en User talk:Mwanner Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mwanner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Mwanner/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 00:25, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Exponential distribution

You said you "fixed" the unmatched parentheses. It's not clear that they needed "fixing". In this case, either (0, 1) or (0, 1] will serve, but in many mathematics articles where (0, 1] may be correct, (0, 1) could be grossly wrong. In this case the change is harmless, but your summary makes it sound as if something was incorrect as it stood, and that is not true. Michael Hardy 22:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image source

Discussion moved to Image talk:Bear Mtn Bridge.jpg#Copyright.

University College Utrecht

I've just edited your entry and I've got one tip. External links need only one bracket on each side. Double brackets are reserved for internal links. :) Mgm|^(talk) 23:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Re: UnitedforumUsers

As part of the tradition of welcoming newcomers, that person was one of many new users I was welcoming earlier. I regret that this user just basically posted two copies of an article of vanity. Both are now up on VFD.Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stanislaw Albinowski

Hello mwanner,

Why did you marked the article about Stanislaw Albinowski as bo be deleted. I worked on it hard and I think it contains usufull information about a famous Polish economist.

Crosssword Empire

Hello.

I worked hard on fixing my Crosssword Empire page, can you look at it and maybe reconsiter your vote now that I posted a link to the book itself?

Please... I worked hard on both the Empire's story and the Wiki page.

Appalachian Mountains categories

Hi, Mwanner. Category:Mountain ranges of North America is in a state of flux, it will probably go away, to be replaced with Category:Mountain ranges of Canada, Category:Mountain ranges of the United States, and Category:Mountain ranges of Mexico. The Appalachians are in both Canada & the US, so they belong in both. But, Category:Mountain ranges of Canada doesn't exist yet, so the current state is temporary. -- hike395 18:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and created Category:Mountain ranges of Canada (as you may have noticed). There's no established rule for creating subcategories that everyone follows. My own personal rule is don't make subcategories unless they have 7 articles, and split categories if they get large and they have an attribute that readers would find distinguishing and useful (in this case Canada vs. U.S.). -- hike395 21:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The most likely place for discussion is at a corresponding WikiProject, like Wikipedia:WikiProject History... -- hike395 21:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images!

Hi! You are more than welcome to whatever you wish on categories--it is, after all, Wikipedia. :) My personal impulse would be to put Category:National Atlas territorial expansion maps under Category:U.S. history images, but not particularly rush to put Category:U.S. National Historic Sites under Category:United States history on the grounds that the sites, while historic, are places, and places specifically designated by federal law, which makes them sort of more like tourist attraction articles, IMHO, than articles about history, per se. But it's totally up to you. Categorize your little booty off. We need it. :) jengod 20:26, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I was thinking more about your categories question. In general, just think of our categories like biological taxonomy. Say you have an article about Rhode Island Reds, a breed of chicken. The category structure would probably go:

Chicken breeds >> Chicken >> Birds >> Animals. Same thing with an article about say, the Boston Tea Party: Boston history >> Massachusetts history >> United States history >> World history. Sorry if this was insanely patronizing. :) Best, ~j jengod 20:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Re: UPX, I've had a go at expanding the article a bit, hopefully some other wikipedians will help fill in the gaps :) -- taviso 22:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yo

Gimme a chance to dig around, but this might help ya out: Wikipedia:No original research jengod 23:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Matrixism deletion

Matrixism has been relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25 if you're interested in reiterating your vote. — Phil Welch 20:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

American Civil War

Oh, it was a misguided idea...I was thinking that the Civil War was more than a war, it was also a significant era in American history. But Category:United_States_history doesn't really collect things on that basis. The Eras subcategory or the History-by-year articles are probably better at that. Thanks for helping keep things tidy. -- Beland 13:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Battles of the Operations against Fort Fisher and Wilmington of the American Civil War

They are two different campaigns in the Eastern Theater, and so should have their own categories, as does every other campaign in the war. --brian0918 18:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Fort Fisher 1 is part of the Expedition, Fort Fisher 2 is part of the operations. These were separate campaigns, and I'm not in a position to rewrite history. --brian0918 23:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Bacon's Rebellion

Re: your adding of copyvio notice. Wikipedia's article was derived from [1], which is a National Park Service web site. [2] is a verbatim copy of that source. While the NPS site is a federal web site, and the contents are therefore arguably in the public domain, specific authors are credited. It is intellectually dishonest not to credit them as a source for the article, but I do not think it is technically a copyright violation. At least the Wikipedia article included a link to the NPS web site. The other site did not even do that much. older≠wiser 21:11, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Gunpowder plot

Thanks for chasing up that source! --Spudtater 21:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Di nada. I was just annoyed when I saw that someone had dumped such a large block of text with no attribution. I'm not sure that it makes sense to leave it as it is, but it's a strange situation: you can't really link to it, since it's buried in a longer work. And it's certainly PD; it's even anonymous. Mwanner 22:59, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

copyvio stuff

I saw your question on Jimbo's talk page. I suggest you drop it off at the help desk for an optimal response. Mgm|^(talk) 00:10, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to try at the wikien-l (see Wikipedia:Mailing lists). Mgm|^(talk) 14:43, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Categories - US History/History of the United States

Thanks for your effort at a comprehensive list -- exhausting work. I am considering creating (more -- gasp!!) subcategories by region/perhaps up to 12 sections, such as "History of New England," "History of the Ohio Valley," "History of the Great Basin." In many ways, this organization would be easier than state based sorting, as so many regions were settled/organized before the arbitrary state lines were drawn and so have common histories. Comments and suggestions welcome. WBardwin 4 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

I think the addition of History by Region categories would be useful, and easier to implement than you may think: after creating the categories, create Category:United State history by region and assign all of your new categories to it. Then edit each of the 51 state history categories and add the appropriate regional cat to it. That will automatically subsume all articles with existing state history cats into your regional scheme. Then one will be able to assign one of the regional cats whenever a single state cat would be too narrow. Don't be surprised, though, if folks want to assign multiple individual state cats anyway.

Come to think of it, that last thought gives me pause-- take Joseph Brant for example. He probably belongs in Category:New York history as well as Category:Pennsylvania history (among many others), and assigning him only to, say, Category:History of the Mid-Atlantic states would lose something. Perhaps in general the regional cats should not be assigned directly to articles, but only inherited indirectly by assignment to state history cats? I dunno. I guess I would suggest that you start by playing with the concept some: create one regional category, assign some states to it, see how it feels to work with. You could always back away from it if it gets messy. You could also try a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History, though I've been frustrated at a lack of responsive from that page. In fact, it can be hard to get much of a discussion going on category problems in general, in my experience (unless, of course, you manage to gore someone's pet ox).

Good luck, and let me know how it turns out. Mwanner July 4, 2005 16:40 (UTC)

Trail blazing

I responded to your comment on my page.Daniel Case 05:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey you know what? I was thinking of doing another separate article on trail signage to go with this one, but then it occurred to me that they're sort of two sides of the same coin. So, why not rename the article to "Trail blazing and signage" and discuss both topics?Daniel Case 04:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I put up another response. Sorry it took a while, but I went to work on other articles for a bit.Daniel Case 21:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Pine Barrens

I guess common sense is in the eye of the beholder. The article on the Grand Canyon is not called Arizona Grand Canyon or Grand Canyon of the Colorado, even though there are other canyons that are grand, notably the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania, which get qualified titles. My common sense says that where a place has a proper noun that is widely used, we should use that proper noun as the title. Nor should we pretend that the proper noun is a common one. The Pine Barrens are known nationally by that name and that name (or Pinelands) is used without qualification in federal legislation. What more do we need?Robert A West 18:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that New Jersey's pine barrens rise to the same level of pre-eminence among the barrens of North America as does the Grand Canyon among the nation's canyons; of course, reasonable people may differ. The rest of my response is on the NJPB Talk page. -- Mwanner 01:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have reopened discussion at Talk:Pine Barrens and invited Robert West to join in. I expressly demurred to the redirect the last time we spoke about this. I don't see why (since the present arrangement explicitly disclaims the Pine Barrens of New Jersey as the only ones in the world) the redirect should not point to the largest and most often referred to; but I am open to persuasion. Septentrionalis 18:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Please observe that I am not warring about it; I have not reverted. What I said on August 10 was (I cut and paste):

Pine Barrens (New Jersey) remains acceptable to me, although unpreferred; if Mwanner's chief concern is to avoid piped links, then it would seem logical to have Pine Barrens continue to redirect to this article under the new title, and establish Pine Barrens (disambiguation) for the dab. Septentrionalis 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't that clear? I agreed to Pine Barrens (New Jersey); I did not agree on Pine Barrens, and I thought we parted agreeing to disagree.Septentrionalis 20:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not formally retracting the proposal, since that has led to this confusion; I did think that arguing against it was enough. Wikipedia is not an exercise of Robert's Rules of Order, and I'm not sure that making it one would help - expecially since the effective quorum is somewhere less than five, Septentrionalis

I would rather phrase my own promises, but:

I want to settle this by discussion (which, if necessary, includes dispute resolution - I trust it won't be)
I am more interested in doing so than in the redirect
I intend to be the last to leave the path of discussion.

So discuss, at Talk:Pine Barrens Septentrionalis 14:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

John August Roebling

Replied to you re John Augustus Roebling on my talk page. Short summary: I think you're right. -- Dominus 13:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

South Jersey

Thanks, I didn't realize that South Jersey had its own article. Merge with West Jersey as substantially co-terminous ;->?

I'll go see what they've done. Septentrionalis 14:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

AT description in PA

I'm sorry, I just thought that most people wouldn't find the description in terms of county lines very helpful, since most people don't know where the county lines run. I have never done the AT through PA-- I was just working from a map. You're free to change it any way you like. I'm just trying to help make it clear to folks. -- Mwanner 02:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem Mwanner, I Thank-you for the good job of reminding me the extension of the AT in Pennsylvania. I guess I'm thinking of what I know to add, and may be too focused. But it works too, I'll send this topic to your web discussion page also. Thanks again. Keep in touch

Scott 13:00:05, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution

Hi. Thanks for the note. I will re-work it when I get time, as there is a school of thought that the IR has its roots in medieval times and this should be mentioned somehow. But I agree with you the section is very general and full of flannel! Cheers.Apwoolrich 07:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

the reversion

Ah, ok. I wasn't sure whether it was a glitch or not, the diff system is sometimes funny. Glad to know it was just that. Happy editing! -- Natalinasmpf 23:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Heads up

I cited the dab line of Pine Barrens (New Jersey) as an example on WP:TfD to a busybody who believes that all articles should be formatted the One True Way. It occurs to me now that this may lead to some of the helpful souls meddling with it. If so, I apologize, and I will of course help to revert as necessary. Septentrionalis 03:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)