User talk:Trödel/Archive 3

Talk page RFA notices Archive Archive   1 (Dec 04–Apr 05) Archive   2 (Apr 05–Jun 05) Archive   3 (Oct 05–Mar 06) Archive   4 (Mar 06–Jun 06) Archive   5 (Jun 06–Aug 06) Archive   6 (Aug 06–Sep 06) Archive   7 (Sep 06–Oct 06) Archive   8 (Oct 06–Dec 06) Archive   9 (Dec 06–Jan 07) Archive 10 (Jan 07–Sep 07) Archive 11 (Sep 07–Nov 08) Archive 12 (Nov 08–Mar 11) Archive 13 (Apr 11–May 12) Archive 14 (May 12-Feb 15) Archive 15 (Feb 15-Mar 21)

Sandbot

Hi Trödel, you'll be happy to note that Sandbot is back up and running. Sorry for the wait. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

philosophical disc. of quantum mech

Hi, Just saw the notice you posted on the article with the very long title on quantum mechanics interpretation. I've been trying to get the gentleman who wrote the article to (1) write more clearly and (2) identify his sources so that I can see a clearer account of what he is trying to put into encyclopedia form. He has cited a French author with family name of Messiah. Messiah is an astonishingly lucid writer. But I can't convince the guy that he needs to give page numbers, not just indicate that substantiation is somewhere in a two-volume text written for physicists. So, if you could find a moment to ask specifically for the page numbers whenever authors and texts are cited then it would be a big help. Thanks. P0M 00:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my userpage

thank you for updating my "user wants admin" template for me, it's much appreciated :)
--AppleBoy ^Talk 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So...

you're back, if even in a small way? That's great! May I suggest Esperanza?? :) Anyways, I noticed that you voted both Support and Remit to Arbcom in Stevertigo's new RfA. I'm pretty sure that editors are considering these as two separate vote categories. At least, that's how I voted. Just to let you know... Cheers, Bratsche^talk | Esperanza 03:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Great to see you're back; it seemed for a while there that the casualty rate of among LDS editors was getting rather horrific: (Tom Haws, Cool Hand Luke, yourself). Hope you fare well in resumed tenure. Alai 20:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - its lonely here. Welcome back. -Visorstuff 20:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man, welcome. It's good to see you again. Cookiecaper 21:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back again. WBardwin 01:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jr's infobox

I certainly sympathise with your feelings about editing in the LDS area. I'll certainly do as you suggest if I come across such issues. I must admit I've not been especially active in that area: my watchlist's getting to big to actually ever watch, and more generic fixer-up tasks have distracted me. Plus it tends to be an area that I only really make innocuous edits, and generic NPOVing suggestions in. At any rate, I hope your transition from "emotional charge" to "colour charge" works out well for you.

I've lobbed in my two cents on the infobox, on the article talk page; the only POV problem I can see with it is the LDS Church link. The aesthetics I don't feel especially strongly about, but the old one did seem a little more informative. Alai 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for comment on QM "philosophy" article

Hi,

I have managed to make some progress, I think. Since Ingham didn't like your rewrite of his introduction he made some comments that allowed me to get a little greater sense of what he is trying to say. I went back to the Messiah text and may have found the material he was basing some of his ideas on. Given that I was able to write something that at least has his mild approval. I put a point-by-point on the discussion page to the rfd to show all or most of the many things that I find incomprehensible and/or problematical with the section on measurement. That was the core of his original article, and I've been trying to get responsive answers on it since August with no great results. Maybe other people read it and think it makes perfect sense or at least they are sure of what he is talking about. I suppose I could try to change it, but I'd rather have more input from somebody else first. I'm no mind reader. Thanks for your help so far, and thanks for any further comments you may be able to make. P0M 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I am still stuck on the "measurement" section that he wrote. I have received guidance from another contributor who says s/he can actually read it and even thinks it is correct. I still have received almost no responsive communications from Ingham. I would have let it go long ago, but for a while I thought that he might be saying something interesting that wasn't getting mentioned in the usual places.

I am impressed by the differences in clarity of the Wikipedia physics articles as compared to things written by Reichenbach, Bohr, Pauli, et al. Wikipedia physics articles appear to me to be written for physicists by physicists. In general, if I had a question I think I would rather go to Sears or Messiah or somebody else who can write clearly as well as do math.

I remember reading George Gamow's One, Two, Three... Infinity, which he said he wrote for his little son, and feeling totally stupid because some parts of it were incomprehensible. Looking back at the book now, I see that some parts are badly written. I don't mean to take a crack at Gamow, but only to say that a writer for the general audience, for, e.g., the high school student trying to get a clear idea of something, is wasting his/her time if he writes stuff that only his mother could understand. It reminds me of our second-trimester physics teacher, whom we unaffectionately called "Chowderhead." (It made fun of his Russian family name.) He would teach physics twice in a row, the first at 9 and the second at 10. If you were in the second class you could forget about following most of what he said because he would use the equations he had already written the first time around, he would point behind himself, not even glancing back to see what he was really pointing at, and then say something like, "And then this equation clearly shows that..." Well, he was getting paid for doing it, so I guess from his standpoint it was a worthwhile activity. But most of his students didn't find his classes worth much to them.

Back to the article... If I ever get clear on what he is trying to do I guess I could better tell whether citations are available to make it less like personal research. From what Zenz says on my talk page, he isn't really saying anything new, so I am not sure how the personal research part comes in. I tend now to regret the parts I added, parts that seemed to me at the time antithetical to what I imagined he was intending to say. Unfortunately it did nothing to clarify his ideas and only made a bad article longer. Maybe I should delete my own stuff, but that would look petty. P0M 03:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rating Experiment

I'm back! What do you think of this direction? Tom Haws 06:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppets

On wiki Books you accused me of being a sock puppet, which was kind of understandable considering my very recent registration on Wiki books and my very small amount of edits. However i am not a sock puppet and the only reason I do not have many edits on Wiki Books is that i Mainly edit Wikipedia and only had cause to register on Wiki Books to vote on the VFU. I have in fact previously discussed this subject as an anon. If you want to check this my first edit to the discussion was before I realised I was not registered on Wiki Books, so it bears my IP address, I then added the tildes as my account, but the entry before it in the edit list is my IP.

Could you Please withdraw your allegation. It is understandable that you might reach the conclusion that you did but it is incorrect.Dolive21 13:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are worried about - I just asked the admins counting the votes to be more careful. If you're not a sock then what does it matter what I said. Trödel|talk 20:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would still appreciate it if you could just confirm that you do not think i am sock puppet. I wrote a very big comment, which if i were sock puppet i would have put on from my main account. Dolive21 21:09, 30 November 2005

I can't confirm whether you are a sockpuppet or not - I can assume, in good faith, that you are not a sock. Unfortunately, if it was up to me to count the votes I probably wouldn't count yours: you have less than 50 edits on wikipedia and seem to be overly concerned with the sockpuppet label for someone who has only been on the wiki for a month. However, as a fellow editor I welcome you and hope you will continue to contribute to wikipedia. Trödel|talk 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jimmy Wales

Thanks for the information. I'm going to post at WP:AN/I to let some other admins know.--Sean|Black 03:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Not sure I agree with all these - users need to treat each other respectfully - and I support faster banning of those that use personal attacks or other trolling like behavior since they can come back as a new user at any time. Trödel|talk 12:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banning can happen as fast as it does now except those new situations when a new rule/policy has to be created. But enforcement should be handled equally, and violations by favored people not be ignored. (SEWilco 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Sig subpage, and JSJ on main page

I protected your former sig as per your request; I note that the list of protected pages states that "The appropriateness of doing this is disputed." but it seems reasonable in the circumstances, and given that it's now listed there as such, it's at least transparent and reversible if it comes to that. On the main page appearance: I'm glad to see it's been selected for that page, and even better that it was picked for the "optimal" date (the wheels of Raul654 turn oft slow, but true). Unfortunately (actually largely fortunately!) I'm shortly heading back to Scotland for Christmas, so I'll be online only very intermittently until the new year (via dialup and local library, if at all). I hope the rest of you are equal to the anti-vandal task! And you're right, my edit count has definitely gone into something of a lull of late. :) Alai 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of JS as Featured article

The 23rd will be as hectic for me as for anyone else. But I will be at home most of the day and will try and check on the article every couple of hours at least. Merry Christmas. WBardwin 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll monitor for a chunk of the morning for sure. Afternoon is not good leading up to the broadcast. Good luck to us all! -Visorstuff 17:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I would be glad to help, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have that day - my parents will probably want me to help with last-minute Christmas preparations and such. --Trevdna 17:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to get to the computer, and it slipped my mind anyway - sorry I couldn't help at all. --Trevdna 02:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made a note of response at WP:LDS to save you the trouble of a special invite. Thanks! I will be looking in. Tom Haws 18:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it as well. Thanks for the heads up. Deadsalmon 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was because I didn't realize I was reverting your edit at the time, only the one before! The rest of my reverts of that text have included an explanation. Some other elements of the article bother me (as I have mentioned on the talk page), but seeing as it's an FA, I wanted to give people plenty of time to respond before making any changes. The Jade Knight 23:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of Alexander

A vote has been called to rename Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia to Aleksandar Karađorđević. The renamers have at least stopped constant unilateral renaming (at last!). Please come, express your opinion and vote. Slán. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Popups Assisted Revert

Once you've installed Popups, when you hover over a link for a particular revision of a page, you'll get a little window. There will be an 'actions' menu (usually right next to the article title,) and 'revert' is one of the options that will come up, a few items down from the top. That will revert the article to the revision you had your pointer hovering over. It does it by opening up the version you've selected to edit, plugging in the default edit summary, and clicking the save button for you. It saves you a few clicks, anyway, and I like it. Let me know if that doesn't make sense; I'm not sure I explained it very well. -- Vary 03:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's giving you trouble. I wish I were techinical enough to be able to offer more help. Good luck with it! -- Vary 04:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas - statement not redundant

I disagree with your reading. "Most, though not all, Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25th" is ambiguous as to whether it is saying that all Christians celebrate Christmas, or whether it saying that all Christians celebrate Christmas, but some celebrate it on a day other than December 25th. The clarification is necessary. Nandesuka 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

130.13.121.233

Whee, I sneaked in a revert, just so's not to make the day a complete FA-reverting loss. (Pesky library was closed...) I'll check back in an hour or two, if the anon's continued to blank, or has popped up under a different dynamic IP or whatever, I'll last-warning or block as appropriate. Alai 00:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LDS alert

Hello! As you have contributed to LDS/Mormon articles in the past, this is a friendly heads-up that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_temples_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints is currently being discussed. Any comments you have regarding the issue would be appreciated. Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 11:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your help with the temple list. I see your changes there, and am really disappointed that the list has to be compromised by removing the LDS links and adding edits to each row just so that it's kept. However, as a note on the changes that you made - I am all right with it, but was wondering if we could take out the Announced column. I think that the data that should be shown in the list is the data that you want to compare between temples. The Dedicated column already gives you the dedication date for comparison, which is not far off from the Announcement date. I think that people can drill down into the temple article for the Announcement date. I have other columns that I want to add that I think will add a lot more value (such as architectural features), and there is not much horizontal space. Bhludzin 16:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbot is against profanity?

Sandbot keeps reverting my removal of "No profanity, please." from Wikipedia:Introduction. As Wikipedia is not censored for the "protection" of minors, and there is in fact nothing wrong with profanity, I am requesting that you modify Sandbot to stop doing this. In fact this sentence may give some newbies the impression that Wikipedia is in fact censored. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trödel. Welcome back. I thought to let you know about this little thing because you were the one who first had me set up the Wikipedia:Introduction to be raked a certain way. Please let me know if this is acceptable to you. --AllyUnion (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page redesign

I came across this redesign of the main page - and noticed that some people really like the Hebrew and Dutch main pages. Is there some reason that this type of organization isn't being considered - or has it already been considered and rejected. Thx in adv - Trödel•talk 06:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic of discussion, but there is considerable opposition to such a radical organizational change. In my opinion, it's not a good idea to push the featured content down (in favor of static navigational links). With both the current main page and the proposed draft, I can view all of the featured content without scrolling. In your example, I have to scroll to see "Did you know...", and "Helpful links" is cut off too. —David Levy 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes - what do you think now? When I first came to Wikipedia I was confused that there was no where to start that was obvious. I think having the 10 main portals icons and their categories is very useful for someone used to web browsing as opposed to searching. Trödel•talk 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's better in some respects, but it seems rather cluttered and complicated. Also, the category icons/names are unevenly spaced.

I don't believe that it's appropriate to have the icons near the top. We already have the text links, and I think that it's better to put the content first. —David Levy 08:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Pun

Thanks for the revert. I've been watching this action for a while - you can see my edits. Good catch. jglc | t | c 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New wheat and chaff

If I get your drift correctly, I think what you want may be Special:Newpages. Of course, I'm sure they're also looking for volunteers to keep an eye on Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people, though that's not a task I envy anyone. (Operation Let Us Not Be Sued for Libel, as I like to think of it.) That help at all? Alai 22:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. As I understand it (and gather from my watchlist), tagging existing bios with that category is also an on-going process, that I'm sure it's well in hand. (I think someone has a list of possible such, though I believe they're also being tagged on an ad hoc basis too.) And of course, arguing about the very existence, name, etc of that category is also on many people's current to-do list. :) Alai 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Jimbo re removing rude commentary from talk being ok

From Jimbo's talk page

Yes, I have taken to doing it to resolve external complaints. I think anyone and everyone should feel free to remove rude or potentially annoying remarks or discussions from talk pages, especially when the discussion in question is old. The history is there for anyone who needs it, but the history is not indexed by google.--Jimbo Wales 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole

I have to agree here - this seems like an attempt to provoke Neto. Trödel•talk 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Cleared as filed also attempting to provoke Netoholic? That's whose edits you reverted when you restored the fair use images to Netoholic's user page (in violation of policy) without explanation.

If you haven't already, please see my replies to Wgfinley on his his talk page and at WP:AN/I. —David Levy 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early life of Joseph Smith

The article Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr./Stable is currently being proposed to be made a Stable version, this nomination is a test of the process detailed on that page. As you have edited that page recently, please review the stable version of the article and join the discussion at Talk:Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr./Stable. dml 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Smith

Hi, I have been reading over the Joseph Smith, Jr. talk page to help, but to be honest it looks like it's just bogged down with conversation that does not affect the article. If a dispute arises and you need a consensus or vote on a specific issue, please call on me and I'd be more than happy to help. But the current discussions are a bit lifeless and don't affect the article. Cuñado - Talk 03:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Larry Sanger

No problem; I also misinterpreted your edit summary, not scrolling down to see the bottom part. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

You're right, we're here to build an encyclopedia. So why are some admins unilaterally deciding certain userboxes should be deleted and forcing us all to waste time voting at WP:DRV to get them undeleted? The encyclopedia would benefit more if people cooled off. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a law and order type

I see you are Mormon, I served a mission next door to you in Phoenix Az (1992-1994), but now I am an atheist. Your position on copyright is not surprising, Mormons as a whole tend to be very conservative and have very "law and order" mentalities. I hope this does not offend you. It is not meant too. Please don't call me too repentence, i get that enough from my parents. In addition, I would ask that you don't bring up my religious afiliation on my user talk page in the middle of this copyright argument. I find in my eperience, that most Americans tend to be not as tolerant as I would like of atheists. I will simply watch your page if you desire to talk here. Travb 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by law and order mentality, but I do think that we (American's) often "borrow" other people's intellectual property because the mechanisms for the transaction that is needed (i.e. limited use permission) do not exist and can not properly be created without the transaction cost exceeding the value of the permission (which is close to $0.00 in most cases) so we keep using other's work, and they don't sue us :). How did you like Phoenix - that would be a hard place to serve a mission - weather wise - though I am guessing that if it was anything like Tucson the members were generally receptive and each companionship covered more than one ward. That is very different than the 2-3 companionships per ward/branch in my mission. I think there is a great disconnect between what athiest view as the proper place of religion in the public square, and the religious view of the proper place of religion in the public square. Briefly, atheist (usually) want no religion in the public square, and religionists want equal access (non-denominational) to the public square and view athiesm as just one other "religion" (for lack of a better term) that needs to be accomodated in that square. Trödel•talk 02:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona sucked weather wise, but we had wards and functioning stakies. So that was nice. I really enjoyed my mission, best two years for my life. In regards to religion in the public square I don't follow any of the policital social debates of America, I think they are just smoke screens for more important economic issues.Travb 03:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comments on my user page, I have not read them yet, I am burned out on the issue right now, tired of fighitng everyone, but probably will respond in a couple of days.Travb 03:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish your response wasn't so predictable

This morning I wrote this too user:Rjensen, predicting your response:

"I posted (the message I sent you) on about 6 admins boards, and Jimmy Wales user page. I think it is a hollow and fleeting victory in many respects though. These admins will start to try and poke holes in the definition of what "is" "is", and won't admit what it clearly says in this letter: that it is now okay to post the cover photos. I hope I am wrong, and good sense prevails, but given the fair use track record, "good sense" always loses."

Predictable, you question what the Time rep REALLY meant (you are questioning the defintion of what she meant, as I predicted):

""Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com." most of those articles doesn't have what I'd call a "reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com."

No one actually consulted a lawyer or at the minimum even ask Time magazine if it was okay to keep the photos.

I am going to wait for a response from Tony contacting Time, as should have been done originally.

In the interm, please read the Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation case.Travb 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response here Trödel•talk 02:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC) (my response copied below from deleted user page)[reply]

I think you misunderstand my comment, because I was not explicitly explaining but summarizing. Bonnie Kroll, according to your comment on Jimbo's (and from what I gather) other Admin's pages, said two things:

1. "Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com."
2. "You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com."

In comment 1) Ms Kroll was summarizing fair use for a text excerpt (as you explained on my talk page), in other words - she granted no extra permissions to use the text. Whether excerpts of the text should be included is at the discretion of the editors.

In comment 2) Ms Kroll granted you (and presumably Wikipedia) a license to use thumbnails, and required attribution as a term of the license. Unfortunately, on wikipedia, because the information that is gathered is freely disseminated to other entities under the GFDL, her grant of a license to you (and wikipedia) is not sufficient to satisfy the needs of wikipedia. Wikipedia needs aa license that also allows others to make a copy of the contributions (text/images) on wikipedia for their own use as long as they attribute the information to wikipedia. More specifically, every contribution made to wikipedia (including images that are uploaded) needs to meet this standard:

In this case you don't have the right to grant the permission to use the images, but Ms Kroll does - so we need her to grant permission in away that will meet thie terms of this language above.

Since, it is clear (to most people) that Wikipedia can use lower resolution versions (not thumbnails) of images from Time Magazine, under Fair use doctrine, which is not limited to Wikipedia (i.e. those that make a copy of the wikipedia data can also rely on it for protection), Fair use provides superior justification for use on wikipedia than the limited permission granted by Ms Kroll. In other words, although Ms Kroll granted wikipedia permission only, we need to make sure that contributions can meet the standards of the GFDL and most feel that using images under the fair use doctrine provides better protection (although - as Jimbo has often said, wikipedia is better off if all the owners of the images granted a GFDL compliant permission - which I firmly agree should be wikipedia's long-term goal).

I think you are referencing me to Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation because that case holds that "Arriba’s use of Kelly’s images as thumbnails in its search engine is a fair use." There are some key distinctions between Arriba's use and Wikipedia's use, primarily under factor (1) (of the 17 US Code § 107). Use on Wikipedia is for educational benefit (and since there is no sale involved like in Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation) the nature and character of the work are much stronger for wikipedia. In general educational use has been granted wide latitude under the fair use doctrine.

Wikipedia's general rule that copyrighted images can be used only if the resolution is low (i.e. poor) provides that wikipedia will be ok under (3), "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." This is inline with the holiding in Arriba.

I could be wrong, but perhaps Ms. Kroll did intend to grant you a license to use the thumbnails that would meet our needs; however, the plain language does not do so (IANYL or wikipedia's for that matter, but that is my professional opinion). If you want to persue this, ask Ms Kroll (or maybe Tony will) if she is granting wikipedia a creative commons license to use and allow others to copy and use as long as it meets certain conditions, such as attribution, non-commercial, no derivative works, etc. Probably the best way to ask would be something like, "So does your email to me mean that I am free to use and make copies for others (who could also make copies - since I can't control them) of thumbnails of time cover pages as long all of us attribute the images with a link to Time?"

Again - thanks for your efforts and keep me informed of the results. Trödel•talk 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia:Copyrights
2. Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

Sandbox redirects

Reverted my (bold) errors with the sandbox redirects, done because I used Template_talk:Sandbox by mistake, with my real objective Wikipedia_tak:Sandbox. Apologies. -- Dogears (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GWU

Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]