Archives

---

1. 1 December 2005 – December 2006
2. December 2006 – February 2007
3. February 2007 – July 2007

If you need help, check out Getting Help below, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Royal_dalton_(rose_of_love)_4o06.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 04:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup of the Ryton Pools methane section. You seem to be local am I right (what with the Baginton and Hillfields contributions!)? Have a pleasent week. Cls14 22:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your work on local pages is appreciated. Snowman 08:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 62.173.88.59 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Neil ╦ 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit from my talk page:"You might be interested to know that on 4 August 2007 at about 2.35 pm UK time I used a wiki tool to do a quick count of your edits which totalled 9205. From your archives it seems that you have more than 1 years service now, so you could update the award on your user page to the level of Yeoman Editor (or Most Excellent Grognard). Snowman 13:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Sorry, Snowman, I do not know how to apply this award. If you wish you could update my page.Thanks for noticing. FWIW [:¬∆ Bzuk 14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Updated. Click on the link in the caption of the service badge and you can see the range of service badges. Snowman 14:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the much appreciated Barnstar Snowman. (...jus' doin' my job!) -- Red Sunset 21:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowman, I've created a table of the relative performance and characteristics figures of the Macchi C.205V, N1, and N2 on my talk page (some of which don't match those in the specs section; note posted on discussion page) with the idea that it may be a neater way of displaying the information with a reduction in wordage. Unfortunately the table doesn't cover the width of the page, and I haven't found a way of incorporating it so that text fills the gap at the side to keep it tidy. Any thoughts on how it's done? --Red Sunset 12:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmanradio, you a deserve a "full" barnstar. :-) Best wishes. Axl 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Fauna Barnstar
		To Snowmanradio, for contributions to avian articles. Axl 18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it looks fine. A lot of work still needs doing. Have you got a parrot? Snowman 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Reed warbler cuckoo.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Richard001 07:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the commons is good, but I did not know about it when I started uploading. I have been uploading to the commons for about a year now. Some of my earlier uploads were to the enwiki, and I would like to move them to the commons, but there does not seem to be a quick easy way to move about 70 images from the wiki to the commons. I am still thinking about how to do this and I will look at the links you have suggested. Snowman 08:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using the commons helper tools, which I have recently stumbled upon. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, That bug wasnt actually AWB, it was the typo fixing.

Mets has removed that capitalisation for you, but if you have any more that are incorrectly capitalising, Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos, feel free to remove them yourself, and leave an appropriate edit summary.

If its part of a more complex regex, and cant do it yourself, leave a message on the typo talk page, and someone will help fix it.

Reedy Boy 21:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the last imgae because it was the best image I could find of a wild parrot that looked good both reduced and close up - many images are one or the other but not both. While the fact that the tail is missing is unfortunate, I feel it was better than the one you replaced it with; lighting and crispness particularly, but also the fact that the bird in the new photo appears to have had its wing's clipped (I'm not 100% sure but the primaries look like it). Would you mind if I put the other one back until we can find a first rate wild parrot photo that is completely uncropped? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think that it would be better to show a bird or birds including tail feathers. I have found a third picture that is probably better than both the cockatoo photographs. I have found a pair of Senegal Parrots that was taken in Africa. The cockatoo was only a suggestion. I am sure that one of a lot of photos would be suitable. The Polish wiki has a collection of bird drawings in the taxobox. I like the Senegal Parrot photograph, but there are probably photoes with grater clarity about somewhere. Anyone can change the taxobox photo. Snowman 23:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really would appreciate your opinion on this article. I noticed you spotted a great number of typos and grammatical errors already. I am doing an almost complete rewrite of the article as it was originally a ridiculous piece of revisionist history (and still has much of that bias but I haven't edited that section yet as I am plodding along a paragraph at a time) and has already spawned a whole series of "Bell didn't do it" articles mainly by the same editor who has admittedly read very little about Bell other than one polemic that was recently published about Elisha Gray. I am trying to give a balanced and referenced account of this inventor's life but bearing in mind, it is also the subject of continual vandalism attacks, so the work is getting extended to an overly long period. FWIW Red Sunset is one of my "buds." Bzuk 13:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Should the article be semiprotected? I have just added it to my watch pages today, but I do not know much about him. I am interested in his health as there are ways of treating pernicious anaemia now. Snowman 13:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Chief Medical Officer (Star Trek) for speedy deletion -- please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief medical officer (Star Trek) (2nd nomination). --EEMeltonIV 20:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SMR. Have you seen this edit? Someone removed your photo because of the skin colouration around the bird's eyes. As I understand it, parrots with patches of bare facial skin can flush it pink when excited or angry, as a display. Just thought that you should be aware of this. After all, you saw the bird at first hand and are probably best qualified to determine whether it was a hybrid or not... --Kurt Shaped Box 15:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI KSB, the photo was taken on a warm summer day and the bird had been free flying. Could the skin have become flushed to help the bird cool? The removal of the photo with the comments make me question its breeding. I took several photos of it, but that was the best one. Snowman 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible. If the blood gets pumping, the skin becomes flushed. I've seen that happen with a friend's macaw, to which conures are related... --Kurt Shaped Box 16:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor addition to above. As now also noted in the article itself, the use of darkness of the ocular skin is entirely unreliable for determining purity. Wild individuals *always* have relatively dark grey skin (as indeed also can be seen on one of the few photos taken of this species in the wild; the photo on this page was taken in Roraima in early in 2007 by the famous Brazilian bird-photographer Edson Endrigo while he was surveying specifically for this species together with Dr. Luís Fábio Silveira et al). The issues on bare-part colours of captives/wild exists in many other species, too (e.g. adult wild Blue-winged Macaws have pale yellowish facial-skin, but this is typically white, or nearly so, in captives). Rabo3 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am very impressed with the speed and quality of the edits. It is no wonder that Wikipedia is the number one! Austenlennon 19:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)austenlennon[reply]

I think that you are referring to a few basic fixes on some pages which could be a lot better. Snowman 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my query on Philip Sheppard Talk page. Macdonald-ross 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Married dates go in the infobox, so their marriage ended when he died. It is confusing, but the wiki style for all these "person infoboxes". See the wiki notes on how to fill out an infobox. Snowman 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Barnstar upgrade for continual worthwhile contributions; keep it up!--Red Sunset 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I hereby award the Tireless Contributor Barnstar to Snowmanradio for his continual and numerous valuable contributions to countless articles. --Red Sunset 20:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unexpected, and much appreciated. Snowman 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome; I think you've earned it! --Red Sunset 21:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. This week Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was selected. Hope you can help…

NCurse _work 18:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded for your "above and beyond" editing efforts in getting F-4 Phantom operators editorially back on track during November 2007 Ahunt 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whow, thanks, I was just putting chalk marks around the rivets that needed replacing. I guess that all the November 2007 contributors to the article have gained some skills to pass on. Snowman 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit from my "talk page": "I can not find the "WP:Air format" item that you referred to in an edit summary on the "B-17" page. I found "Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content", which includes a section on references. This is in regards to "bibliography" being a sub-heading of "references". Snowman 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)"

Hi Snow, if I can call you that? The References section is a dichotomy in Wikipedia as it is still being formulated even as we speak. One of the main issues is that the establishment of a bibliography or bibliographical record was considered "after the fact." Before actually devoting some guidance or style guidelines to developing a formal citation or reference sourcing convention, a "catch-all" section titled "references" was proposed. In publishing, the term, "references" can refer to a large body of information sources and when a peer-reviewed and authoritative work is prepared, the sources are often identified in a sub-divided sequence of foot/end notes, appendices, text and non-textual sources (including interviews). In the Wicky-wacky world we inhabit, a differentiation was eventually arrived at to "site" citations in a "notes" (in reality, an endnotes or footnotes format) section, although if there were very few inline citations, often the "references" section sufficed.

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appers once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area remains a kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. The new style I employed in the "B-17" article is one that is recently being touted as a much more streamlined and concise format that works particularly well with large references section. As a modification of the more usual separate notes and references section, the key to this format is that the two sections are preserved as sub-headings under the main heading of "References." A bonus is that the compression of fonts and font sizes is achieved in this modification which allows for a better use of space in large articles.

It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In the "B-17" article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability. Hope that you haven't lapsed into unconsciousness by now, but I will explain more if there are some other issues. (BTW, congrats on the barnstar – I have been noticing that you are one of the "expert" editors that have worked on some of the same aviation articles that I have bookmarked. Send me an email, so we can actually make contact "name to name," just to make our interactions more personal.) FWIW Bzuk 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I plan to read it again at the weekend. Snowman 17:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed different styles of references, notes and bibliography on the wiki, despite what wiki style guidelines currently say. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very good with the whole "wiki images" thing, but i was going to change the image's tag so it has the same as this one, plus the image is used to ilustrate Kerr's most important role, plus the image is small as a pin. Still think it should be deleted? --- Yamanbaiia (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will only be deleted if the license in not appropriate for the wiki. -- Snowman (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowman; I've been poking around the various F-4 sub-articles and the common form seems to be F-4(UK) (without the space). I don't want to change the F-4 (UK) just in case this happens to be the correct version. I'm also wondering if it's time to post a note on the main F-4 talk page re summarising the "operators" section now that the "F-4 Phantom operators" page is as complete as it can be; however, there's still a number of cite tags to deal with. WDYT? ---- Red Sunset (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the F-4 (UK) and F-4(UK) inconsistencies on the other pages too after I had changed them on the non-U.S. operators page. It was only an guess, because it looked odd. There are other variants with brackets too to go on - and there is a space before the round bracket there. May need to do web-search and read internet articles to find out. I am not sure what your aim is in putting a summary on the "F-4 talk" page. There is a signpost to the "F-4 operators" page for anyone that is interested. Plod on with citations. -- Snowman (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts were that the "operators" F-4 section could now be substantially reduced and consequently also the size of the F-4 article. This would allow removal of the repeated detailed info, and at the same time level the size of each country's coverage to give equal emphasis to each one. Posting a note on the talk page beforehand would warn interested contributors and allow for comments or suggestions, as well as advertising the need for citations where there are likely to be many editors who could help. --Red Sunset (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light fuse and stand back. Snowman (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The featured article status of "F-4 phantom II" is under review, because of unreferenced blocks of text. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very appreciative of your hint/advice/suggestion. I have had to revert by name back to red a couple of times,.....and I use it so I can find my name more quickly. ...So I found that more important than any- -body knowing who I am. On the talk page,.... I kind of Have a List of some of the Nice things I have done. .. --Again, I thank you for the advice..(whenever I get a message, I always wonder: "Now what?"..) so I will at some time compose some UserINFO... I recently moved near a small ARBORETUM, and i.(sic) also recently made my first 3 plant pages. I have stayed away from it, because of the depth, or study, .. one has to do. But I have some ideas for developing a nice couple Arboretum pages... thanks again. Michael, SonoranDesert guyYUMA,AZ, ..Mmcannis (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you can use the "nickname" (see "my preferences") to name some or part of the words of your name a different colour. The nickname should not take up too much space. Snowman (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review of this article which needs a careful check of the content since it has emerged in a kind of "patched-up" version after a large number of revisions necessitated by vandalism and POV attacks. I amassed a sizable number of reference sources on the Earhart legacy and will continue to "tweak" along with you. If we ever get really stuck, Dr. Alex Mandel, an Earhart scholar can be called upon to assist. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have not read anything else about her before and I see the page as a new reader. Sometimes I might make a gaff, and I would not be able to make changes without your expertise on the subject. Sometimes I misunderstand because the North American English is different from UK English, and so where possible the text needs crafting to be consistent with both. Have you thought about getting some anti-vandal wiki tools? Snowman (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]