User talk:David Kernow/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Category tags on subpage of your userpage

Hi there. I noticed that this page here: User:David_Kernow/Wikipedia:Browse_by_overview still has the category tags on it at the bottom. I'm sure you know this, but when copying stuff like this to your userspace, it is best to remove the category tags, as stated here: "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it."

I thought it best to send you a message, rather than remove the tags myself. Hope this helps. Carcharoth 12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops – thanks for letting me know about my oversight. All tags now deactivated and I suppose I'd better check those on my other user pages are as well. Best wishes, David Kernow 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Talleyrand

Okay, I see what's happened. Where do you want the page to be? Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's fast; thanks – and apologies for my botched move. I was trying to move the page to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, but didn't spot I'd missed entering the first "C" of the name. Hope the situation easily retrievable. Thanks again, David Kernow 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I think it's all settled now. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks – maybe time for me to take a break... Best wishes, David 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

V.Volodarsky

Saw that you originated this article – thanks – and also the following here:

V. Volodarsky. I used to live at Volodarsky street, and never in my life knew that he was simply "V." mikka (t) 03:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

He is even Володарский, В. in Russian wiki, I fixed ru and en links. Vald 12:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Does the "V." stand for anything, or is it like the "S." in "Harry S. Truman"?  Thanks, David Kernow 04:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It was an alias and means nothing (at least I have never found anything). `'mikka (t) 06:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I suspected as much. Best wishes, David 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fake "initials" which didn't stand for anything weren't uncommon among Russian revolutionaries. Many of them used literally dozens of pennames and pseudonyms during their lifetimes, so it wasn't a big deal. Cf. "N. Lenin" or "L. Martov". Ahasuerus 02:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation, Ahasuerus; I'll add a sentence/clause near the beginning of the article mentioning this for the sake of folk like myself who weren't sure. Regards, David Kernow 16:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Category system

Hello!

What do you think about marriage Universal Decimal Classification with category system in wiki. On pl wiki we did it with UKD modification - pl:Wikipedia:Kategorie Główne. So, maybe it's not end. Now we open Category of month pl:Wikipedia:Kategoria miesiąca - this is project of systematics (systematization) of categories in main categories like: History, Geography, Culture. So, it is perhapse future, cause we have not portal of colaboration yet. But sleeping must be awaken ;) Sorry for grammar mistakes, if I do it. --Przykuta 12:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Przykuta – thank you for your message and sorry for the delay before this reply. I think you might have a very good idea, although my experience only reaches as far as the Dewey Decimal Classification. However, the benefits the Universal Decimal Classification appears to offer look ideal for Wikipediae. Perhaps it could begin as one of the "Alternative categorization schemes" offered at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Browse page. (I see that "By Dewey Decimal" is already there.) Have you asked anyone else what they think of the idea?  Best wishes, David Kernow 02:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Kerensky and Co

Good job rewriting the Kerensky/Nikiforova/etc articles :) I took another shot at Kerensky, but it still needs a lot of work, especially the section re: 1917. Ahasuerus 05:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement, Ahasuerus; I agree that Kerensky and many of the other Russian Revolution articles need attention. I've added a few to my to-do-if-I-ever-reach-it list (e.g. Israel Helphand, Nestor Makhno) but I'm aware at the same time that my knowledge is limited and probably too one-dimensional. If we can prompt any other folk watching these pages, however, that would be a result. Best wishes, David 17:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Country subdivision

...IMO splitting the cats into a group of "Administatrive divisions of some countries" and "Political divisions of some other countries" is not useful.

could you maybe change your vote on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Category:Subdivisions_by_country_to_Category:Political_divisions_by_country

and let's discuss this on the project page

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms

first? It is really is mass rename, since it not only involves the cats and subcates but also lots of articles. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this looks a significant revision, so I've now abstained from voting as I haven't looked at the wider picture, nor followed the discussions since. Responding to your first statement above, without reference to the discussions, I'd say most countries have both political and administrative divisions, but whether it's possible to untangle these for the purposes of categorisation, I don't know... Regards, David Kernow 02:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Continent

Hi there! Thanks for your comment. I didn't revert your work: I amalgamated your intent with the prior balanced formatting ... hence "refmt"; the latter summary elaborated sufficiently. I actually like what you're trying to accomplish with the template and don't besmirch you for being bold, but the unequal/unbalanced columns are bothersome. If you can better format your revision, I'd gladly keep it without compuncture.

Well, comparing the current version with this predecessor and my contribution in between, I hope you'll forgive me for not spotting the amalgamation.

Perhaps not one of precise layout, but I moved the 'supercontinents' up as you did; given the columnar imbalance/layout, I did so considerately within the prior format/arrangement. A raw revert would've restored the seven continents uptop. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As for moving the template: "Continents of the world" vis-a-vis just "Continent" seems somewhat wordy for not what and implies that another sort exists ... of course, I sometimes feel incontinent. :) Mind you, if you feel strongly about it, go ahead and move it.

I've moved it to {{Continents of the world}} as merely using the plural rather than the singular is more descriptive of the template's contents (and, I'd hope, more likely to prompt correct assumptions about it).

I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Of course, Oceania is not generally reckoned as a continent (a landmass) per se, at least in the conventional sense but more a region (e.g., by the UN in their geoscheme). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of any users who are (likely to be) well-versed in table formatting?  That would be helpful...

I can take a crack at it ... I would've at the time but table formatting can be complex. You actually seem fairly versed in it: when all else fails, try, try again?! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Regards, David Kernow 09:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your follow-up. How about this?  Regards, David 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! Forgive my silence; I've been away. Looks good! Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK

I saw your work at User:David Kernow/Andrew Scott Waugh while scanning for user page vandalism. The guy looks to be a little known but very interesting character of history! I wanted to make sure that you knew that new articles are eligible for inclusion on the main page if they are nominated at Template talk:Did you know. I hope to see a fact about Mr. Waugh there very soon! Let me know if you have any questions. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! Waugh is one of a number of nineteenth-century figures about whom I'm gradually compiling stubs or unexpanded articles. As I guess you know, making some attempt to cross-check and/or include basic information from sources beyond the internet takes time, but I think I've done about as much as I can afford on Waugh, so I'll move his stub into the encyclopedia soon. Best wishes, David Kernow 04:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Waugh published at least one book in 1861. The Library of Congress lists it as: Instructions for topographical surveying, Roorkee, Printed at the Thomason college press, 1861, 1 p.l., 106 p. illus., 2 pl., diagrs. (2 fold.) 25 cm. Ahasuerus 13:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added this to the bibliography. Thanks for unearthing it!  Regards, David Kernow 13:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(Vladimir Lenin)

Vladimir Lenin - the parens are still broken (missing a closing paren). Please address. Rklawton 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed – I think – thanks for spotting. Regards, David Kernow 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You rock! Rklawton 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:List of Mountains in Pakistan

List of Mountains in Pakistan: actually this was a copy paste move that broke the history. I reverted and put a note to the user's page. Unfortunatly some new contribs have been made, which are now "lost". Are you an admin? Can you move the talk, to the lowercase version? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for redirecting this link back to List of mountains in Pakistan; I'm not an admin, but have left a {{db-histmerge}} request at Talk:List of Mountains in Pakistan. Regards, David Kernow 11:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

... :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Subdivision category debate

The original debate for renameing the country subdivision categories was closed and a new debate on the subject has now been listed. The results of the old debate are shown, but will not be counted when the current debate is closed. You are being notified because you were involved in the previous debate. If you still have an interest in the outcome, please come and participate in the new debate. - TexasAndroid 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My thanks also for your message, TexasAndroid; I abstained from the original debate and will continue to do so as there appear to be plenty of more-informed folk involved (such as The Minister for War above). Your message appreciated, however. Regards, David Kernow 09:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Template [ {{Indefblockeduser}} ]

Apologies for the revert; I just thought the spacing looked a bit odd. No offence intended! --Sunfazer 21:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Coincidentally, that was the reason for my edit; as it presently stands, the spaces between words in the justified "This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, per ruling of" text seems too great. Thanks for responding. Regards, David Kernow 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Haemophilia

Just to acknowledge that I've taken the liberty of amending your recent addition to the above, in an effort to minimis/z/se (wilful) misunderstanding. Hope that's okay. Best wishes, David Kernow 22:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me, thanks for the notification :-) Charles 22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(spacing)

Please stop (spacing). There's no need for this, KI 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand... please elaborate...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw on Tripoli Agreement you were adding a space between the heading titles with the edit summary "(spacing)." KI 01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, that wouldn't've been all I did, I'm afraid. If "spacing" is the edit summary, you'll probably find some other kinds of spacing introduced there too. Most people I've encountered thus far promote it for the sake of easier navigation when editing pages, but I realise you can't please everyone all the time. Regards, David Kernow 01:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

PS There should be at least one other edit nearby with something more substantial involved. I don't set out to space articles, if that is your concern. David

No no. I liked your overall edits to the page. See User talk:Anonymous editor - the "If you're up for nominating someone..." section, KI 01:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. As good a prompt as any to find out – finally – exactly what adminship might entail... Thank you for your generosity!  David 01:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mexican Revolution

As the creator of this category – thanks! – would you be inclined to vote against renaming it "People of the Mexican Revolution"?  I realise it's a slightly longer name, but the benefits I see in this format are (a) it puts "People", the category's subjects, at the head of the name; and (b) it doesn't treat the noun-phrase "Mexican Revolution" as if it were an adjective. I realise the second of these may seem pedantic/nit-picky, but I'm thinking of the significant number of people who visit the English Wikipedia whose first language isn't a variety of English (or English is a language they are learning). Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Regards, David Kernow 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. I realized what you were doing, and I contributed this - although I had noticed the "People of the..." pattern, I wrote it down the wrong way out of habit. By the way, you did a great job on categorizing them that way. Dahn 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and acknowledgment. I know a few folks are keen to preserve the "X people" format and I know a couple of reasons why, so I only enquire about those categories my interest leads me to or I happen to come by. I'll make Category:Mexican Revolution people a redirect to Category:People of the Mexican Revolution once I've populated the latter, or do you think I ought to put it before WP:CfD?  Regards, David 02:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think redirect is the best solution. By the way: how do you do that? I know the procedure for articles, but not for cats. Dahn 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

{{Categoryredirect}} is the template, as used here. I have to log off now; thanks again. David 02:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Dahn 10:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving Chernobyl talk

Hi, I see you're (very usefully) archiving some of the old entries from the talk page about Chernobyl. However, I understood archiving should not affect ongoing discussions, and yet your recent move has not only moved a section that I and another person had replied to today (on the Wormwood name), it has actually REmoved the entries, which do not appear on the archive page, presumably because something got out of synch. If I'm misunderstanding the process, then I'm sorry (but would be grateful for an explanation of how), and if I'm not, I'd be grateful if you would reinstate that section. Cheers, Kierant 14:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; my attempts to archive older discussions but retain relevant/active material seem to've gone awry. I think I've now repaired the damage, but please let me know if not (and/or amend accordingly). Sigh, David Kernow 14:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was super-fast, thanks very much :) Kierant 14:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding my blunder!  Best wishes, David Kernow 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

CFD Oversight

It was a cut&paste error. I cut& paste the header & trailer in when I close. Every now and then I forget to edit the actual result. Usually I catch the error right afterwards and fix it at once. This one slipped right past me. Thanks for the catch, I've fixed the error. - TexasAndroid 17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Interested

Hi David. KI suggested that I should nominate you for adminship. I was wondering if you are interested. I really haven't nominated before and it's probably just as good if KI did it. According to your editing, I don't think it will be a problem for you. So see if KI wants to nominate first, I would be happy to support you of course. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message; when KI indicated here that s/he'd considered putting me forward, I suddenly realised I hadn't thought about it, then realised that must be because there have been very few occasions when I've felt an admin's action was missing. So I guess that means the system is working pretty well!

I've now printed out WP:ADMIN and will read it anon. I'd be glad to do something to help maintain Wikipedia, while at the same time keeping my efforts to contribute to or build articles ticking over. I imagine most people say that. If there's anything else you think might be helpful for me to read, please let me know. I'll then let KI know whether I'm up for it now or maybe later. (I'm copying this message to him/her.) Any idea what/where I might be asked to help first?

Thanks and best wishes, David Kernow 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you David. There's nothing else you need do read for now. You did a good job by reading what you did. If you'd rather go later then that is also fine. There's no problem with that. Admins get to do different things wherever it is required and you can help out wherever you want. Cheers. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

.ogg formatting

Hello, David! I noticed the .ogg formatting you had added to Prussia, and I have begun using that style since. If you are familiar with the subject, would you mind taking a look at User talk:Ezhiki#.ogg formatting and offering any thoughts or opinions you might have? Olessi 21:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(From User talk:Ezhiki#.ogg formatting): Hi Ëzhiki, Olessi: Great to see you're already well into sorting out what occurred to me when I came by the Prussia article (also Sambia, maybe one other... need to check contribution history), i.e. combining the language and pronunciation links. My next thought is whether a combined template is possible, one that produces the "German: " kind of format and carries the metadata Ëzhiki mentions above. What do you think?  Regards, David Kernow 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, David, thanks for joining in. I kind of produced a quick fix in the past (see, for example, Pionersky, Kaliningrad Oblast), but as Olessi rightfully noted, it looks ugly. I tried tinkering with lang-ru/audio combination, and was unable to produce anything better. Perhaps, the solution would be to create a new set of template, something like {{audio-ru}}, which would produce the desired input and retain the metadata?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

David, I drafted the {{Audio-ru}} template, which is for Russian only. To use it, type:

{{Audio-ru|Правдинск|RU-Pravdinsk.ogg}}

which produces:

{{Audio-ru|Правдинск|RU-Pravdinsk.ogg}}

If you could review it to check that I didn't miss (mess) anything important, that'd be much appreciated. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Great work, Ëzhiki! I have already made Template:Audio-de, Template:Audio-pl, and Template:Audio-uk. Olessi 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded here. This seems to work well and is an improvement over the previous fudges; nice one!  Fancy a shot, guys, at (perhaps) the ultimate template, which removes the need for separate templates for each language? Well...

How about a template such as {{Audio-lang|xx|word/phrase|audiofile}} where xx is the two-letter language identifier causing the correct [[''X'' language|''X'']] or [[''X''ian]] and html tags to be substituted?  I can only think of using something like #if (about which I currently know little) to select the correct language... which ultimately might make the template unwieldy (too many languages) – but perhaps you (or someone you know) might know a much neater solution... Thanks for your work, David Kernow 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. As for the universal template, that's actually what my original intent was this morning. Almost immediately I ran into some problems (like I said before, I'm not very strong on templates, especially nested and with conditional operators) and then tons of work walked up to my desk in real life, so I didn't have much time left for anything more than individual language-specific templates. Also, last time I checked templates with conditional ops were strongly discouraged; I'd recommend contacting Netoholic for current status update—he used to be very active in hunting those templates down and shooting them on sight. In any case you'll need to find someone more skillful than me to make such a template a reality—there were some perks I have no idea how to approach.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomination

When you're ready answer the questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Kernow. Then list it at WP:RFA by adding {{subst:RfA-nom|YOUR USERNAME}}. Good luck, KI 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action and generous commendation, KI. I'm busy child-minding over the next couple of days, but by then will know what to indicate on the RfA page (if not before). Yours, David Kernow 02:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: My clumsy actions here, caught in a dizzying flurry of reactions to my relisting a proposed move, have upset some people and probably suggest I'm not admin material, at least not yet. How long may your nomination remain "on ice" before it's deleted and/or needs reissuing?  Thanks for your counsel, David Kernow 13:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Woops, sorry about that

Yes, that most certainly was a mistaken deletion! Thanks for catching that quickly. --Ryan Heuser

Thanks

Thanks for work on Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR. Travb 22:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. It might not be a topic to categorize, but I hope few would argue against it being an article. It might attract some non-neutral contributors, but I guess you already know that. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote interference (Talk:Ross (area))

(reinstated oppose vote deleted by Owain)

I deleted – but moments later reinstated – your vote; please give me a chance to finish setting up the Requested move. Thanks. Best wishes, David Kernow 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

David Kernow, please not delete my vote again... (Talk:Ross (area)#Requested move III)

Please give me a chance to finish setting up this requested move. If your vote is to oppose any change, then state Oppose. However, your statement "My preference was a move to Ross, with Ross as it is moved to Ross (disambiguation)" suggests you prefer a move to Ross rather than County of Ross, with the current Ross moved to Ross (disambiguation). I believe that's what my rephrasing states. I'm just trying to make it easier for whoever will come to sort out a result, as a result is what I think all those interested are after. I apologise if I've inadvertently offended you, but everything is happening too fast at the moment. Regards, David Kernow 11:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not alter my vote again. The proposal move says Ross (area) - > County of Ross. That I oppose, and its not a case of preference. I prefer Ross (area) over county of Ross. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The move template reads "...to County of Ross or Ross" – i.e. two options – and the rationale states "...please indicate your order of preference (otherwise overall opposition)...". I realise now that you wish to indicate your opposition to both County of Ross and Ross. This was not clear. Please slow down. Thanks, David Kernow 11:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not offended. But I choose what I write, not you. You had already set up the vote, proposing Ross (area) to County of Ross. And to be honest, given your already established preference to move to the inaccurate title County of Ross, such alterations may be construed as an attempt to rig the vote.

If you examine the text you'll see I used a template to set up the request on the talk page that uses a single parameter; I immediately replaced it with the choice I wished to offer. In other words, the template I used didn't allow me to create the "County of Ross or Ross" in the first instance.

I voted on what I saw, and I don't want my vote changed because you change the proposal afterwards.

Please allow some time for people to finish setting up a requested move. I still haven't managed to post it on WP:RM yet!

You seem to think it's better to change the proposal to a three way choice, but that is utterly pointless because such a vote will never gain a supermajority. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's better to offer this choice, but the previous survey suggested to me that a preference for either "County of Ross" or "Ross" might be obtainable. I'm not sure why you mentioned that your "preference was a move to Ross, with Ross as it is moved to Ross (disambiguation)" if your preference is for "Ross (area)"... Apologies if I've missed something. David Kernow 11:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your move proposal says different things, but what I'm interested in is

"Proposal  : Ross (area) → County of Ross e.g. ....

Arrg – I see what you mean. In the flurry of activity immediately after I began constructing the request, I forgot to update the above. My apologies, but I hope you appreciate I feel somewhat inundated here.

So please do not alter my vote to make it look more supportive of County of Ross than it is. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Such action is anathema to me but I now see why you interpreted it thus. Hope you understand too know. Phew, this has all been happening too fast... I must get to WP:RM now... Regards, David Kernow 11:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If it was between these two, I'd prefer Ross (area) over County of Ross, that's what it meant. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 11:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should restart the vote. Perhaps you could propose (what appears to be) the more popular move Ross (area) to Ross. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I regret relisting the move, feel inundated by the speed of reactions to it and now prefer to leave this hot potato alone. Yours, David Kernow 12:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Curious...

Hi Jordan,
Thanks for sharing your steps into Islam on your user page. One in particular caught my attention: "14 August 2005: I make the intention to stop listening to music." Does (or did) that mean any and all music, or just certain kinds? Has the intention been realised? I understand if you feel these questions are too personal, with my apologies in advance if my curiosity makes me too forward. Regards, David Kernow 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpretations about whether music is allowed in Islam vary. I was never really particularly fond of music, especially rap and hip-hop, so I was more than happy to attempt this one. Nevertheless, it is quite hard to avoid music. Television, other people who like to listen to music in the car, etc are sources of music even if I don't want to listen to it. And on occasion, I will listen to some music intentionally. However, since I've listened to those songs so many times, it's really no big deal. So, overall, I say that has been realized. I listen to / hear music far, far less than I used to. joturner 14:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Jordan. People sometimes laugh off "gangsta culture" and the like, but there are some perturbing lyrics out there. I hope I'm not suffering from pre-senile conservatism. Though it's a minority, there is some great instrumental rock around. I reckon music is a basic kind of human expression – which, like anything else, humans can abuse – and I think I'd really miss it if I no longer (or hardly ever) listened to or took part in it. So long as people can choose. (I once worked in a warehouse where the radio was always on...) Best wishes, David Kernow 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
PS Here's a retouched version of your photo: Image:Joturner-self (retouched).jpg

I don't really miss the music. Also, thanks for editing my photo. However, I darkened it a bit (I like the darkness) and replaced the original image. It's now at Joturner-self.jpg. joturner 20:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I have the monitor I use set darker than seems the norm, so I probably made the photo too light. Anyway, if anyone else would like to see a brightened version, there's somewhere to direct them. Best wishes, David 21:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Executions

David,

I was looking at the Category:People executed by guillotine during the Franch Revolution. How would you feel about creating, under Execution Methods, a Subcategory: 'Executions by beheading' (or 'decapitation'. This could include others beheaded by guillotine and those beheaded by other than the guillotine. The Category:People executed by guillotine during the Franch Revolution could then be a Subcategory of 'Executions by beheading'. Thoughts?

Be healthy,

Michael David 16:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds an eminently sensible idea. However, I wouldn't create it as a subcategory of Execution methods but, looking at Category:Capital punishment, as a subcategory of Category:Executed people. I haven't examined Category:Capital punishment and its subcategories too closely, but there may already be some confusion as to which parent category/ies people vs methods, responsible parties, etc subcategories belong. I'll start taking a closer look anon.

It just occurred to me that we may run into a issue regarding whether a person was 'murdered' or 'executed' by beheading. For example was Eugene Armstrong murdered or executed? Doesn't it matter who's describing it?

Michael David 12:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes; and not only as regards beheading. I'd say significant numbers of people worldwide would describe the carrying-out of state-sanctioned death sentences as state-sponsored murder. I guess the (unspoken?) consensus on Wikipedia is that if someone is killed as the result of a legally recognisable process in a state that is also generally recognised, that killing may be regarded as an execution. Otherwise...

Regards, David Kernow 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• David,

Please do explore the possibilities of where to place the Subcategory: Deaths by beheading, and let me know which way seems the most efficient. You seem to be much more experienced at this than I - I’m still on a learning curve. I'll be happy to follow up and edit the Category into the appropriate Articles.

I agree the term 'executed' should be used only if the sentence is handed down by a legitimate court. Using this standard then, Eugene Armstrong's beheading was murder. I don't have a problem with that!

By the way, I chipped some more away at the monster Category:Cancer deaths. I created a sub, Category:Deaths from cervical cancer. Unfortunately, it’s becoming more and more the cause of death for many women.

Be healthy, Michael David 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)