The same user has uploaded another image as his own work. However, it looks very professional. I was not able to find the image using a quick google image search. I was wondering if you knew of any tools for such a search. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we all do something useful instead?DocEss 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Galloway

So, what section of the article do you think I should put the "East Galloway = Kirkcudbright", "West Galloway = Wigtonshire" formula in? I've had a look at the structure of the article and can't see anywhere obvious, which is, y'know, why I put it in the intro in the first place: this is the only part in the article where Wigtownshire and the Stewartry are actually mentioned, so bar doing a major rejig that was the only place where it flowed. Morwen - Talk 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

how does that look now? Morwen - Talk 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Links

Hi,

I have just received a message regarding links, we have a network of visitor information websites around the UK which we believe will be extremely helpful for people who are wishing to learn about any individual town and as such I am currently adding links to the relevent section on this website such as www.bostonuk.com etc would I be ok to continue this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.163.87.53 (talk • contribs) .

• It would be adbisable to read the wikipedia guideline on external links: Wikipedia:External links. A few things to highlight from it:

"Links to be avoided: A page which only provides information already in the article, or which does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article."

and:

"A page that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link."

In essence, we can't have one site linking themselves to hundreds or articles because then I could go and setup another network of sites and list them - and so on and so on - until we have external links sections that are longer than the articles themselves - "Wikipedia is not a web directory" being a key thing to keep in mind. It is probably better that you do not add any more - other editors will add them if they think they are usable, but since you are connected with the site itself then the links are not being added for the right reasons. Regards, SFC9394 12:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Physics/wip - moderator needed

Some moderation would be appreciated.

As it is, the project and/or structure is flawed, with plenty of evidence to show this. It is not for lack of trying. Hundreds of thousands of words have been written. I believe the page structure is dysfunctional. Work ought be done on the wip page, and talk ought to go on the talk:wip page.

If the project were to die, it could be used as an example of what not to do and how not to do it. I have mentioned on the page that it seems to have re-created a Nupedia situation.

It seems to me that you ought to have an interest in making this project succeed.

--Ancheta Wis 12:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Chemistry link

Is the edited link spam? Are you insane? Don't delete my edition any more! I am full of anger to your deletion of my first edition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chemistrypal (talk • contribs).

Speedy Tagging of RefWorks

If you feel that this article is worthy of inclusion you may want to edit it. As it stands it offers no notability or verification. As for criticism of other peoples actions, if you believe two or three mistagged CSD per year are excessive I bow before your perfection. Nuttah68 16:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long you have been editing, but if you check the article there is no notability or verification offered. You knowing details does not meet the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and in particular point 3 - The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it-. There is also no requirement to inform editors of articles of their possible deletion. As to your helpful comments, maybe you'd like to check how many of the questioned articles on my talk page (seven months worth) still exist. The deletion being questioned does not mean the article stood. Nuttah68 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok if you believe two people is all so be it. I notice in the hour you've been discussing what I do you've done nothing to actually improve the article to the point where it meets Wikipedia:Verifiability to ensure the article doesn't get deleted. Nuttah68 17:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Last comment on this. Wikipedia Policy (not guidelines) is that articles must be be verified by sources. As I've already said, you knowing and Google hits are not sources. However, it is clear you'd rather worry about what shoud be in an edit summary than actually improve articles. Nuttah68 18:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

? another map - Somerset Coalfield

Hi again, After your fantastic work on the maps for Chew Valley, Kennet and Avon Canal and Somerset Coal Canal would you be willing to tackle the Somerset coalfield which overlaps with some of the others? I've included all the pits with grid refs in the article, but it would be useful to include the rivers, roads, railways & tramways/trackways which joined them all together. I'm still working on the coalfield article but any thoughts appreciated.— Rod ^talk 17:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

fair use

if you are unhuppy with situations like this please consider to visite from time to time Wikipedia talk:Fair use,where this insane policy was made and participate in the votes.Please also trie to atracte others to the isue.--Bootstrapping 14:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Snooker Page

Hi there,

You are quite right: Mohammed Yousuf is an amateur player and miles away from reaching the list of notable players (all-time greats). All the best and Happy Christmas bigpad 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry

one of my friends thought it would be funny to edit pages while i wasn't at the comp during school, using my acct. --Chain Impact 14:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Brain Chain

Hello,

Thank you for your comments regarding Brain Chain . . . I added the Brain Pill and was going to write quite a bit more, but had to go do "Christmas things" . . . and now that I see your comments I believe you are correct that a full article should not be devoted to that. . . I am not sure how to delete a full page, can you help me with that?

I will also edit Brain Chain (which I believe is a worthwhile topic but could be wrong) per your comments. I also thank you for those and for your help in making Wikipedia better! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeaglin (talk • contribs) 07:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC).