User talk:Karl Dickman/Archive 01

This page is an archive of the discussions taken place on my talk page between my arrival in May 2004 and the beginning of 2005. This Page is no longer live.

---

Note: for those of you not familiar with this, I include context for all of the comments made on this page by adding a space before them. In the standard skin, they will show up in a different font and appear in a light blue box. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk

---

Archive

Archive	Start	End
Archive 1	2004-05-23	2004-12-31
Archive 2	2005-01-01	2005-06-23
Archive 3	2005-06-23	2005-09-05
Archive 4	2005-09-05	2005-12-01
Archive 5	2005-12-01	2005-02-10
Archive 6	2006-02-10	2006-04-14
Archive 7	2006-04-14	2006-07-09
Archive 8	2006-07-09	2006-11-15
Archive 9	2006-11-15	2007-01-10
Archive 10	2007-01-10	2008-03-30
Archive 11	2008-03-30	2015-09-08
Current	Current discussion

Welcome Messages

Comments to 216.228.163.41

(The following comments were posted on my IP address, 216.228.163.41; I moved them here).--Ingoolemo 20:00, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you take an interest in marsupials. All the Wikipedia articles on animals and plants are part of a so-called "Wiki project" that tries to coordinate the efforts and sets some "standards" with the goal to get coherent and consistent articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life for more info.

For instance, the taxoboxes for animals all have pink header backgrounds. I have therefore reverted the color change you made on Tasmanian Devil. (I know why you did it: the orange "Lower Risk" was indeed nearly illisible, but I also changed that.)

Anyway, welcome again, and I hope you'll enjoy writing encyclopedia articles. We do need good editors!

Lupo 09:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi 216 - nice edits on various Australian mammals, but please note, the family ending is -idae, not -idæ; the letter æ is now only used in modern Danish and Norwegian, not in zoological Latin. Using æ can cause problems for people whose computers don't recognise it, too. See more at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive6#"ae" vs. "æ". Thanks, MPF 11:49, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Welcomes for Ingoolemo

Hi Ingoolemo! I see you logged on now, so: welcome again. The old welcome message still applies. [For the old welcome message, see section above--Ingoolemo 20:00, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)].

Additionally, I'd like to re-emphasize ("re-" because you probably already have seen it :-) the point already discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, namely that we do not use the ligature "æ" for "ae" in scientific names. Just so you don't create more of those :-)

Good move on the Placentalia/Eutheria issue. (Not being a biologist, I have no idea which one should be followed in Wikipedia, though.) Lupo 12:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Glad to be welcome.  You can still vote; I tried to make it as friendly for non-specialists as
possible.

Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria

[This is in reference to a VfD of a poll page I created, now archived here.]

The article name space is an inappropriate place for such things. If you want to conduct a poll, you should either have it on the Talk page of an article, or in the Meta space. RickK 21:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the input.

Page protection

I've protected your user page. If you want me to remove the protection notice, I'll do it. →Raul654 05:49, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, man.

Is that a yes? Do you want me to remove the protection notice? →Raul654 06:07, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, removing the notise would be appreciated.  I'm sorry to have 
burdened you.  I just didn't want to inconvenience you by making a request
right when you protected it.  The changes I was going to make I would like
to request of you all at once.  But seeing your ready and willing to 
delete it, go right ahead.  Thanks again, Ingoolemo.

Question

May I ask why you made this particular edit to User talk:Zoe? Are you personally acquainted with Zoe in some fashion? --Michael Snow 21:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm not acquainted with Zoe.  The reason why I posted the comment was because I suspect that 
(from a vandal's perspective) Zoe's departure was extremely encouraging.  If vandals discover, 
from studying the case of Zoe, that by making incredible arses of themselves they can drive away 
useful contributors, we'll have hell to pay.  Zoe's departure will only cause vandals to step up 
their attack, emboldened by the feeling of power that surely comes with such a sick victory over a 
sysop.--Ingoolemo 03:25, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

Early US Bombers

Hi Ingoolemo - please note that USAF Museum pictures are explicitly not necessarily public domain (see here). I think in these specific cases, we're probably safe due to the age of the photos and that they were almost certainly taken by the USAAC in the first place. I still think it's probably not a good idea to be uploading pictures that identify the USAF Museum as the source though.

Thanks for the input on the photos.  Since you also seem interested in the early history of 
American Bombers, it would probably be better if someone else downloaded images.  I really am 
naïve about the ins-and-outs of copyright issues.

Secondly, just a little naming nit - please don't use designation suffixes unless you're writing about a specific variant of an aircraft. Keystone B-4A should have been under Keystone B-4, unless we already had an article on the B-4 and there was enough material on the B-4A variant to warrant a separate article (like all the different Panavia Tornado variants we now have articles on). Cheers! --Rlandmann 23:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  I'm sorry about my naming conventions error.  I realised it several hours after I got off
  from the last session.  Obviously (in retrospect), the Y1B-4 was considered the B-4, and 
  the production model a variant thereof.

---

  I do have my own nit though.  I notised that you have changed 'nft zin' 
  to 'n ft z in'.  Firstly, I am absolutely certain that the convention for 
  abbreviated units is the former, though both may be viable.  If it is just a question of 
  which one to use, the former should also be opted for.  In general, when the spaces are added 
  between n and 'ft', this causes the imperial units to squish into the metric units, and
  that can be somewhat distracting.  I feel it would be rude for me to change the system yet 
  again, so I will leave the decision up to you for the moment.--Ingoolemo 01:23, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Re:Units - not being an expert on Imperial units, I'm not sure what the most correct form for these is, but I know that it is the standard here on Wikipedia to use the space (actually, best practice is to use a non-breaking space). User:Bobblewik is far more knowledgeable about unit conventions than I am - maybe you could put the question to him? I do know that at least it's very definitely correct for SI/metric units to include the space. --Rlandmann 14:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   I checked on the standard format for metric that you mentioned, and it seems to be 
   correct.  Rather than quibble over what system we should use, I'm going to try to find a
   format that will put more space between the imperial and metric columns.
   --Ingoolemo 21:17, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

I'll try and get a definitive answer on the matter - but please don't go making changes to the standard data table without discussing it at WikiProject Aircraft. The current table is the product of a series of compromises. Actually, the format of the table (and whether we should have one at all) is currently under discussion, so it's a perfect time to jump in with ideas and opinions! --Rlandmann 22:21, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

      Oh No!  I certainly didn't mean I'd make changes to the standard template.  
      [I've never been noted for clarity when commenting in a hurry. •→Iñgólemo←• 05:23, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)]  
      What I meant was that I was going to experiment with some way on my own.  But now 
      that you mention it, I think that if the spaces format is going to be made 
      standard, the template should have the units with spaces before them. 
      --Ingoolemo 22:28, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

---

        Would you mind giving me input on the best article to put the B-7 under?  I 
        decided to make the title of the page Douglas Y1B-7 as opposed to Douglas 
        B-7, because the USAF Museum website says that the planes never entered 
        production.  But in the Boston (disambiguation) article, it says that the 
        Douglas B-7 was called the B-7 Boston in servise of the RAF.  Until more 
        information can be dug up, I don't think lins showing B-7 should be changed 
        (yet).  What do you think?--Ingoolemo 23:06, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

I concur with you fully - Douglas Y1B-7 would be the most conventional place to park this article. Note that the what the RAF called the Douglas B-7 Boston is a completely different aircraft - the Douglas Boston. The correct designation for this though is not B-7, but DB-7, so Douglas B-7 should redirect to Douglas Y1B-7 and not the Boston. --Rlandmann 13:54, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi again Ingoolemo - please note the updated page layout for aircraft articles - if you're not familiar with it, you can find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page_content. You'll find it a lot more user-friendly than the tables were! Cheers --Rlandmann 05:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I actually think it does look nicer, and I agree with it.  Maybe its just me, but last I checked, 
table and non-table were 2-2.  Did I miss something?--→Iñgólemo← 00:21, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Since then, one of the people who voted to keep the table (me) changed sides and the other changed his opinion to "don't care". Unfortunately, the board doesn't seem to allow people to change their votes in the poll... In any case, the poll was only ever a gauge of popular opinion - Wikipedia prefers to work through consensus rather than voting, and reading the last month's worth of comments on the subject, there was definitely a groundswell of support for switching to text. I'm currently converting the B-23 to the new standard.

Two minor nits - first, please don't go adding extra rows to the specifications. One of the aims of having a standardised set of specs is to provide broad comparability between all the aircraft we cover. Most articles already discuss the number of aircraft produced in the text, so it's superfluous to repeat this in the specifications. While good data for the cost of US military aircraft is usually available, this kind of information is virtually non-existent for the vast majority of aircraft we have articles on. If you feel this data to be important (and sometimes it clearly is, eg the XB-21), then put it in the body of the article too.

Second, when linking to other designations in series, please use pipe-tricks, ([[Douglas B-23|B-23]]), not just [[B-23]]). It is unlikely that most of these designations are unique, and then it's only a matter of time before another article (about a car, calculator, microprocessor, guitar...) means that we're linking to a disambiguation page. Cheers --Rlandmann 00:36, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Museum pictures

I've finally remembered.  I think the pictures I got off the USAF Museum site ought to be removed  
from the articles, until we can get the issue of copyright cleared up.  What do you think? 
→Iñgólemo← 22:22, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

Yes, I think they need to go, to safeguard against any problems further down the track. If you read up on the "Action to take for images" section on Wikipedia:Copyright_Problems, you can list them for deletion yourself. Otherwise, I'll put them up there myself later today. --Rlandmann 22:41, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Full United States Bomber Scale-chart

Umm. I'm not sure anyone's quite able to work out whether this is a really good picture, or really awful. Whatever, it's probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I hope you'll do a slightly less abstract, better typographed and, err, finished version 2. btw, it seems to be listed on cleanup. Best wishes --Tagishsimon

I admit that the picture is a work in progress, and I agree that it is pretty lame, but anything 
better is beyond my capabilities.  I would be glad if it could be cleaned up by someone with 
better skills (and better software).  As to its inclusion in the encyclopaedia, I see no harm.  A 
scale chart can be useful.  (Or at least, I think so).  By the way: you can be even less timid if 
you feel like it; I'm a pretty mediocre contributor and I know it.

Cheers, →Iñgólemo← 03:33, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Azimov's planets

All those "mentions" need to go on a single page. Use a separate section for each and let Wiki built a table of contents for them. Dozens of pages with a single sentence "planet mentioned in such and such a book" is akin to littering. (BTW, I'm a big fan of Azimov) Kbh3rd 03:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wondered about that.  I thought it would be easier to start out with seperate articles and then  
condense them if the need arises.  I don't have time to do it now, though, but I'll get around to 
it quickly.  Cheers, _→Iñgólemo←_ 03:55, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Earth (Foundation universe)

I left a note on Talk:Earth (Foundation universe) but I thought I should contact you here as well since you created the page in the first place. Basically, I'm confused by the entries for 1973, 1974, 1978, 1990, and to a lesser extent 1998. These seem to refer to events that I don't remember from the Foundation (Empire, Robot) books. Can you fill me in on where these come from - perhaps a lesser-known Asimov short story? Thanks. AlexG 19:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I confess, I have not actually read the material from which these events come.  I found it on a 
website that I found to be 
very meticulous and not at all frivolous, so I trusted its information, and picked a number of 
relevant fictional dates in Earth history.  Unfortunately, its references are somewhat lacking, so 
I can't provide them.  But there are a large number of obscure books floating around; after all, 
Asimov wrote several hundred.  I can find some references to the Yoshida-Lefebre expedition, but 
the Prometheus seems quite obscure (only one English-language hit), so I'll try to investigate 
further.  Cheers, •→Iñgólemo←• 02:56, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

OK, seems reasonable. It's possible that the Prometheus things weren't even written by Asimov: perhaps fanfic, or another author writing in the same universe (as he occasionally allowed people to do). AlexG 19:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

     Could have been fanfiction yes; but I doubt it.  The website that I got the information seems to 
     be exclusively Asimov.  The list of planets has no planet described in the Second Foundation 
     series (example: Panucopia, Sarossa), or from the Caliban series (example: the Spacer world 
     Inferno).  I haven't scrutinised the timeline to heavily, but it probably follows the same Asimov-
     only patern.  •→Iñgólemo←• 18:35, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Editing RfD

Please be careful editing heavily-updated pages. When you edited RfD, you managed to delete one entry, and duplicated another. Noel 12:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oops!  Wince Wince.

VfA

Might I enquire what opinion it is that you feel I possess, which would interfere w my ability to effectively pursue the duties of admin? Sam [Spade] 23:49, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies if I come off as hostile.  I respect your work and your opinions, and any sort 
of personal attack is completely unintentional.

I have encountered various publications of your stances on certain issues.  The only one I can 
recall of the top of my head—there are other examples, though I cannot remember them—is 
your suggestions on the subject of [[ |username policy]].  You commented that you opposed certain 
usernames (examples: Crucified Christ, Allah is Great, and a number that contained swearwords).  In 
the case of the previous two, you pointed out that censoring them without censoring others (such as 
User:Hephaestos) was contridictory, since all three are religious names.  I certainly agree with 
this principle, but it misses the point that usernames should not be inflammatory; where CC and AiG 
would certainly be, Hephaestos is not necessarily well known to most people.  Had a similar 
philosophy of questioning authority—however valuable it may be to Wikipedia—been 
followed through in your execution of Admin duties, the results could be a good deal more malcontent 
than is healthy for Wikipedia.

We need people like you to provoke thought and point out things that ordinary people wouldn't 
notice.  But this can be a bad thing, especially in the people who have a responsibility to act as 
Wikipedia's most trusted users.  There is a reason why the best leaders are centrists rather than 
extremists.  By this I don't mean we should all be sheep.  I just mean that moderates, after having 
recieved input from extremists and moderates of every stripe, are better capable of making 
appropriate decisions than extremists.  Battling on Wikipedia isn't always bad, but the actions of 
an extremist can cause it to escalate beyond a reasonable level.

Cheers, •→Iñgólemo←• 03:39, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

My reply can be found here, thanks for your time :) Sam [Spade] 10:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note: I have since decided that my opposition to Sam Spade was unfounded →Iñgólemo← (talk) 17:56, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

World War II Equipment

Howdy Ingoolemo.

We're currently in the midst of transferring the World War II equipment to match the proposed Weaponry Standard of Country Type Decade instead of sorting them by conflict (which has overlap and can be done via list pages and templates).

I'm the one who made the original WWII equipment categories, my apologies for the inconveniance. Oberiko 10:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh Well

"Magnus" Page Deletion

Welcome to Wikipedia.  Its always a pleasure to have another Wikipedian, because we do need good 
editors.

About your article The Magnus.  It has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion, because
a large number of users feel that it is just something that someone made up and posted on 
the 'Pedia.  If you want to contribute to articles, we greatly appreciate it.  But it will save 
yourself and everyone else a lot of time if you could try to steer away from articles that are most 
likely irrelevant.

Cheers, •→Iñgólemo←• 03:21, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

I am very sorry. It won't happen again. I just intended to make an article in the sandbox then save it to my computer, but my coworkers in the (Magnus) project convinced me to leave it up. Again, sorry.

--NoPetrol 05:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Opposition to Castro

Thanks for your vote on Opposition to Castro! SilentVoice 21:56, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

A belated welcome

I'm also a fan of Middle Earth, and a lover of goodness in general. I saw your note on a science talk page and thought I'd drop by and say hi. I've been at Wikipedia longer than most (I'm the 188th person to sign up and one of the top 100 contributors). My specialty is applying the NPOV and ending edit wars. Welcome! --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 21:02, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Time limits on accepting nominations

Hi, Ingoolemo, we alrady have a time frame for nomination: seven days. In difficult nominations I have advocated, and have indeed extended nominations to help insure consensus, so I (or another b'crat) do not have to evaluate the nom unless it is necessary. Not everyone agrees with this. This is not a case of limiting nominations. Everyone has the full seven days to accept, though I think this is a disrespect to voters who might want to know more about the candidate. What this is about is giving an open-ended extension after the full seven days just because the candidate hasn't bothered to look at the page and accept or reject the nomination. Is that what you favor when you say you are bothered by time limits? My point is that this is not a new limit on nominations or new policy. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for asking for clarification.  Yes, I do support giving an open-ended extension.  Sorry for 
the confusion.  →Iñgólemo← (talk) 16:59, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Redirect you created at "XB-68"

Hi, you created a redirect from XB-68 to Martin XB-68, but there is currently no article at Martin XB-68. (It may have been deleted since the redirect was created.) Wikipedia policy is to get rid of redirects to non-existent pages, and someone listed XB-68 on WP:RfD If you want the redirect to stay, you will need to create something at Martin XB-68 (even a stub will do), or else the redirect will go away. If you do create the target, you don't have to do anything on WP:RfD (we'll eventually notice the target is there), but if you do, just delete the entry for XB-68. Thanks! Noel (talk) 04:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That particular redirect doesn't really matter that much.  I'm systematically creating articles on all
bombers in the United States B- series.  When I get to the XB-68, I'll revive the redirect.  
Until then, it doesn't really matter if it doesn't exist.  →Iñgólemo← (talk) 17:54, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

Guanaco

I'd explained my reasoning in greater detail further down the page. Others have also noted similar things. :) Ambi 06:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

No, thank you.

Nice job on Image:Bomber Scale-chart 0.jpg!  It looks much better now.  →Iñgólemo← (talk)
05:18, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

When those images first showed up on cleanup, I realized that they were a definite asset to Wikipedia that just needed a bit of work. I'll get back to them sooner or later, but hearing that you like the results so far is great. - RedWordSmith 06:43, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Nasser Hejazi

Hi,thanks for your concern for picture on Nasser Hejazi.Be sure that this picture is free and it has taken by us in one of the Iranian stadiums.Good luck--Sina 22:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marsupial poll

I just posted a vote in the Metatherian poll only to find out afterward that the vote had already been closed. I'd like to think that my comments might be worth reading by someone. Just thought you might want to check it out. Thanks. --Aranae 07:44, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

The best place to post your comments would probably be on the talk page of WikiProject Tree of Life. 
→Iñgólemo← (talk) 16:54, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)