User talk:Rmhermen/Archive7

Blauer Portugieser

Thanks for cleaning up my mess! rone 01:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for the color change? I was a little confused as to what "previous color was for another purpose" meant. Not too big of a deal, it will just get a little tedious changing the other drafts to said header colors and dimensions. --Wizardman 14:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grey color is used in the table to indicate another idea besides the header. Rmhermen 15:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Pullman_car_interior.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pullman_car_interior.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MetsBot 20:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Image:Pullman_car_interior.jpg is definitely not public domain, per the copyright restrictions on the source site. --RNLion 09:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Socalareacodes.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Socalareacodes.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precursors on chemical warfare templates

Hi, Rmhermen! These templates were designed to contain a list of chemical warfare agents, but I see that you added a handful of precursors used in binary munitions. I'm not certain that this is the best approach, because binary agents differ from unary agents only in the manner and timing of the final step of their synthesis. I'm rolling back the changes for now, but if you feel strongly about them I'm more than happy to talk about them. Cheers! – Clockwork Soul 04:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do feel that they should be there - and so should Novichok agent. The sidebar says "This article forms part of the series Chemical warfare", not "this is a list of unary agents. Binary precursors are specifically banned under the CWC and should be collect in the navigation box. Rmhermen 04:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's running this thing?

Your bot just removed Thomas Jefferson from the list of founding fathers of the United States. Completely removed - not just the image but even mention of his name from the page. And this for a supposed unsorced image that is already listed as present on Commons! And which is hundreds of years old. Please revert the rest of the removals of Image:Thomas Jefferson rev.jpg. Please be more careful. Rmhermen 15:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot removed the image and the caption, exactly like it should. What do you want me to do, somehow remove the image without removing the caption? The gallery system doesn't support that.

As for removing the image, it was removed because Lupo tagged it as "no source". I agree that it's painted in the style of a portrait from 250 years ago, but that's not proof that it really is that old -- the image description page should indicate who painted it and when. Being on Commons doesn't mean the image is properly sourced, either: the copy on Commons is also tagged as "no source". --Carnildo 19:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. It was wrong to remove Jefferson from the List of Founding Fathers. Claiming that you are trying to protect an obviously non-existant copyright is no excuse. Perhaps you could have looked for the source of the picture, perhaps you could have formatted the gallery like all the other founders who have no pictures - or you could just do what you did. Rmhermen 19:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a fraction of a second to find it on Google - as the 10, 12, and 29 images. Then I noticed you made the U.S. have no 3rd president - the list (Gallery of Presidents of the United States) went straight from 2. to 4. Great job, thanks. Rmhermen 19:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. In case you didn't notice, OrphanBot is a computer program. On a typical day, it'll remove 400 images from articles. I don't have time to check up on all the images and removals: whoever tags the image as "no source" or "no license" is responsible for doing so correctly, and the bot reports situations where it's likely to make a mistake. --Carnildo 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Song

Would you change your vote if I give the whole thing both Serbian and English translation?Dzoni 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, reproducing the entire lyrics -in either Serbian or English - or both, would still be a copyright violation. Rmhermen 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! --evrik 19:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder + Suggestion...

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.

— Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to archive when it gets past 100 entries - yours was only entry 100. Rmhermen 19:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Photos

I am guessing that you are talking about the Brachycephalidae and Ascaphidae photos. I just added the Brachycephalidae, I had previously thought it was fair use, and I don't want to use them, but it is not. I have also found a tailed frog on Flickr, and am currently trying to get the identification confirmed by User:Pstevendactylus (he is semi-active, it may take some time). It is a much better photo, and is under Creative Commons 2.0. Thanks --liquidGhoul 00:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bear

I am sure that the polar bear is not that big. A typical adult male ranges from 345 - 545kg, not 400 -600 kg, this is a bit inflated. Many reliable sources, inclduing WWF, and the new encyclopaedia of mammal agree with this.

Please list properly a source in the article where we can confirm this. I could not find an online source with that number. Rmhermen 14:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the WWF may be the source of our 400-600 kg number. See [1] Rmhermen 14:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle

Thanks for adding the cite! I'm working my way through the Parkman biography, which was recommended to me by a local historian as an oldie but goodie. I'll add cites for info as I go and will mark those that I can't find.

Ironically, I'm looking at La Salle to fatten up the articles on Jean Baptiste Bissot, Sieur de Vincennes and his son, François-Marie Bissot, the Sieur de Vincennes. So far, not a peep! 8-) --CTSWyneken 14:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! I saw you were tweaking it a bit. If you get a chance to drop by the La Salle article, see what you think. It's a good distraction from the more controversial pages I work on. --CTSWyneken 02:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linked dates

I wasn't able to figure out what you meant by the message on my talk page, but since you referenced a date preference process I'm unfamiliar with, it sounds like I have something to learn! Any chance you could point me in the direction of what it is you were referring to? I thought that linking to years, especially in the references, was discouraged! InvictaHOG 16:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [[2]] Rmhermen 16:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information! InvictaHOG 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tailed frog photo

I am aware of that photo. I have found a Creative Commons photo on commons of a tailed frog. It is much higher resolution, and I will be using it once I can get confirmation that it is a tailed frog. --liquidGhoul 05:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work

This passage is straight-forward work (Good Job!)--70.114.205.215 17:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC):[reply]

"American Indian princesses"

In the 20th century, among white ethnic groups, it was popular to claim descent from an "American Indian princess", often a Cherokee. The prototypical "American Indian princess" was Pocahontas, and, in fact, descent from her is a frequent claim. However, the American Indian princess is a false concept, derived from the application of European concepts to Indians, as also seen in the naming of war chiefs as "kings".[3][4] [5] Descent from "Indian braves" is rarely claimed, in line with the racial prejudice that led to the fears of black men involved with white women.

This "safe" descent from Native Americans was seen as fashionable not only among whites claiming prestigious colonial descent but also among whites seeking to claim connection to groups with distinct folkways that would differentiate them from the mass culture. Large influxes of recent immigrants with unique social customs may have been partially an object of envy. Among Latinos and African-Americans, the desire to be un-black was sometimes expressed in claims of Native American descent.[6] Those passing as white might use the slightly more acceptable Native American ancestry to explain inconvenient details. In the PBS program "African American Lives", Oprah Winfrey described childhood taunting where being Indian was preferable to being all black. Genetic tests done for the program showed that she and Chris Tucker both probably had Native American ancestors.

Somewhere in a discussion in soc.native or *.*.culture a long time ago someone fielded a stat/study that over 60 million Americans were part-aboriginal in ancestry; I don't know the proportion of black vs. white/hispanic-mestizo/asian/other but the emphasis was on something like 40 or 60 percent of old-stock Americans - those with roots before the Civil War - had at least some native lineage; the proportion among blacks being much higher but I can't remember the exact figure; not 90% but up that way. Reason was the original slaves in the United States were from native peoples, and when their numbers dwindled (due to abuse) was when the market for African slaves opened up; and the two groups lived in the same part of the plantations and easily intermixed and understood each other's situation well etc. How many of the Cherokee and other tribes from the Southeast who were driven West had of African bloodlines is a related question but probably unstudied. The idea is that almost African Americans have a good chance of having native lineage, and in fact I met a few guys in New England (through an annual karate camp) who had grown up thinking they were on the black side of mulatto - old New England families, too - and then had their native lineage revealed to them by family and community elders late on; Penobscots, Psammaquoddys, that bunch. And I wouldn't call them race traitors, because they haven't stopped being black; they have to be both, because they're composed of both parts. And I guess you race traitors might include the many around the net I've seen who claim connections to Taino and Arawak and Caribe and all that stuff - obvious enough, when you think of the nature of the slave trade, and also the same co-occupancy/slave life on the plantations in the Indies as much or even moreso than in the South.

White Americans are probably less willing to discuss aboriginal ancestry; those who acknowledge it are proud of it, and many maintain family tradition/stories of native grandparents, on which side and when, non-status and unofficial as they may be as with the mass of people who claim Cherokee lineage (my guess is those Cherokee got around ;-) - and it's not an undistinguished community, either, considering the artistic talent who claim Cherokee blood and sports figures and others.

It's also supposedly true of les québecois, that a majority of them have some Algonkian or Iroquoian family connections if you dig deep enough; although as with white anglophones they'd also largely deny it, or at least just shrug it off, though they might tell their kids and so it gets passed on.

The Hawaiian view of Hawaiian identity is even broader: pono (Hawaiian-ness) is any proportion of Hawaiian blood, not stopping at 1/16 or 1/32, and even anyone who has a Hawaiian spirit (Google "Regency of the Kingdom of Hawaii" for an interesting tangent).

I'm speaking as a sama7 (7=glottal stop, the s is a light 'sh', accent on the first styllable and if you vary the the last vowel in any way - to any vowel or length, it's a lot worse); the St'at'imcets (Lillooet) word for a white man, and not a nice term either. Gets them laughing when I use it on myself; apparently it's pretty crude in origin but I've never heard a literal translation.

And what's wrong with differentiating themselves from mass culture by connecting with their ancestral cultures? I'm serious. What's wrong with that anyway? My theory on it - speaking as a sama7 who doesn't know shit because I'm a sama7 - is that native-style spirituality, coming from "white" people's own traditions - native, European, Asian, African or otherwise - is more than perfectly legitimate, especially if it's a search for identity and a sense of life lived in an overwhelming mass culture. What's wrong with that? Or do you want them all part of the mass culture,without any contact with other modes of existence/being/mind/identity or whatever you want to call it? And if and probably since they DO have native blood, then their interest in it is perfectly legitimate, and a family matter and YOU have no right to judge them, thank you very much. It's something like religious freedom or individual choice that's involved here; if that's who they are and what they want to be, your ideological generalizations about them don't mean much and won't change them. And if they believe, what they believe can come true. And it means better Native American-community/political relations, too, which will benefit all tribes; I'm just speculating, if you'll excuse the tangentiality; but please open yer mind and give 'er some thought. Find your heart and say, hey, OK, maybe these people who embrace Indian/Native American-ness in their family, or their conversion to its culture, are doing a really cool thing in the long run. And yeah, who's anyone to judge what someone has discovered in their genetic inheritance that makes them proud or interested or even obsessed. It's not anyone else's business but their own, and perhaps whatever tribe they might claim membership in. And if people have multiple identities it's all the better; better to have an identity, or more than one, than none at all.Skookum1 01:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Keys Moran

I was curious as to what prompted the NPOV tagging of this article. If anything I would have thought it was still too short to have a point of view. —MJBurrage 06:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not short at all, nor encyclopedic -most of the article is a catalog - and all shot through with direct signed responses from the subject himself. Rmhermen 13:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had meant that the main (first) section was too short to have a POV. The two sections I made significant contributions to were:

The section on his co-authors — the only information I could find was his comments (neither of them is separately published). I had thought that making it clear that the information was from his comments, would satisfy POV issues. I could rephrase some of the information to be more third person, but I thought leaving the source was more up front.
The list of works — is that level of detail inappropriate on Wikipedia? The two Star Wars related quotes are from a description of said work that used to be on his website. The third was from an e-mail on a forum he contributes to regularly. (were it from anybody else, I would have left it off as un-sourced)

Thank you for the input :-) —MJBurrage 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some further changes, How do you feel about the current version? —MJBurrage 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commons comment

Hi and thnks for the note concerning the extra photo I put on Cotton although I am not sure what you meant actually, about the

link, perhaps you can explain in a little more detail what I failed to properly do?? WayneRay 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for pointing me to Home Power Magazine and answering my question about solar power on the reference desk. Cheers. -Quasipalm 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio notices removed

I imagine you're keeping an eye on these pages already, but just a heads-up that someone is attempting to remove the notices and reinstate the disputed text.

I've left a note on the anon IP talk page explaining why that's somewhat frowned upon. Cheers, --Marysunshine 03:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Luis Alfonzo Larrain biography is not of sacven

Hello Rmhermen the biography of Larrain is not of Sacven, see it is not the same, there is no copyright violation, thanks.

Thank you for re-writing it but the new content has to go on the temp page as the directions describe so that the copyright violation in the history can be deleted. I have moved it there for you. Rmhermen 00:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put it normally

Can you put it normally, because now is it in discussion, and you check that there is no copyright violation.

It is the way that it should be until the copyright violation is cleared from the main article's history. Please follow the procedures and links provided. Rmhermen 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why you do that to the venezuelan people photos

the photos that i put has are of public domain, there is no violation, please put it normallym, some of this photos i took it with a digital camera, a scanner, and many things. Unless you took the original picture of the subject or created the original version of the artwork, you do not own the copyright and cannot release it into the public domain. The fact that you copied someone esle's work whether with a camera or a scanner does not give you any rights to it. It is still a copyright violation. And Venezuela is a party to the major international copyright treaties. Rmhermen 00:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But i check and this photos are of public domain

Unless the images were published in the U.S. before 1923, it is not easy to determine that they are public domain. If you have proof that they are please add it to the image pages, for instance the volume numbers of U.S. copyright renewals that they should appear in but do not. However, so far you have failed to even provide the sources of the images, much less verifiable copyright details. Rmhermen 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why you want to do this to the venezuelan culture, i can prove that this images are of public domain, in Venezuela, Usa, China..., why you do that, are you tryng to destroy the venezuelan musical culture, and please can you check the Larrain article.

If you can, than please do. It is a requirement. All images must have verifiable copyright status and sources. Please add them. Any images without them or with incorrect license will be deleted. Rmhermen 00:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how i can prove that this images are of public domain in Venezuela?

It is up to you to prove that the images are public domain in the U.S. where Wikipedia is based. See this table - if it was published after 1978 in Venezuela it is not in the public domain. If it was published before 1978, it depends on if it fell into the public domain in Venezuela, for which you must know what Venezuela's laws were at the time (it entered the Berne Treaty in 1982 and since then works are copyright for life of the author + 60 years, I don't know what the earlier terms were.) Rmhermen 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am proving the public domain of the photos

Hello, i am proving the public domain of the images that i published, like the José Ángel Lamas painting, the venezuelan waltz picture, and now i am in this work, proving and proving. Thanks

i proving the public...

The photos of the venezuelan symphony orchestra, are historic photos, the Cheo Hurtado photo, i took it by myself, please put it it normally

Being "historic" is not enough. You must provide a source and then a Fair use claim. As for the Cheo Hurtado photo, you have already corrected it. Rmhermen 21:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well i prove it in the venezuelan waltz, parranda, venezuelan work songs

i prove it in the venezuelan waltz, parranda, venezuelan work songs

the meber of the Venezuela Symphony orchestra need this:

Licensing

Low res and historic person {{bookcover}} {{HistoricPhoto}} {{NoRightsReserved}} because all that photos are from the same book, are historic photos, and there are no rights reserved. Thaks.

No rights reserved or public domain is not proven. Show us the relevant pre-1982 Venezuelan laws on copyright. It is certainly not true that everything printed before that date is public domain. You can try asking for help on Wikipedia:Copyrights talk page. Or better learn about Wikipedia:Fair Use. Rmhermen 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia usage

I tried to use these in wikipedia not wikimedia and they didn't show up, a speedy deletion notice took their place = explination?? WayneRay 23:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

I am afraid I don't know what you are referring to. Rmhermen 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

conversation above ours

bookcover
HistoricPhoto

*{{NoRightsReserved}} I tried to put these on my User Page for reference and they didnt show up or work like the above, that's what I meant WayneRay 18:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

templates are surrounded by opening and closing double curly brackets {. They should work on your user page. If you mean like I have on my user page, you need to add them between the tags and to keep them from expanding the template. Those tags turn off any wiki syntax from being executed ([, [[, {{, *, #, etc.). Rmhermen 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand

now, im putting that this image are historic, and i explaining the provider, i erase the public domain tag.

Every image must have a source - where did you get it? A book, give the full name and author/photographer, a website give the photographer's name and a link to the website. And Fair use claims still require more the putting a historic tag on the image. Why is it fair use and in what article. Rmhermen 21:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now i am doing it right

Now i think that is right, what do you say.

Now i am proving it

Now im Proving it, did you check

i prove that i can use this images

I prove that i can use this images, the image of the venezuelan waltz, has more than a 100 years and is not in the world wide web, and the others i prove that i can use them.

Saying "I prove" does not prove anything. You need to provide information on the source and owner of the images. Rmhermen 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding all of the image edits...

Lots of bad stuff going down that an editor like me doesn't know how to deal with... User:201.208.126.185 and User:GJRFMorelligu are, quite obviously, the same person. Not sure if that's a violation of wikipedia in and of itself, since he's using 2 names to carry out his major and far reaching edits. All of the edits he's made are on images he's uploaded (using his username), and then he's edited them using his IP address.

Dunno if it's time for a Checkuser to be sure, or what.

Sincerely, Logical2u 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pando

Thanks for commenting on the Pando (Quaking Aspen) article. We are currently trying to have it achieve featured article status. Any input on its peer review would be helpful. Thank you again. Globeism 16:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fusarium

Thank you, that clears up the mystery of where it came from. I'm guessing that, even if it's true, it was put into the EB article more as a "weirdest thing that could conceivably be used to produce a plant oil" factlet; not unlike the statement in List of vegetable oils "Although few plants are entirely without oil...". So, even if it's technically possible to get oil from fusarium (and nobody else seems to care enough to even mention the fact), it seems likely that nobody - or close enough to nobody - actually does. Waitak 02:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moche Article

Hi, I reverted the change you made to the title. I will explain you why. The pre-inca culture that is described in it, is known in my country (Peru) as the Mochica Culture. Part of this culture was developed in Moche (a town that is located in the highlands of the Department of La Libertad). If you leave this article by that name, then readers will be confused, because they won't know if it is talking about the pre inca culture or the town that exists up to nowadays. I hope this explanation might help you to understand my change. Thanks. --Evelyn Zuñiga 23:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will revert it again and here is why: Look at the what links here. Virtually all the links ar to Moche because that is how this culture is known in the English language. Also Google shows 10,000 links for Mochica Culture but 2.8 million for Moche. Clearly the primary name. Rmhermen 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. But I don't think you are quite right. Not because it's known under that name means that is correct. And if you are based in how many articles you found with that name or with the other in "Google", well I think your argument is not well soported either. I'm not changing the title again because I don't want you to think I'm rude or mean. But as a Peruvian, and as a Translator, I can tell you that you are clearly making a mistake in interpreting more than translation, because they might be similar words that have a common historic origin (even a linguistic one) but in meaning they do not. --Evelyn Zuñiga 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy on Wikipedia is to use the most common name in English. I don't mean to imply that Mohica is incorrect - it just isn't the commonest term in English. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Rmhermen 16:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan ranking thing....

Hello I was the one that changed the rankings for total area I have these two state government sources for each...

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal_lm_MiB_156795_7.pdf

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/cntyhus_hist.htm

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9111259

97,990 is greater then 97,818 so shouldn't Michigan then be ranked 11th in overall area?

I know it is miniscule but I'm all about accuracy and I have the sources to back up my edit. Is there another credible source stating otherwise?

Thanks!

All states, for consistency use, a single source: the one from the federal government provided by the Census Bureau. I have added a note on the discrepancy to the article already. Rmhermen 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are domestic cats human?

Reinstating the clause I removed at Milk about humans being the only animals to consume the milk of other species, on the grounds that wild cats do not consume cow's milk, strikes me as implying that domestic cats are human, which it seems to me would require some sort of verification. In removing the clause I was not indicating that domestic cats should drink cow's milk, but it is patently obvious that they often do so.

BTW, anent wild cats, do you have any evidence that they are averse to it, or is it simply a matter of their being technologically deficient?--Haruo 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic Sheep

Hi, Rmhermen. You mentioned uploading my photo Image:Icelandic_sheep.jpg after determining its authorship to Commons. How do I also add Image:Icelandic sheep2.jpg or any future photos I take as well? Isoxyl 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for the info, Rmhermen. Much appreciated. Isoxyl 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages Customs

Hi, thanks for letting me know about the custom of adding new items to the bottom of talk pages. I'll move my edit in Talk:Police down. --Ori.livneh 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin

I saw you reverted my change on John Calvin, though I'm not sure why. For the purposes of that section "predestination" and "election" are basically the same thing. (You'll note I'm a primary contributor and maintainer of that article, not a vandal.) --Flex 16:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unconditional election is only one aspect of Calvinistic predestination. I will look again at the context of the paragraph, though. Rmhermen 16:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but at the same time, either term can be used to represent the whole: "Calvinist doctrine of predestination" or "Calvinist doctrine of election" are essentially synonymous unless you're discussing the intricacies of the doctrine. --Flex 17:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section is so disappointingly short that I hesitate to suggest that anything be removed from it. I also wouldn't see them as the same thing because election is only one aspect of predestination. I would rather see this section substantially expanded as the related articles on Calvinism and TULIP are somewhat vague on which doctrines and interpretations Calvin developed himself. Rmhermen 17:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider that before the edit that preceded mine, the article said "predestination and election", where the latter term linked to political election. The well-meaning editor changed it from that, which apart from the misdirected link meant the general sense of "election" in Calvinism, to the particular doctrine of unconditional election that is part of TULIP, which was not formulated by Calvin himself, but rather was a product of the Synod of Dort after his death. IMHO, "predestination" alone suffices in that context.

As for the length of the TULIP articles, I (and several others) have done significant work on the T, L, I, and P. We have not gotten around to revising U, which is in a horrible state IMHO. The TULIP article should have just a basic summary and a forward to the main articles, which are far more detailed. I fully agree that the Calvin article itself could use an overhaul and expansion. --Flex 17:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Head, Hawaii

One of the pictures on the Diamond Head, Hawaii article is up for nomination to become a featured picture! You can see the picture here. Please add a supporting vote on its nomination page here or, more specifically, here, if you feel it's worthy. Thanks for your help! Cathryn 16:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

Why did you place a deletion tag on the Half-life computation article? ...IMHO (Talk) 09:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you probably trust the knowledge of your compatriots or owe some of them a favor but that will not change the fact that unstable radioactive isotopes subject to Beta decay are mortal and will eventually die out if not replenished no different than when a living organism fails to reproduce. Admission of this fact may save you and your friends a complete loss of credibility. ...IMHO (Talk) 20:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

major revisions complete

The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear bomb article links

Hey, I don't object to linking the various bomb articles to the United States and Weapons of Mass Destruction article, but if you're going to do that, you might as well run down the whole list of US designs. It doesn't make much sense for some to link and some not...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia

I did not vote, but I commented in the oppose section. Voting is evil. --SPUI (T - C) 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Mikado

I think you created the stubs for Hot Mikado and The Hot Mikado 1939 version. The article is being debated, and if you know about these two versions, you may want to weigh in at the talk page for Hot Mikado Ssilvers 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parks

Sorry about that. I didn't see that discussion. I added the pictures because I thought it looked better than nothing. I have no idea how to make maps. I'll stop putting pictures in. --Elliskev 21:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Is there any chance you could semi-protect 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis. There are too many edits, and its impossible to keep up with all of the vandalism. 74.137.230.39 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing My 'Uncommented' Merge Tags

Please do not do that. I didn't not leave a comment, because I knew that these articles had to merged, but, I didn't know how.

68.148.165.213 14:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure requires that you list your reasons why you think that the pages need mering ojn the talk page. Then other people will add there opinions and if, but only if, the majority agree, does it get merged. I for instance believe that these pages were separated after a months-long debate covered in the talk pages in great detail and should not be merged. Rmhermen 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why do you have a bunch of template text & template blue links on the right side of your user page?

68.148.165.213 15:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just there as shortcuts so that I don't have to remember all of them. Luckily others keep that template up-to-date. Rmhermen 21:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on my userpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage.--Isotope23 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Islands

Yes, it is an island. Even though I deleted "island" I never implied that it wasn't an island. Most people think of it as an island, it is true. However, it is also one of the three constituent districts of the U.S. Virgin Islands. In this sense it can be compared to "county" in the rest of the United States. Backspace 04:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add that explanation to the article which makes no mention of what district might be. Rmhermen 04:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding List of Apollo astronauts

Hello. Do you think it's necessary to add the backup astronauts to the List of Apollo astronauts? As well, how about the astronauts in the Apollo-Soyuz Program? (If you want, you can answer on my Chinese Wikipedia user talk page.) Thanks. --Tianxiaozhang 18:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comment

It is not vandalism & the discussion is not over. How dare you accuse me & how dare you impose your opinions on me!

100110100 23:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me ssssoooooooo angry that you think that its over cause the discussion was closed months ago; well news flash: I'm reopening the case. It makes me so angry because you played with your adminship to get your way. I'm going to do all I can to strip it away. Your a terrible admin, you hear me!

100110100 23:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing crosses

Hi. I think the Avon SSSI list does look better without the crosses. Could you do the same for Cleveland, Isle of Wight, Somerset, and Wiltshire for consistency? I haven't started the formatting on many other counties besides Avon yet. Thanks SP-KP 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done. Rmhermen 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paging Rmhermen, your local newspaper is calling

If you're from Michigan, would you mind dropping me a line? I write for the Detroit Free Press. Thanks. hnewman@freepress.com

Advice

Hi. It seems that List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon ran out of time at FLC, with two issues unresolved. I've decided to continue the discussion at Talk:List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon. I'd appreciate some advice from you on one of these, area units. Thanks SP-KP 12:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]