Lyellin

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 03:53, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, you've been here so long and nobody's welcomed you. That's not very ... well ... welcoming. ;-) Anyway - have fun. --snoyes 03:58, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi from Luxembourg

Hi Lyellin. Just wanted to say thanks for stopping by :) Briséis

Alan Blunt

Hi, I had an edit conflict with you on Alan Blunt, and have kept my edit (which keeps the important parts of the original). Hope you agree with it ··gracefool 10:39, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A n00b question: If you reply on my page, should I reply on my page too? (ie. what's the convention?) Meanwhile I've replied on my page... ··gracefool 11:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ping :p ··gracefool 12:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please be careful. When you edited those redirects, you made them point to another redirect page, which is is known as a "double-redirect" and is not desirable since it stops at a redirect page and not the article. I've fixed these up, now. Dysprosia 20:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia project dance

what do you think about setting up a wikipedia project for dance? sit might be the best place to organise the dance content from and have some consistancy in what is being put down, whatdo you think? Ohka-

John Kerry and Abortion

I'll respond to that when you tell me what data you have to back up that "John Kerry is friend to all children"... Frankly, since he supports partial-birth abortion - which is the partial extraction and killing of full term pre-birth infants, I don't see how that can be true. That said, do you really want to go there, or do you admit you were just teasing? and if so, am I also allowed the same largesse? And if so, please lighten up...Rex071404 07:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

wow. I suspect he was doing it because of the almost hilarity of this discussion/edit "wars", etc, if you take a step back. I won't put words in Gamaliel's mouth though, but 1- let it go? and 2- let's not start ANOTHER debate here (abortion), because that statement is just plain wrong. Lyellin 07:53, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I love this. You demand citations and explanations for an obvious joke and then you tell me to “please lighten up”. This is truly theater of the absurd. Gamaliel 08:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The only part of my description of PBA which could be said is less than 100% always accurate, is that not all PBA victims are full term. However, since neither you no I have the statistics, primarily because Abortion Mills, unlike other medical facilities, dont have to keep full records of what they do, there is no measurable way to determine precisely what percent of PBA victims were indeed "full term". That said, any child which is forcibly removed from the womb in a viable state, becomes a de-facto "full-term" infant. This is because, properly speaking, "term" in the context of child birth, refers to ther period of time a child is in the womb. A child is only a "preemie" when exceptional care is required to keep it alive after an unsually early birth. Ok? So don't tell me I am "just plain wrong" for you not nothng of what my knowledge level on various topics is....Rex071404 08:03, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Go read Kerry's campaign page here. Read his quote on abortion. Then read how he's voted. He's voted against preemie abortions, as long as exceptions were made for when not having an abortion would be dangerous to the mother's health. That bill though, was trashed by Bush. That's what you were wrong about, not about what consitutes an abortion, or not. But that is unrelated- if you want to continue talking about this, let's do it on our talk pages, because I don't want to crowd this page anymore. Lyellin 08:11, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I Moved this here because I would like to continue to conversation here, if it continues at all.

John Kerry - Partial Birth Abortion (a primer)

1st note: I am on voluntary 2-3 days hiatus from JK page. That said, here is my reply to you on JK - PBA:

Kerry Has Voted At Least Six Times Against Banning Partial-Birth Abortion. (H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #596: Passed 54-44: R 45-8; D 9-36; I 0-0, 12/7/95, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1833, CQ Vote #301: Motion Rejected 57-41: R 45-6; D 12-35; I 0-0, 9/26/96, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #71: Passed 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 5/20/97, Kerry Voted Nay; H.R. 1122, CQ Vote #277: Rejected 64-36: R 51-4; D 13-32, 9/18/98, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 1692, CQ Vote #340: Passed 63-34: R 48-3; D 14-31, I 1-0, 10/21/99, Kerry Voted Nay; S. 3, CQ Vote #402: Agreed To 64-34: R 47-3; D 17-30; I 0-1, 10/21/03, Kerry Voted Nay)

Kerry Says, “There Is No Such Thing As A Partial Birth.” “Just hours after President Bush signed a law banning what critics of the procedure call ‘partial-birth abortion,’ Senator John F. Kerry declared last night ‘there is no such thing as a partial birth,’ as he and the other Democratic presidential contenders sought the political support of women voters. … ‘It is a late-term abortion. They have done a very effective job of giving people a sense of fear about it. It’s part of their assault on the rights of women in America. … There’s nothing partial about their effort to undo Roe v. Wade.’” (Glen Johnson, “Kerry Hits Ban On Abortion Procedure,” The Boston Globe, 11/6/03)

Kerry's fundamental lie about abortion - here.
Kerry's gross bias, as expressed on this occassion via indifference, against pro-life women.

Now as to the specific claim you make which relies on the "mother's health"; that term, in the context of various proposed laws controlling PAB does not have ordinary day-to-day meaning. Rather, it's a very broad term of legal art which encompasses a sweeping justification for PBA based on a broad interepration of "mental health". Such interpretations, as currently viewed by most metal health practitioners, would justify PBA to prevent mothers from being "depressed" or "sad". Such loop-holes are simply chimeras for facile excuses to create enough "gray-area" in the law, that enforcement of it is effectively impossible.

To my knowledge, Kerry has never voted "pro-life" even once in the last 10 years. Can you name the vote(s), if you differ? Rex071404 15:10, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First off, I'll apologize because work got hectic, so it's just now that I'm actually replying. Sorry bout that. But for the reply...

1. My apology for jumping on your comment on the JK page. It was uncalled for. 2. My apologies for being harsher sounding than I wanted to be. 3. May I request that in the future we keep large POV topics away from the debate of whatever we are discussing on a talk page? I don't believe Gamel was implying anything about Abortion, instead, he was being silly.

In response to your porst directly. First of all, I must ask that the both of us attempt to keep personal bias to ourselves. Abortion is perhaps one of the touchiest policital subjects, precisely because it encompases matters of faith, matters of belief, issues over wording, issues over meaning and interpretation of law, etc. I will identify right now my personal bias, just to explain. I try hard to avoid the topic of abortion whenever possible. I do not like abortion, but at the same token, I will not condemn, go against, or speak against those who have an abortion. That is their choice.

I'd also like to keep in mind the difference between a belief and a stance. It is my personal belief that guns are terrible things, and that gun control should make it illegal for anyone to own a gun. This is partly based on religion... I am a Quaker and a pacifist. On the same token, my stance towards gun control is completely different. I do not believe that the government has the right to take away people's guns, or to restrict ownership of guns for hunting purposes. In some cases, I do, but mostly, I follow that line. So I believe it is entirely possible for someone, anyone, to ahve the personal belief that abortion is bad, and not something they support, but at the same token, support politically, through voting, creating legislation, etc, the institution of abortion. In other words, I'm sorry, but the first of the two articles you linked me to, well, does nothing for me. (Besides being a site with a highly obvious bias).

Secondly, and I think most important, is the process of politics. Kerry, and all legislators, are stuck because they have to play with wording, nuances, attempting to get everything they want/support and their constituants want/support. Any person who's done government, from High school simulation to personal experience, knows that those choices, the ones over wording, over specific sections being in or out, often forces those who would support 1 bill to not, or vice versa.

What I'm saying here, is that I agree that Kerry has politically opposed anti-abortion legislation. (now, I personally think that's a good thing, but that's immaterial). The reason I acted harshly, and the reason I apologized above, is that there is a distinct difference between supporting something personally, and supporting something politically. Do I believe that everyone should try to merge those two together? Yes. Do I believe it happens? Of course not. I also know that sometimes, in the fight to protect the rights of all americans, one must vote (for a candidate or a legislator for an issue), against their personal beliefs. Often this is the case when a personal belief is different than that of the legislator.

That's why I reacted harshly, for which I apologize, but I will stand by my belief that Kerry does not personally like abortion, and I will stand by even stronger that I respect him for not allowing his personal beliefs and faith to interfere with his job of protecting the rights of American citizens. Lyellin 11:19, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't impute into your view of Kerry, a presumption that he keeps a rational study of personal/political issues going on in his mind. You should not do that, because we don;t need to know about his faith in order to analize his votes. To make this more clear on a parallel example:

Either "drunk driving" is wrong and should be stopped or it isn't - and we should care. There is no ambiguity there. It's irrelevant what a person's personal views are. For example, I am someon who views the do and don't admonitions of the Bible very seriously. The way I view it, in regards to modern alcoholic liquids such as beer, winer, spirits, go, there is no place for them in my home. This is 1st a religious belief, but secondly, having studied the topic closely, it's also a scientific belief. By personal studies on the topic have made clear to me that consumption of alcohol has a deleterious effect on the human body. As such, even if I were not under a religious duty to be a good steward of my body (but I am), on practical level, I would still avoid alcohol.

It is the same with Abortion. There is both a spiritual aspect "Children are a gift from God..." and a scientific aspect - that entity which is being aborted is indeed an in-process human being. When one legislates against abortion, one, in effect, makes a statement along these lines: "As a society, we have interdependancies to each other which must be honored, or society becomes 'every-man-forhimself'. Modern caring societies, ddo not operate that way, and neither can ours. Aborttion devalues human life, kills a developing person and enables the sexual exploitation of women. These negatives are not suffciently offset by the ehnanced personal 'freedom' which 'choice' allows, for that reason, I am opposed to abortion".

John Kerry is using facile reasoning when he suggests that merely because he claims to have a faith-based personal posiiton on the topic of Abortion, he cannot see the real world deleterious effects of Abortion on people.

And in particular, in regards to Partial-Birth Abotion, let's not forget what is going on here: A fully formed infant - one that certainly is viable outside the womb, is partially delivered, feet first; then with it's head still in the cervix, it's skil is crushed, killing it. this diffrs from infanticide only by the fact that the head remains in the womb.

If indeed you are a Quaker, I am suposing that you accept as true that there is a God, yes? The Bible teaches me this "Withhold not good from whom it is due, when it is the power of thy hand to give it".

This is a moral ethic which, if followed, is a good foundation for sane, caring societal laws. Moder society must have a moarla foundation - once which rwests on truths which cannot be negotioated away. Societies which rest on on man-made premises, either are, or evnetually become fascist. I challenge you to disprove this.

The reason why Kerry can induce you to accept the inference of his assertions about his "personal faith" (as tou concede he has done) is because you arre imputing your personal logic into his public assertions.

Unlike you however, since Kerry is wearing the mantle of US Senator, he is required to check his biases att the door. It's not enough to say "I am personally against..." something. What's required of a US Senator is to confirm through study that the underlying ethic of one's belief can be translatd into rules that serve society as a whole, the best. If not, then when leaves their views out. However, if yes, then inserting one's view is not only logically sound, it's morally proper.

The beauty of America, is that those who want to "op-out" can. For exmaple, the Mennonites in my area do not vote (not the ones I have spoken with anyway). And in that, they are at liberty in USA to not do so. However, if my senator was a Mennonite, faith or not, if he did not vote, I would want him out of office.

Likewise with Kerry (who is my Senator - I'm MA). He has a lot of nerve claiming that his "Catholic" beliefs keep him from protecting unborn chilren. There is more to the equatiton than that. One need not be Catholic, not anything else to see the barbarism of cushing the skulls of partially born children.

And to top it off, Kerry mis-reprenst himself as a Catholic. Cahtlisims is a "top-down" heirarchal, mostly-Christian (preying to Mary is not Christian) religion. A basic tenant of Catholisims is that the Pope defines the articles of faith. The Roman Catholic Church, from which Kerry claims his "faith" is as a matter of faith, practice and doctrine, opposed to Abortion. For Kerry to do the opposite and then say he must because he is foced to keep his "faith" from being imposed, is intentionally misleading.

While is is a senator, he has a duty as a senator. If is telling me that his hands are tied because of his faith and that he can not oppose abortion because he equates that with, in effect, tryign to prostelytize the citizens, then what e is telling me is false. One need not be converted to Catholisims in order to want to limit the barbaric practice of child murder.

And Partial-birth Abortion is indeed just that: Child murder. There is no way to gloss that up and there is no way to hide that behind one's intentional confuions of one's private duty to faith and public duty to good law.

Kerry, as a senator, has a public duty to good law, which you, as a private citizen, do not. You are free to imagine abortion to be whatever you think it is, based on faith, or what have you. Kerry on the other hand, is not ffree to disregarrd the factual evidence as to how abortion heurts people and society. Regardless of whether or not he feels squeemish about the risk that he might be "imposing his views", it just so happens that when one's views are correct, one ought to try to do just that - at least to some degree.

Hainvg said that, along the lines off "Prohibition" which showed that alcohol is in such high demand that an outright ban only created a sub-culture of crime and violence, to alesser degre, an outright band on Abortion would also not be owrkable. There is however, nothing impossible about banning Partial-brith Abortion. And since it could be done, is barbaric and is actually never a medical nessecity, there is no reason to allow it to remain legal. That is unless of course, one has sold their soul to NARAL, as I contend that Kerry has done. Rex071404 13:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am surpised at your "Arb" comments

Frankly, after you invited me to dialog here with you. I had expected you to reciprocate. Rex071404 05:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sympson the Joiner

Sympson the Joiner survived VfD with two Del votes (including the nomination to VfD), three explicit Keep votes, and two arguable implicit Keeps (via mentions of Cleanup).
In accord with severalWP:CU mentions, it
1. went on,
2. got a one-word M(inor) edit after 18 minutes, and
3. was kicked off by one editor after 14 hours, with summary "nothing more is likely to turn up".
Your comment at Talk:Sympson the Joiner#Should this be Merged? would assist me in determining what next.

--Jerzy (t) 04:25, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Ballets Russes category & Dance

Hi Lyellin, thanks for the invitation. My "angle" (and original intrest in creating the category), if I my say so, is that of the music composed for the Ballets Russes: if one takes together all the music that was composed following comissions from Serge Diaghilev one has the crème de la crème of all classical music composed around the first World War: I wanted to exploit the Wikipedia opportunities in visualising such relations (that tie together Richard Strauss and Claude Debussy, Respighi and Prokofiev, etc... but also Winnaretta Singer and Vaslav Nijinsky, to name only a few extremes that one can find in this fascinating cocktail). Besides becoming interested in some aspects of dance (and dancers) in throwing myself in this topic, alas I'm no dance expert, and don't know very well where all this fits in the categories of the Wikipedia dance project. I primarily see Ballets Russes as an example par excellence of a ballet company that was a major influence on its time (and long after). Does this help you in any way? --Francis Schonken 06:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Olympics

I've been bolding the medal winners (not only in Athletics, but in Archery as well - going alphabetically here) because that's what the consistent format is. That format started before there were Results by Medal sections. Looking at the US page, I can definitely see how it's not a great look when you have a lot of medal sweeps. However, on the smaller countries, it does call attention to medal winners. I don't have a real preference either way, except for consistency. Not sure where a discussion should be held about it, but if there is a discussion and people agree on one way of doing it, that's the way it should be done. - Jonel 05:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and start the discussion on the WikiProject page or wherever you think is the best place for it. As for me, right now, I need a break from Athletics anyway (way too many competitors in that...) so I won't be changing the format of existing results or adding new ones that might need to be changed later. Going to work on other sports for a bit. (woo, done with Basketball!) - Jonel 06:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, RFC

Rex is now listed on WP:RFC, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rex0714042 for vandalizing his talk page. You are wlecome to leave your on comments on this page. Kevin Baas | talk 20:58, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

Truth vs "Hostage"

I fail to see how standing up for truth = holding people hostage. Also, read this [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

link requires WAPO log in [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Appealing" vs Asserting

I am asserting not "appealing". [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read my TfT talk - they are intimately related due to being potatoes being dug from the same spot in the same field [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talk page "That's hostage tactics, not appealing to truth." [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

please see reply here [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More about Rex

I don't know whether you still have much interest in the Rex071404 arbitration. The committee is now considering the following as one of its proposed findings of fact: "The compaining witnesses in this matter, because of their numerical majority, felt that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs, despite its societal significance." I got pretty cheesed off at this. The short of it is that we're being unjustly criticized, without even being told that there was a complaint against us. The long of it is here, here and here. It's produced a pretty typical exchange between Rex on one side and Gamaliel and me on the other. I mention all this only because the ArbCom is considering a proposed finding that, IMO, reflects badly on you, so I thought you ought to know about it in case you want to get involved. If you have more will power than I do and can resist the temptation to keep wasting time on this stuff, more power to you! JamesMLane 09:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are asserting that you felt a certain way. Only you know how you feel, and they have no right to speculate as to your feelings, and esp. not to arbitrarily assert a characterization of them against your will. I would simply say something like "I do not feel this way.", in addition to any other comment you wish to offer, if indeed, this is not the way you feel. Also, I don't think your feelings are relevant to the case, and they should not be part of the judgement. The case concerns actions, not speculations of feelings or motives. Kevin Baas | talk 21:05, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

WikiReader

I'd love some help with the WikiReader! As you can see; I've not done much myself; recently I've had so little time to devote to the project. There is a small to-do list on the Project page; there's a list of things that need to/would be nice if they were done. Apart from that, it would be nice with some input and modification to the list of articles to be included -- if we could "freeze" this set, we could formulate the specific tasks to take the WikiReader to the next step in progress. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 20:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look-over

Don't know if this is the right section to post this. Lyellin, can you take a look at Culpability and help expand it? Primarily, I want some one to look at the moral perspective. Thanks. -- Sundar 05:08, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to lookover. -- Sundar 05:31, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Dance

I'd love to help, buddy, but I seem to be always pressed for time! I'm pretty involved with the Dog Project.

Still, I'll do what I can. Thanks for the invite! Quill 01:02, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just saw your new note. Actually, I've already contributed to Ballroom dance and got into a spot of trouble, so I'm chary. I've also written Walter Nicks and contributed to Frankie Manning. Yep, I'll help with aerial. I know what you mean about that 'To do' list! Actually, since you're in your soph year I'm amazed you have any 'free' time at all! Don't neglect your studies (don't mean to nag; just got younger siblings, so I'm like that!)

Quill 01:31, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Electoral college

You did not sign your post about this. See these links:

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 05:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TfT talk went blank. I restored it. Your comment was lost. Please re-post. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 04:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Final 2004 EV total:

Bush 289
Kerry 252

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you know has been updated

And an article you created recently has made the line up and is now featured on the main page. Enjoy! -- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 08:38, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

the bard

god, i keep meaning to go back and do some more work on that, but i always just end up getting dragged towards the latest wikifashion (wikinews, wikijunior, wikiversity... ) and never end up finishing anything. And now im trying to get a new wikibook about quechua started up and a tri-lingual cross-project notice board set up for everything relating to Latin America (although im putting that off till we get universal logins and watchlists). hot-damn, i need a few more hundred hours in each day. Anywho, ill try and do some work on the wikireader, and if i fall off again, just keep bugging me and ill come back :P The bellman 02:44, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Yo, i started checking Shakespearean authorship, when i thought, "hang on, by the time i finish checking this, someone will probably have edited it", So i propose that we use the form:

Article (The bellman checked - 16:19, 2004 Nov 24 Ricky81682) and also leave a note on the talk page saying, "This page has been reviewed and judged to be ready to be saved in static form as part of the William Shakespeare WikiReader. If you believe that the version of this page which was checked ([6]), is not suitable for static reproduction, please raise your concerns on this talk page.

This makes sure we dont miss some error which is discovered between now and when we finish the wikireader, that we know what we checked, and it also helps publicise it a bit aswell (which can only be a good thing)The bellman 06:23, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

wiki2PDF

I had some trouble testing that nice utility, probably because of an incomplete setup, but http://wiki.auf-trag.de/ probably doesn't see Noether's theorem, it can't see the article. I was led to the wiki2PDF link from the Shakespeare note you posted on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team talk page. This wikiReader project has success written all over it. Nice choice of topic! And you are able to work in peace on the topic, unlike some others which are like Grand Central terminal. It probably helps to have a self-selected/interested set of people of like mind. That is going to be the challenge in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. (Probably if each article is taken, one at a time, with a selected team for each, then there is a chance for succeeding.) Regards, Ancheta Wis 02:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikinews vandal

I gave up reverting the vandalism by 24.198.49.225 on Wikinews.

I've already asked for an Administrator to help out (I'm assuming you're not an Admin yourself?), both on Wikipedia Vandalism in Progress and on Jimbo Wale's talk page.

The Administrators can just rollback everything this user is doing in one fall swoop, right?

Cheers,

--DV 03:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, where do I vote for you to be an Admin on Wikinews, given that Wikipedia Admins are not recognized as such over there? --DV 03:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Weather update

I am just about ready to post a new graphic for world surface conditions under the weather section on Wikinews. However, it appears that I can only update the two-column section underneath the single-column header and timestamp of the last update. In other words, I can no longer update where it says "November 29 Surface conditions".

I want to remove the two columns below the header section and update the single column section (the one with the "November 29 Surface conditions" text) to have a large thumbnail graphic with two links underneath it for Fahrenheit and Celsius versions of the full map.

Could you add an "Update" link to the single-column Weather section or otherwise make it possible for non-Admins to edit this section?

Thanks.

— DV 20:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

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 2000 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:

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:

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)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

Hi, Lyellin. Are there any articles you'd like to suggest for collaboration for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team? Thanks. Maurreen 07:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)