VivaEmilyDavies

This user may have left Wikipedia. VivaEmilyDavies has not edited Wikipedia since December 2005. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Linkage (mechanical)

Thanks twice. The image should now be fixed to match the formula. --Duk 17:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try re-loading the page, the image and formula should both have f. If that doesn't work then, 1) copy the url from the Edit this page button, 2)paste into browser url window, 3) replace edit with purge(last word in the url), then enter the url and reload. Duk 18:31, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Romanization of Hebrew

Good catch. I have added the word 'modern'. --Arcadian 18:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Various aircraft categories

Hi VivaEmilyDavies - I noticed you've made some recent changes to high-level branches of Category:Aircraft. You may not have realised that this is a well-maintained and well-documented tree, and that these changes are not consistent with the rest of the categories in it.

I was wondering whether you were intending to continue this project? If so, I can help you identify the categories that you still need to attend to, and will update the documentation of the tree accordingly. If not, I wonder whether you would mind reverting the changes that you made? Cheers --Rlandmann 13:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi again - I agree there wasn't anything "awful" about what you did - it's merely an issue of consistency across the whole tree. I didn't/don't mind whether you continue with this or not - I'm only concerned about that consistency.

Under bad, you've already correctly guessed why subcategories like the ones you've created were not included in the first place. As originally designed, navigation went:

Supermarine Spitfire

cat British fighter aircraft 1930-1939

cat British fighter aircraft

cat British military aircraft

cat Military aircraft

cat Aircraft

(or various other routes of the same length) - 5 clicks from any of the 1,500 various aircraft we have covered in the pedia to the very top of category:Aircraft. Introducing intervening categories could produce anything up to and including:

Supermarine Spitfire

cat British fighter aircraft 1930-1939

cat British fighter aircraft by era

cat British fighter aircraft

cat British military aircraft by type

cat British military aircraft

cat Military aircraft by country

cat Military aircraft

cat aircraft by role

cat Aircraft

None of the new additions would be particularly objectionable, but 5 clicks have now turned into 9, and several hundred new categories are needed across the tree...

If you take a look at the category description, you will see that the Czech/Czechoslovak issue has already been taken care of, and is documented alongside Russian/Soviet, Yugoslavian/Serbian, Chinese/Taiwanese/PRC etc.

High-level categories without dates are all "Czech and Czechoslovakian" (eg Category:Czech and Czechoslovakian military aircraft).

Those with dates use "Czechoslovakian" in the decades 1910-1919 through to 1980-1989, (eg Category:Czechoslovakian civil aircraft 1930-1939)

"Czech and Czechoslovakian" in the decade 1990-1999, (eg Category:Czech and Czechoslovakian civil aircraft 1990-1999)

and become "Czech" in 2000-2009. (eg Category:Czech civil aircraft 2000-2009)

If and when we have any Slovak aircraft to write about before 2009, these will be "Slovak" in the same decade.

Any aircraft produced in the area later to become Czechoslovakia/Czechia/Slovakia before 1918 will be classified as Austro-Hungarian (if they exist - I'm not presently aware of any).

I'm not an expert on Czech history, however, so if you think there's a mistake anywhere here, please let me know! --Rlandmann 15:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the parametrised template slowly being spread around the tree is broken. As you say, it doesn't work with any of the countries whose names have changed, and it fails to link in many of the minor aircraft-producing nations that we have coverage of. Personally, I suggest not using this template for those very reasons. Hopefully, someone will come up with something more workable sooner or later, but I don't think that things like "Soviet and Russian airliners 2000-2009" are an acceptable solution... --Rlandmann 15:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the on-going feedback! The "Spitfire" example is only illustrative of a "between two points" example, and there are multiple ways of reaching the same point, so the "ors" you included are quite correct - I just didn't want to bog things down!

The full version is (sorry - long!):

Supermarine Spitfire

  +British fighter aircraft 1930-1939
     |
     +British fighter aircraft
     |   +British military aircraft
     |   |   +British aircraft
     |   |   |   +Aircraft
     |   |   |   +United Kingdon
     |   |   |
     |   |   +Military aircraft
     |   |       +Aircraft
     |   |       +Military equipment
     |   |
     |   +Fighter aircraft
     |       +Military aircraft
     |           +Aircraft
     |           +Military equipment
     |
     +British military aircraft 1930-1939
     |   +British military aircraft
     |   |   +British aircraft
     |   |       +Aircraft
     |   |       +United Kingdon
     |   |    
     |   +British aircraft 1930-1939
     |   |   +British aircraft
     |   |   |   +Aircraft
     |   |   |   +United Kingdon
     |   |   |
     |   |   +Aircraft 1930-1939
     |   |       +Aircraft
     |   |       +1930s
     |   |
     |   +Military aircraft 1930-1939
     |       +Military aircraft
     |       |   +Aircraft
     |       |   +Military equipment
     |       |
     |       +Aircraft 1930-1939
     |           +Aircraft
     |           +1930s
     |
     +Fighter aircraft 1930-1939
         +Fighter aircraft
         |   +Military aircraft
         |       +Aircraft
         |       +Military equipment
         |
         +Military aircraft 1930-1939
             +Military aircraft
             |   +Aircraft
             |   +Military equipment
             |
             +Aircraft 1930-1939
                 +Aircraft
                 +1930s

Spitfire to Bf 109, as things stand now is:

Supermarine Spitfire

cat British fighter aircraft 1930-1939

cat Fighter aircraft 1930-1939

cat German fighter aircraft 1930-1939

Messerschmitt Bf 109

When everything is properly templated, we'll be able to save one click by linking straight from British fighter aircraft 1930-1939 to German fighter aircraft 1930-1939.

Unfortunately, categories can't redirect, so that doesn't provide a solution. Where this system would really become very powerful, of course, would be if the wiki software ever allows readers to expand and collapse categories in their browsers... however, if wikipedia itself never provides this function, other projects derived from it might well.

Apart from not coping with "name-change" countries, the parametrised templates force us to either exclude the smaller aircraft-manufacturers (which arguably have an even greater need to be linked into more populous categories rather than be further marginalised), or to end up with templates with a very large number of redlinks that will never ever be filled.

Anyway, this conversation has got me thinking again about how we can overcome this. I'm going to put the question to someone from WikiProject Ships who seems quite adept at this kind of thing - I'll get back to you with anything I learn, and if there's a solution forthcoming, I'd welcome any help you'd care to offer. Sorry again for the very long post! --Rlandmann 23:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Sopot, Zagreb

It definately should not be a town, it is an itergral part of Novi Zagreb but I used to live there and it is as big as quite a few other places that have there pages. Neighborhoods of Zagreb is a good idea. As to pictures I may well take a few when I return to Zagreb. Dejvid 23:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category redirection

Yay! Many thanks for alerting me to this - I'm not sure when this became available, but it's very welcome. :) --Rlandmann 02:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just following up - it seems that there is still on-going work by the developers in this area - see [1]. It's probably prudent to wait a bit longer before relying on this feature, since future tinkering may break it again. Ironically, one of the current perceived problems (as summarised in Additional Comment #11 From Aphaia) works to the benefit of Category:Aircraft, since in this case it's a Good Thing that articles mistakenly placed directly in "Soviet and Russian airliners 2000-2009" don't show up in the redirectee category - it provides an immediate clue to the user that there's a problem with their categorisation. --Rlandmann 03:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bernard Chazelle

Please explain on what grounds you changed the categories, at the article talk page. Do you know the person's current citizenship? Mikkalai 06:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops

I didn't think about that, thanks for the warning, fixed now. Pcb21| Pete 10:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:botanists

Thanks; that looks an excellent suggestion. My only thought is whether it might become redundant once this promised 'see-through' categorisation is implemented (I've no idea how that'll work, so don't know if it will affect the suggestion or not).

Could the following also be added to the botanist template please:

The standard [[Binomial nomenclature#Authorship in scientific names|botanical author abbreviation]] '''.''' is applied to plants he described.

Thanks - MPF 19:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; yes, looks good. I presume it'll be in  tags only visible when editing (forgot to say there was also a bit of that in my template addition above, I've made it visible now) - MPF 20:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Belarus presidentS

Category:Presidents of Belarus - LOL. Thank you very much. You made my day. :) --rydel 19:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Professionals by nationality

Thanks for moving forward on renaming that category. And thanks for your other contributions to Wikipedia, and to the categorization schemes in particular. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Botanist cats and template

Hi Emily. It seems you are bent on creating a whole load of new botanist categories. To my mind, its largely category pollution, but I see now that there is a whole ugly history there that I don't care to wade into.... I reverted two articles that I watch, but I'll leave it at that and see which way the wind blows. But one favour please...if you persist in applying the new botanist template everywhere, could you please use it with "subst:" to avoid a drain on the servers? Cheers, Fawcett5 04:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Emily, thanks for your explanation on my talk page. My personal opinion is that the Category explosion may not go over well, but I'm going to bow out on this one, I won't revert anything more. Botanists by area of specialization though is going to result in a **lot** of multiple categories - many of these people catalogued whatever came their way. Add on top of that the Botanist with abbreviations AND Botanists by nationality cat (which despite surviving CFD is flawed too, many lived in colonial times and moved to new countries - do you call them british or Australian? British or Canadian? etc. For me it makes people HARDER to find) and it starts taking up a lot of screen real estate and looking pretty ugly. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out, it might be precedent setting. Fawcett5 13:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Company (law)

Hi VED -- over at Company (law) you requested that the article be kept, and not merged with corporation. Could you edit the article to specifically discuss how a company differs from a corporation in the UK? Otherwise the article is a dictdef, as far as I can tell.

Thanks,

Tempshill 18:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Botanists again

Sorry to say, it isn't working - there were 243 botanists at Category:Botanists, now there's only 98, and I can't find where Marshall (Humphry Marshall) has gone. I need to know to correct his link at Beaked Hazel. Can you make sure that all 243 are returned to one list, please? - Thanks, MPF 19:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take a look-see a bit later when it is more complete. As Gadfium points out below, I suspect several of the IPNI labels may already have their own names, like also bryologists for moss-people, pteridologists for fern-people, etc. Oh, and just to notice that even IPNI aren't above typos, 'Pteridophypes' there is of course 'Pteridophytes'! - MPF 19:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe time to start a page on Humphry Marshall (I'm very surprised he didn't have a page as he's one of the more important early American botanists) . . . I'll wait until your template is up and running before starting. Thanks for all the hard work on sorting things! - MPF 20:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see that you are categorising botanists by nationality, area of work, and specialty. In particular, I see the category Category:Botanists studying fungi. I assume that you are aware that Category:Mycologists means the same thing. At the very least, one of these categories should refer to the other. I have a preference for the latter category; it was there first, and is the proper title.-gadfium 19:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes; I'll take a look over sometime but with other things to do over the next few days I may not be wiki-ing very much until next week. Category:Pteridologists will do for fern people and Category:Bryologists for moss people; not quite sure about algae people or fossil people (oops, no, NOT Category:Cave-men for that!! - ah, remembered it, they'd be Category:Palaeontologists, which probably already exists*). Not sure what's best on the Australia question. - MPF 18:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Except it is a red link, so it doesn't - MPF 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Found them - they're in Category:Paleontologists (U.S. spelling!) - but (1) the people in there mainly studied animal fossils, especially dinosaurs, and (2) it's already been split by nationality. What do you think about Category:Paleobotanists?"

Yes, good idea, though why not as Category:Palaeobotanists :-) MPF 18:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"My dictionary and various other sources suggest the following: Category:Algologists, Category:Lichenologists, Category:Pteridologists, Category:Bryologists (like you suggested) - I think it's worth giving up on Category:Botanists studying spermatophytes, and am considering putting it up for deletion. The problem is that it is so broad, nobody will ever find anything useful in it! Does it represent a field in its own right? If so what is its name? VivaEmilyDavies 18:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

They all look good. Yes, I suspect the last isn't worth having, as with 95% of all botanists in it (the other groups just filter off a small handful), it is effectively the same as the general Category:Botanists - MPF 18:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replied to your comment at my talk page.-gadfium 20:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Harvey

I agree what the "because" you listed on the cat:csd for this article, but, alas, self-promotion is not a speedy deletion criterion. I hope you'll list the article on VfD, as it's pretty obviously a deletion offense. It's just not a speedy deletion candidate, as history shows that it has never been deleted in process before. Geogre 02:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep, seems like someone without my fine scruples (or someone who hadn't been reversed via VfU recently, like I have) got to it. C'est la vie. I'm sure Mr. Hypnotoad the Philosopher will find another way to celebrate the miracle that is himself. At any rate, while some folks will go ahead and knock down a blatant vanity on CSD (mainly because they're thinking of it as spam (an article with mainly links in it that's also advertising)), technically it's not one of the cases. Vanity violates the deletion policy (i.e. VfD), but not the delete-on-sight policy (which you can find at wp:csd). Geogre 12:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CfD restruct

Hi there! You voted on #4, but that's rather pointless unless #3 passes, so you may want to consider voting on #3. Yours, Radiant _* 15:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Category for deletion deleted

Hi. You made this change to my proposal to delete a category. I assume it was an error. I've added it again. Imc 18:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

quasi-adjectival

I suppose you are right on that one (new word for me!) It's even official in the names of things like the Defense Force. (The government is GOTT, or GORTT. People like to draw the similarity with the German word for God). Now you have me second-guessing myself, big time. It would be the "Canadian" [military], never the Canada [military]. But the United State Army. Not the American Army. I was speaking simply, not into the world of quasi-adjectival. Had never made the connection really. Now I have to figure this out. :)

By the way - good work on the Botany stubs and categories. Are you a botanist of some form, or just a stub-catter? Guettarda 21:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Smiths theorem, not Smith's Theorem

Please. "Smith's Theorem", with a capital "T", is grossly incorrect by standard Wikipedia conventions followed in thousands of articles and links. Michael Hardy 22:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zeeman

Although born in Denmark Zeeman is clearly a UK citizen as otherwise he could not use the title Sir. Are these national categories meant to be purely birth or citizenship? Billlion 11:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biographies

Hi. I already noticed your edits because recently you name did feature quite often on my watchlist :) I mainly work on math related articles, and when I need some math biography page I usually only create a short stub and fill it with the basic dates from mactutor. I think the mactutor template would be a great idea, and your style changes to my article stubs are definitely an improvement.

As for the change from nationality adjective to nation state, I do not really care. In future articles I will use the nation-state link if this the de facto standard. MathMartin 19:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have created the mactutor template at Template:MacTutor Biography. Feel free to change it. At the moment it outputs

O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "VivaEmilyDavies", MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, University of St Andrews

MathMartin 17:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After converting nearly all biography pages which linked to MacTutor archive to use the new template, I discovered your template at Template:MacTutor

O'Connor, John J.; Robertson, Edmund F., "VivaEmilyDavies", MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, University of St Andrews

(which is not used so far). I do not care which template is used, but would prefer to call the parameter id instead of 1.MathMartin 17:44, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Francesco Faà di Bruno

You wrote [[Category:Beatified people|Bruno, Francesco Faà di]]. I changed it to [[Category:Beatified people|Faà di Bruno, Francesco]]. Being less than an expert in Italian nomenclature, I wonder if you can shed any light on which of us missed something? The discovery from which Faà di Bruno is best-known among mathematicians is usually called Faà di Bruno's formula, and rarely if ever called Bruno's formula. Michael Hardy 21:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your message to Geogre

Hi! I saw your message on Geogre's talk page, which I was giving a check-over because I know Geogre is having major hookup problems atm and won't himself have much chance to read it. He'll be back, but I don't know when, so if your problem is at all urgent, I'm afraid you'd better take it elsewhere. As a housekeeper at peer review, though, can I just ask you about your statement that WP:AD "recommends that in cases of accuracy dispute, you should call for peer review, but WP:PR says that peer review is only for articles close to featured article status"? I thought I was finally finding out why people keep listing accuracy disputes on peer review (creating headaches for me), but when I checked out WP:AD, I wasn't able to find the recommendation you mention. Am I missing it, or is it possible you were thinking of a different page? I see one mention of peer review on WP:AD, indeed, but that's in the infobox, and states quite correctly that PR is for getting articles up to Featured status. I'd really appreciate it if you'd check it out and let me know—it might solve some of my housekeeping problems! Bishonen|Talk 03:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) (P.S. If you do have an accuracy dispute problem, WP:RFC is the place to list it. Bishonen|Talk 03:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Jacob Palis

I'm thankful for your recent editing in Jacob Palis! Porcher 14:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

dogma

Thanks for asking me about dogma in Orthodox Christianity. Here's my own off the cuff, unofficial answer. Dogma refers to theological beliefs that we can be sure of because God has revealed them clearly. Rejecting them or directly contradicting them is seen as directly contradicting divinely revealed truth. Not everything the church teaches is a dogma though, not by a long shot. Orthodoxy is careful to distinguish between dogma and "theologoumena" (sp??), or "theological opinions." For instance, it's dogma that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. That's not negotiable. It's a theological opinion that Mary herself never sinned at all, and many Orthodox theologians believe and teach this. Others disagree and say that she did (probably) commit some sins, but was a a generally righteous person. Some church fathers prayed for the salvation of everyone, even Satan himself, and believed Satan's salvation and repentance was possible; this seems to be a minority opinion, but despite being unpopular it's not an actual heresy. There are some things that the Orthodox will refuse to answer or to claim any sure knowledge of, such as whether any particular person will be saved or damned. "It's a mystery" is a frequent answer, and this can often be frustrating to new inquirers and catechumens.

By way of contrast, the Roman Catholic Church seems to have defined many more dogmas than the Orthodox Church has, and as a result is even more inflexible. The Protestants of course have far fewer dogmas; sola scriptura is one of the few widely held dogmas, but in practice it allows them to believe almost anything so long as they can quote a couple of verses that seem to support it. Hope this helps answer your question. Wesley 05:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good questions. I really don't know how to address whether Orthodoxy recognizes 'that from the outside of the religion, it may appear fundamentally uncertain, and that it is ultimately acknowledged to require a "leap of faith"?' Of course the Church recognizes that not everyone believes everything that God has revealed or that the Church teaches. In some prayers, we acknowledge that we ourselves act at times as though we don't believe in God or as though we don't love God or as though we have some other false idea about God, and confess that our sinful actions reflect our own unbelief. "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief." But the Church does not say that what we believe is true for us, and something different or opposite may be just as true for another religion. That would be logically impossible. Christianity is not pluralistic the way Hinduism is, for example. You also asked, "does "dogmatic" make (theological) sense as a way to refer to people with beliefs that might now be characterised as a "fundamentalist", particularly rigid literalism and a tendency to try to see all things (including philosophical and scientific topics) through the prism of scripture?" I would say no, because Orthodoxy is not fundamentalist in that sense, it does not believe in sola scriptura or in a rigidly literal reading of all Bible passages. For example, it is not dogmatic regarding whether God literally created the world in six 24-hour days just a few thousand years ago. Some do believe that, but others believe that God caused the "Big Bang" billions of years ago, and both are acceptable so long as God remains affirmed as the Primary Cause of everything that exists. We are not "dogmatic" about the mechanical, scientific details, but we are dogmatic about God's existence, and the things said about Him in the Nicene Creed and so forth. We believe that sincere atheists, or Greek pagans that sincerely believed in Zeus and friends, were sincerely mistaken. Hope this helps. Wesley 16:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Esteban Terradas i Illa article

Article: Esteban Terradas i Illa. Thanks for your rewriting, pls do it again if feel necessary, Catalan is my native language. And thanks for your warm welcome!--Friviere 09:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pls. do have a look again at the Esteban Terradas i Illa article, as I added some paragraphs.

I have also written a short Catalan turn entry which I would very much thank if you had a look to it.--Friviere 15:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for your nice suggestions.

Catalonia and Spain: I see this does not work as in the Catalan WP, from which it was translated, in which it is suggested to do it that way. I'll put attention to it. Article sections: I agree and will remember your suggestions. In fact I has readen your comments to the article and understand your arguments. Drive: I meant 'lead? which I consider a good suggestion and'll try to use to avoid `drive'. Catalan turn: what I meant an sort of architectural arch, that can be seen on these shots: [2], [3],[4], [5], built of plain brick. --Friviere 20:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion

Hi, see the {{vfd}} ("Vote for Deletion") concerning the various sub-categories for Jewish people at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Re:Sub-Categories of Jewish people [6]. Thank you. IZAK 10:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Love your user name!

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I saw your name in the stub discussion page. I just wanted to let you know that I love it. It's so, erm, vivacious! I like the notion of bright happiness! And a stub monster is a wonderful thing to be.Grace Note 14:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Paternalism

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please have a look @ Talk:Paternalism, thanks, Sam Spade 15:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for help with new cats

Thanks for help with [[Category:Czech paleontologists]] and possibly others. You added the parent categroy before I remember to do it. Pavel Vozenilek 02:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion not Deletion

(AIW) can you take a look at Wikipedia "apartheid"? There is a movement to delete a two-word inclusion that is fact and true. It's gotten to the point that everyone is focused on the disputing editors and not the edit itself.

" Deletionists are disputing the following statement: "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews followed in the 19th century." This statement is true, and it therefore should not be deleted.69.217.125.53 15:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apartheid

Thanks!69.217.123.174 19:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was also spammed with this, it is not an inclusionist/deletionist issue, it's an edit war. — PhilHibbs | talk 08:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. It looks like you're not active anymore, but if you come back and are at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. I've marked you on this list as "inactve". Feel free to update this as well. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 3, 2005 18:38 (UTC)

Irish mathematicians

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed your template here - it was redundant since there is also a European template. The normal thing is to list mathematicians who spent alot of time in England under both categories.Notjim 23:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply