Hiya, I see that you're the main editor on Rashid al-Din's work. FYI, I have just received via interlibrary loan, two books which could be useful sources to the article, Blair's Compendium of Chronicles and Gray's World History of Rashid al-Din. I only have the books for a couple weeks though, so I figured I'd mention it to you directly, and see if there's anything in particular that you'd like me to doublecheck while I have them. :) --Elonka 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have restored images that (a) do not belong in this article where they are placed (scroll down to appropriate placement of images of the medals already in this article) and, more importantly, (b) are currently marked for deletion because they have been lifted from a copyrighted website; please click on the image and see the problems by following the links to the image being marked for deletion page. Please read the article on Nobel Prize section on the medals, where such illustrations (which are not currently marked for deletion) are included. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also editing history in Linus Pauling and the problems clearly described. The image uploader has taken these images from a copyright-protected website and provided no credit of the site, no source, no evidence of permission (though such is required on the site), and no required fair-use rationale for any article in which s/he placed these uploaded images. --NYScholar (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's the link to the listing on images marked for deletion page: [1] for your convenience. --NYScholar (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald. I noticed that you were involved in renaming articles to South Levant back in the day. There's a discussion over at something that started as Palestinian archaeology by a fine editor, Tiamut. I want to avoid an appearance of canvassing, but I would like to find out a bit about the history and logic of the naming dispute and how you all settled on South Levant. Thanks, HG | Talk 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jheald (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. After using AWB for a bit, I noticed the "Alert" section in AWB that points out multiple links, and I decided to add cleaning up multiple wikilinks to the edits. I began going through the links it listed (I did go through each one manually on each article) and eliminating most (but not all) of the second and subsequent occurrences. However, after a few dozen of these, I came to the same conclusion as you that there are often valid reasons for multiple link occurrences and I was afraid I might be being overly aggressive in removing them. I decided it's not something I want to include in future AWB general cleanup as each case really needs closer attention. --MPerel 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have signed up at the Wikiprojects page. I have recently edited several very obsolete or otherwise confusing pages (R1b, U, K) and I really hink it needs of this kind of group.

I nevertheless believe the project should focus specially in scholarly peer reviewed research and leave comercial testing in a second plane (and treat it with the due criticism it often deserves). I think the name of the project should be something like Human population genetics, rather than the ambiguous "Genetic History".

I have already some Wikiproject experience, specially in the Basque WikiProject. Alternatively a Task Force could do but surely this issue will draw enough people as to create a good WikiProject and even a Portal. --Sugaar (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft version of WikiProject Human Genetic History; feel free to go to it and flesh it out. Also, given that there has been some comments about starting a task force inside of an existing WikiProject vs. a full-blown project, I've started an informal poll on the WikiProject proposal page. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 00:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going forward and making this live; I've been pretty busy in real life this week. Hopefully, sometime in the next few days I'll work up a draft on a generalized structure for the haplogroup articles. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that! I have been trying to grow this from a stub over the last two months, and I _knew_ there had to be a backstory to Whirlwind, Clavell always does that. Now I can sleep tonight! :) Any idea what the events in Noble House stem from? @:^} Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald; I believe the Bh electron article now defines electron mass and Compton wavelength units with sufficient clarity so that units are adequately explained and defined. I would like very much to know if you agree that units used are clearly explained. There seems to be no end to this electron story but I know we should limit the article to documented information and facts that can be readily verified.

Please let me know if the present wording is adequate (your opinion) or if a better explanation of units is needed. DonJStevens (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tweaks on the Bering land bridge article, any chance you could talk me through them so I do a better job next time? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page [2]. Despite the four levels of warnings given by Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) and the AIV report [3], I was not entirely convinced as to its merit, so I only gave Aaronjhill (talk · contribs) a 15 minute block. As such, this editor has been unblocked since 11 minutes before you left me your message. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry about that. I was using Lupin's Anti-Vandal tool at the time and I used rollback to revert what I thought was vandalism. The thing that came up was Line 380 - :'Forward 5′→ 3′: gcaacaatgagggtttttttg'- I immediately thought that this was vandalism, did one revert and moved on. I didn't look into the page history but my personal policy is to rollback once and then go to the revision history. I express my apologies to Aaronjhill. This was a complete misunderstanding. I had no idea what he was trying to do. When anti-vandalising, I come accross vandalism like that all time and I simply believed this was another case. Olly₁₅₀ 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's odd. I actually saw the same line in Huggle. However I agree I've had an error of judgment here, and it's something I'm not proud of at all. I give my deepest apologies, this is most rare, I can assure you. Steve Crossin (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey don't forget about Iran cities. Many still don't have infoboxes!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Where non-free content (i) is legal, (ii) is not in competition with the creation of any free content, and (iii) would add value to an article, then it's hard to see any useful purpose served by excluding it."

That's exactly my opinion. I tried to write this up here but it's not as clear as I would like. — Omegatron 03:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About that, when is it utilized for surnames? Best one I was able to find was this sample. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, as I'm watching it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be something in WP:MOS about this. As a counter-example, consider Van der Waals force. My view is that a prefix is not usually capitalised; but the first word of an article title is like the first word of a sentance, which is capitalised. So IMO capitalization of the prefix is correct. Hmmm. Time to look through WP:MOS... Jheald (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This probably should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization) for a definitive view. I haven't been able to find any specific guidance in WP:MOS, and I definitely think that there should be. Jheald (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now we wait. Would you happen to have a preference? I think lowercase. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your important contributions for the article Exact trigonometric constants.

I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) algebraic expression for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: , when n is natural (and is not given in advance). Do you know of any such general (non-iterative) algebraic (non-trigonometric) expression?

• Let me explain: if we choose n=1 then the term becomes "0", which is a simple (non-trigonometric) constant. If we choose n=2 then the term becomes , which is again an algebraic (non-trigonometric) constant. etc. etc. Generally, for every natural n, the term becomes an algebraic (non-trigonometric) constant. However, when n is not given in advance, then the very expression per se - is not an algebraic expression but rather is a trigonometric (non-algebraic) expression. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) algebraic (non-trigonometric) expression equivalent to , when n is not given in advance. If not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent.

Eliko (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

There are a number of editors who are trying to bring a sense of order and structure to the various articles on entropy. Engaging in revert wars is counter-productive to this effort. The core problem is that the DAB page is fundamentally incorrect in what it states, and in particular, is incorrect in pointing to a "lead" article that provides an inappropriate/verging on wrong/ definition of entropy. Please do not interfere in the creation and maintenance of articles about topics in which you have no interest. Thank you. linas (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I bit, I've been reverted three times today, and I view the first few as spurious and clueless. I'm rather loosing my temper in resolving what should be an easy and clear problem, with an obvious and immediate direct way forward.

The topic got pounded to death on the talk pages. There was (I thought) a clear consensus for the need for a general article on the concept of entropy, that wasn't strongly focused on thermodynamics. The obvious path from here to there was blocked when the page move went awry. The next step is then to create the desired, factually correct article on the general concept of entropy, and when its completed, take another shot at installing it as the "main" article. linas (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in this discussion last year, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; this was my first time processing one, and I had followed the cue of another editor who added it to the HP dab page. I have since found out he was wrong toadd it, and I was wrong to select the miscellany for deletion. I apologize if my mistake harshed your calm. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think we should wait to see if the rest of the scientific community accepts this new nomenclature before moving the E3b page to E1b1b and changing all references? E3b has been used pretty consistently (although some of its subclades have been moved around a bit) for a while now, and I'm not sure it will be so quickly renamed. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - that's a big step forward. Good work! StAnselm (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Edward Wright (mathematician), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on May 1, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Wright (mathematician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 00:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the best convention is. As I understand it, the chemists prefer A while physicists prefer F. Most textbooks I've seen (admittedly these are physics textbooks) still use F. I was about to start writing the up derivation of "A = - kT Log(Z)" and I tought "A = - k T Log(Z)" looks so strange compared to the usual "F = - k T Log(Z)", so I changed A to F. Anyway, I can change it back to A if that is what most involved editors want... Count Iblis (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll change it back and we'll discus this later with the other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've more or less finished the updates to the article "Edward Wright (mathematician)" that I intended to do. The lead section needs to be expanded so that it is a better summary of the article – would you like to try your hand at that, if you have time? I've also added a {{Maintained}} template to the talk page. Do add your username to the template if you'd like to. Finally, I've listed the article for peer review for suggestions on how it might be improved. I think this is an article we should be able to get up to Good Article, and possibly even Featured Article, status at some stage! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jheald. I am sure you are right. I only reversed my earlier restoration because of what appeared to be some sort of representation from the copyrightholder. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the article talk page - I don't think we are that far apart. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I think you may misunderstand the non-fair use of currency images in general.

First, it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine if a currency image is free-of-use. That can change by the image of the currency and the country where the currency is issued. The euro coins dedicated to circulation, for example, are free-to-use copyrights; this has been checked several times with the ECB. The euro commemorative coins, which have not legal tender in the union, they may adhere to the laws of the issuing country. Same happens for other currencies of other countries, some countries' are free-to-use rationale some countries' are not.

However, even if the country says that they are not free-to-use (like England for example) they are under the fair-use rationale. For currency images that has a very specific meaning: the image can be use, as long as the image on the coin is used to be described or criticized. The image you removed was described in the article; hence it is in the fair-use rationale.

Maybe I am incorrect, what is your opinion?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your post at WP:VPR.

The Transhumanist    20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You left a comment on the 9th which I wanted to address.

"Kantor is not a reliable scholarly source; the LXX translates the Hebrew Bible, not just the Torah; and Aristeas predates the Talmud by 700 years"

• Kantor has actually spent most of last 15 years on compiling his books, and has been printed twice, having become a standard reference in the Jewish educational institutions.

• In the first instance the LXX as the Pentateuch translates just the Torah

• Aristeas pre-dates the Talmud by 700 years only if you date to closing of the Babylonian Talmud!!! However, the Talmud also includes the Mishnah which at its earliest is dated around same time as Aristeas--Meieimatai 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was poorly worded. I'll try and express my reasoning better in the future. -20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Keil suggests there may once have been a word raham (רָהָם) in Hebrew, meaning "multitude", even though it has not survived into any attested text. The word ruhâm has this meaning in Arabic. (K.F. Keil (1869), Biblical commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1, p. 224)

Please, I do not mind discussing anything, but do not insult my intelligence. Even if some 19th century German linguist did suggest there may once have been a word raham (רָהָם) in Hebrew, the existence of a cognate in Arabic makes no difference to a text written in Hebrew, and deduced from Old Testament which was not written in Hebrew! In any case, IF you read the actual Hebrew, you will see its in the feminine addressed to Sarah, and not to Avraham! This is just another support to the Deuteronomy 7:3. There is no way Arabs can trace their ancestors to Abraham via this verse, and they know it, but persist--Meieimatai 11:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice attempt in Biblical narratives and the Qur'an. At present Moses has been nominated as GA article and I'm reviewing it. I've found some problems and mentioned them here. Due to your participation in Biblical narratives and the Qur'an, I guess you can help us to improve the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation, but bible and Quran are original sources and we should add secondary source. Please pay attention to these :

• Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic...religious scripture[4]
• The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources[5]
• The Qur'an and the Hadith are considered to be primary sources, as defined in WP:NOR[6]

--Seyyed(t-c) 11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't participated in that article a lot, I suggest you joining me as a second reviewer.[7]--Seyyed(t-c) 17:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your name as second reviewer[8], due to participation in the review of the article[9].

Unfortunately Moses hasn't reached to GA status, thus God willing I'm going to remove it's name from WP:GAN. In my view it has failed in all aspects except stability. --Seyyed(t-c) 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiho,

vcan you tell me, where you gathered these population figures? Many thanks, Fossa_?! 16:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

 Thanks for your message, I think you were probably in the middle of editing the page when I emailed, so most of the links are back. And you have done a very good job making the page work better.

There are several links still missing are you planning to put them back?

These are the ones I mean:

http://www.open2.net/whattheancients/index.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/479416.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrainqa.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1500431.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3043484.stm

Thanks

Unique1000 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help, the page looks much better.

All the best Unique1000 (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

 I've removed the dates because some of them are inaccurate and the date of Liz Tucker's birth is wrong.

Thanks Unique Image —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unique1000 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

 I've just made a couple of changes to the page, i have put back the reference to Archimedes winning the BAFTA. This link here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1942734.stm  shows the awards were on Sunday 21st April 2002, Archimedes went out on 14th March 2002. Also have added details for the programme infinite secrets. This was not just the US title is was an entirely separate version of the film.

Thanks Unique1000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unique1000 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I added a comment after your note in the discussion about preventing a one-sided POV, "Then why not simply use {{balance}}, a general, neutrally-worded template that covers exactly this issue?" Would appreciate it if you would take a look at this template and see if it addresses the concern you articulated. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote my view and closed the review. If you do not agree with me, add your view there.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete, per CSD G7. Jheald (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald, I noticed a few months back you mentioned that it might be a good idea to have a table that sorts dates by scholar, etc ... well, a couple of us are now trying to put together some references for the dates of the bible. I thought that if this was something you were interested in, you may want to contribute! Take care! -Motocop (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Jackanory-1960s.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jheald (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald. In Talk:Yahweh, we're discussing the lead. I've asked everybody to meanwhile leave the lead alone. Would you pls restore to prior version. See Talk page. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Well, I see now your comment in Talk. Hmmm, let's see what happens. HG | Talk 16:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on that other article!Tim (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know you've had an interest in the above-mentioned article. You might recall that it got stuck with an edit blocker a few months back. I am not sure if you noticed that has re-started. Even small contributions by a third party might re-normalize the article. It has become far too much of a result of a tension between one editor (me) and one blocker. Can I ask you to come and have a look at both the article and the talk page? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave us along just yet. A few third parties helped a lot but we are struggling again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mod objective obviously doesn't want to pay any attention to WP:3RR so I've reported them on the 3RR noticeboard. I don't want to get close to the line myself, so I'm not going to revert the changes again. Just wanted to let you know I'd reported it. Movingboxes (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this page at Talk:Entropy (disambiguation). — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Entropy (disambiguation). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done that, I feel it clogs discussion pages too much. I nominate automatically using Twinkle- if you're concerned, I recommend you leave a note for the Twinkle developers, I can't imagine adding those notices would be particularly difficult. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying people is a courtesy. Should I also notify relevant WikiProjects? Should I badger people if they don't reply? People need to judge who to notify and how much notification is needed. If they care that much, they will have watchlisted the item in question. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll stop nominating at IfD and go back to more effective methods. Then we can both be happy. J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not threatening anyone. I just used to go for less centralised discussion of images, which was generally more effective in terms of removing non-compliant images. I've used IfD over the last couple of days in response to the FPAS RfC, but I've seen enough already to tell me it doesn't work and takes too long. J Milburn (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages, user talk pages and WikiProject talk pages. IfD seems to be very much a vote, where rational discussion has little value. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just want to say thanks for your support on The Stepford Wives deletion issues. This is crazy! Cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if you would be willing to weigh in on this image for deletion from the same article? Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 19 I have already improved the text, but I am open to suggestions. Thanks again.-Cbradshaw (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your assistance-Cbradshaw (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. A point that was not made as succinctly in the IFD discussion. However, the image caption and the text did not tie together to make the image necessary. The caption simple says "Nanette Newman as the controversial "Carol Van Sant"." ("Controversial" being a description I believe is unsupported. See Cbradshaw's talk page.) There is no way of connecting that the image represents the "change in appearance in costuming" referred to in the article making the image unnecessary. -Nv8200p talk 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the image. Please tie the image caption into the article as you proposed and we'll see if it flies. -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald, I've added a closing rationale now (I missed it earlier with too many tabs open). Looking again it clearly, to my mind and those of most participants, fails NFCC#8. In my opinion it also fails NFCC#1 (as it is replaceable by text alone) and with the multiple uses of non-free images that are similar NFCC#3a. I invite you to view the article with NO images and perhaps you will see too that the Bollywood, Salsa, Skateboarders, Tango and others are adequately replaced by text alone. In the deletion discussion I can't see any convincing argument as to why this image is necessary while there are so many other non-free ones in the article - Peripitus (Talk) 11:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one sock-puppet on Yahweh got through. Can we check Alleichem and some of his IP addresses? 143.53.7.18, 143.53.7.76, 143.53.7.171, 143.53.7.169. They are all from England.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I made the follow up request. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the Kurdle. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Suntag ☼ 15:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jheald, thank you for your comments on my closing. To keep the discussion together I've responded here...oh for some form of threaded discussion extension to Mediawiki software - Peripitus (Talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever bring that up to FL review, the first thing everyone is going to as why it has no images. By the standards you established, I can't think of an image that could possibly be included. So could you let me know what images I could add? Serendi^podous 12:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only in articlespace. See WP:FU and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions. Daniel (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at my talk page and see what happened when I reverted Scott MacDonald. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I needed to reboot to update google earth and, well...I'll put that right now; thanks :). --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you posted a comment on Talk:Boltzmann distribution justifying this sentence from the article:

Alternatively, for a single system (of particles) at a well-defined temperature, it gives the probability that one particle of the system is in the specified state.

Would you please provide a reference for this statement? I've posted a fuller explanation for my confusion on that talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halberdo (talk • contribs) 05:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]