• User_talk:Tannin/030301
• User_talk:Tannin/030407
• User_talk:Tannin/030430
• User_talk:Tannin/030516
• User_talk:Tannin/030606
• User_talk:Tannin/030715
• User_talk:Tannin/030923
• User_talk:Tannin/040224

Hi from HD (aka "blast from the past"):

Hey there, Tony!

I've just bumped into your nick on "Khe Sanh" rev. history... Maaan, if this ain't "long time no see", then I don't know what is!

Nice to see you around Wikipedia, mate.

How's SR/SF doing? Do you still hang around? How's your business?

Anyho... Take care.

HellDiver.

Helldiver! Great to see you! Yup, all remains as before. I rarely see SR these days (once a month, maybe), but pop into SF nearly every day, and continue—alas—to earn a living in-between times. Stick around - this place is cool. Tony

Re the Beazleys and the Cains: do you really want to open this can of worms again? I spent hours arguing with the Wikpedia Pedants' Club about this and I am sick of it. So you are on your own on this one. However, if you are going to change them all again, it falls on you to update all the linked pages as well. Adam 08:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been kicked around a bit on this one. Some people told me to sod off as "this is how we do things". So I went up the tree of life and became frustrated. My on going wikipedia projects are native trees and fishes in the Netherlands. And I dabble a bit in taxonomy; my relational database on cacti and succulents is 70.996 KB in size (only data and mainly taxonomy). Thanks, Gerard

Tony, my camera is a mid-range 3-megapixel Olympus 3020Z with a fixed lens and 3 times zoom. The quality of focus on my pics isn't satisfactory (to me!) and the shutter delay is intolerable (over a second even if I prefocus). Now I want one with at least a 6 times optical zoom (I don't want interchangeable lenses), a fast shutter reaction, over 6 megapixels, viewing through the lens, and still at a mid-range price. Any thoughts? Adrian Pingstone 11:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adrian this camera doesn't exist. If you want more than 5 megapixels without buying a digital reflex there's only one choice the Sony DSC F-828. The other camera that is close to your requirements is the Minolta Dimâge A1 but you will have to make with 5 megapixels only. All the test I've read are clearly in favor the Minolta Dimâge A1 . Don't be impressed by the Zeiss Zoom on the Sony, there are extensive resolution tests in the last issue of Chasseur d'Images (for the first time with FTM charts - at least in France) the Minolta is clearly one step ahead in optical quality.

BTW Tannin seems to use some flavor of Nikon Coolpix. Ericd 22:32, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on on the Talk page about the abbreviation. Perhaps you would care to say (at least in the comment made available when you edit) why you have done so. I'm with you - there is no need for UK/USA differentiation or for the weird "D'r" but you will ruffle feathers. Paul Beardsell 15:18, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was puzzled by your edit comment on Litotes. You mention that the article should be deleted, but you didn't vote for its deletion on Talk:Litotes. Mind if I ask why? - DropDeadGorgias 18:10, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning Wikipedia:Protected page -- it needed it, and I'm ashamed I didn't notice sooner. Just wanted to make sure you know your work here is appreciated, Jwrosenzweig 20:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Richard does not have the authority to make that kind of unilateral change to Wikipedia policy on Common Names - that is why i reverted it and protected the page. Look at Talk:Khmer Rouge to see just what people think of Richard's behaviour. PMA 21:20, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, it is nearly spring, and only a couple of weeks until the first Chiffchaffs, Sand Martins and Little Ringed Plovers arrive, so its a good time of year. Sri Lanka was the best holiday ever, I can't wait for next year's foreign foray!

I liked the picture, I might add an image of my aging features to my page. Jim

Tannin, I came across this website that is selling antique prints of birds from 19th century books. The images that are direct scans are public domain, and we can use them. I have already placed one on Black Stork. I will try to add more this week. Feel free to add some yourself. Happy birding, Kingturtle 23:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Huh--thought you were editing something else-- Actually a double-dash has been taught as an emdash in typing classes for a goodly longer period of time than I've been alive--probably since shortly after the typewriter was invented. And it's still standard in manuscript format (for ms submitted to publishers--at least every market I'm familiar with, which is quite a few. So a double-dash is a quite legit way to to indicate an emdash if one doesn't have time or tools to insert the markup for the actual thing. Elf 20:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, you could have responded to my first post (above). Double dashes *are* correct. This is not something I'm inventing. This is not something that needs consensus (in any event, I did reread the whole talk page before posting my comments there--which you didn't repond to, either--and I don't see that there is a disagreement that -- is never legit for em dashes, only whether to use markup of --- for emdashes (which I discussed on the talk page) or whether single hyphens are acceptable substitutes, or whether markup is required or shouldn't ever be used). They have been used for em dashes in publishing and typing for decades and still are. I don't follow why you think they aren't. And people who don't want to muck with markup are going to type something in place of em dashes, and it just seems to make more sense to identify the existing punctuation convention than to piss people off who hate typing markup. It isn't even a Friday so I can't use that as an excuse for you being grumpy about this. Elf 20:43, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reponse. I also saw that you put something on the talk page, so I responded there, too. It is so strange to be seen as arguing against correct usage, especially with a scientist (?) on the other side! :-) I guess we differ in that I don't view -- as incorrect; it's been used for so long to represent em dashes that it's recognized as an em dash goes here. So we can come along cheerily later and insert the markup if we want to. That doesn't make -- incorrect, in fact I'd rather have that than people typing a single -. BTW, when I'm developing documents for publication, I do know the keystroke to put correct em and en dashes into my docs, and I do use them. But when I'm typing manuscripts, I use --, and likewise often when I'm writing rapidly because I don't want to lose my thoughts, and people recognize that as an em dash. Elf 21:07, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see that you deleted Romeo Beckham when it had 5 votes for "delete" and 3 for "keep" on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion[1]. This is nowhere near a rough consensus to delete, and therefore your deletion was inappropriate. In any case, when merging the content of one page into another, you should redirect the former to the latter, to enable people to find the content. I've undeleted and redirected the page. -- Oliver P. 22:47, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Two votes to keep, Oliver. You don't count Anthony, as he votes "keep" to everything, presumably as some sort of attention-seeking thing.

Well, I counted Anthony. Seems a bit rude just to ignore him... Even if it were 5 to 2, that wouldn't be a consensus (i.e. a general agreement). Some might call it a rough consensus, but that's a different thing. Anyway, arguments about policies and definitions aside, redirecting people to pages where information can be found is still the right thing to do. We want people to be able to find the information they are looking for. -- Oliver P. 23:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Check out my images page and give me your thoughts. I do NOT intend to use this format in the 'Pedia, just for my images. Others, of course, are free to copy it if they wish. - Gaz 14:41, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Wow! You were about to see the most bile-filled and vitriolic denunciation of a gross perversion of a quasi-democratic process you ever saw in your life!"

Heh. I'd deserve it if I'd just appropriated all those votes for my own purposes. It's a tempting suggestion though... :)

You raised a very sensible objection. I don't believe that anyone would ban you for those reverts, but I can just see people using this as a tool in personality disputes and applying it to cases like yours where it oughtn't be used... and the current wording would make them right and you wrong. Can you think of way to word a second exception that would cover this loophole and persuade you to vote in favor of the proposal? The only thing I can think of is "except for housekeeping tasks", but that's probably open to too much abuse and interpretation.

Writing rules is hard! fabiform | talk 15:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jamesday has proposed a refinement and opened a vote on that.... what do you think? It looks good to me as it removes a lot of the probably destructive rigidity of my proposal, and should also allow sysops to consider more subtle cases of revert wars. Plus I've just been nominated as a sysop, and the idea of having to decide by myself if someone has broken the rule is suddenly not sounding like a good idea (Jamesday's refinement calls for a straw poll among 5 or more sysops for each ban). fabiform | talk 14:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can I ask why you nominated USS HMAS Hobart (DDG-26)? It seems fine to me. Also, please use msg:vfd for things you list on Votes for Deletion--those were not candidates for speedy deletion. Yours, Meelar 07:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Um. Well. Good point. It might help if you would note that on VfD, though--it's not something people will necessarily pick up on automatically. Thanks much, Meelar 07:32, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Er,...,uh,...actually that page might have been right. I think this page: [2] and a few others lend me to believe that there was a transfer of vessels perhaps from the Australian navy to the U.S. navy (as happens oftens between nations by sale, etc.) and that the vessels was renamed as a US destroyer without dropping the Hmas. There were a few ships like that. -- Decumanus 07:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting that it was scripting, because the USS Hmas brings up hits in the search engine. My hunch is that it was during World War II and the ship was renamed rather informallya nd quickly but with a lower case Hmas, such that it no longer implied the original designation as an Australian naval vessel but the Hmas was part of its name. It is interesting because in all the references it contains a US Destoyer code. But I'm not a navy officer or historian, so this one is beyond me. If it's legit, I'm sure it will be recreated in the right way eventually. -- Decumanus 07:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Heck, it was going to bug me, so I had to figure it out. It was not a transfer from the Australian Navy to the U.S. Navy at all. I was wrong. It was U.S. destroyer built in the United States for the Australian Navy. So the U.S. designation (DDG-25) is the code for the ship as it was built, as part of a class of ships. It then was commissioned as an Australian ship. Now I can see how the scripting software created a spurious "USS", if it was iterating through a list of destroyers of a certain class. Best. Here [3] is the page that makes sense of it. -- Decumanus 08:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Tony - as you can see, most of those species are written, including, I think, a few where the link isn't right - the Ibis, Pygmy Goose and Shoveler definitely have articles, so just put in the pics - I'm sure they are of your usual high standard. Jim

I presume you are saying that it's not a real ship. I had no way of knowing that. Secretlondon 11:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know basically zilch about ships so I didn't pick up the name problem. Secretlondon 11:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tannin, just wanted to add a personal note of apology here for the Terrorism stuff. I was quite wrong. Stevertigo had not made the changes I thought. You must think me mad, no doubt, I would not blame you. --Marcusvox 12:09, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tony,
Many thanks for the camera information.
Good of you to write so much.
I'm still working out which one to buy.
Adrian Pingstone 09:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm working on a new page in my own sandbox. I plan to call this page [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers]]>. Your name is on it so I hoped you might comment. I don't know whether to file it under "Other Listings" or "Wikipedian associations". Help! - Gaz 10:36, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Update: it exists now - Gaz 08:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In case you don't check back on the Survivor Talk page, this link should answer your questions about the filming locations: http://www.bootsnall.com/travelogues/jenleo/mar01.shtml . Moncrief 11:43, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tannin,

I've amended the proposal on 24 hour bans for edit wars. In short, the amendment calls for a quickpoll to take place before any such ban can be implemented. If you support this, I'd like you to add your vote in favor to the 24 hour ban vote, with the comment "with quickpolls".

Please also participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls.—Eloquence 22:14, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

I got the infobox format from Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical Objects. It is currently being used by various articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Telescopes series. I personally found that the old way made it easier to read the content of each table row, while your version emphasizes the html code. I haven't heard any other comments on that format, so I think most people are indifferent and either version works, so whichever way you want it works. --zandperl 13:44, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that while html has some "common useage rules" such as "put the <tr> at the front of the line," that these are not hard and fast and can be adapted for your sitation. I mean, the table works either way! For the most part I agree with you that it's easier to understand how a table works if you do it the standard way, however that leaves your eye wandering through all the html muck before you get to the content. Is there an "acceptable" way of doing the html so that it's easier to read where the actual words are? --zandperl 23:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What's your status on the quickpolls proposal? You haven't participated in the discussion lately, but you are still listed as voting against it.—Eloquence 22:46, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

OK, how about this:

A vote which is under suspicion to be a "sock puppet" may be announced as such on Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls, and an administrator may remove it if there is consensus among the participating admins to do so.

Note that I have removed the "x non-reverted edits" requirement, instead the text now says "three months of active membership". I think we should give some leeway to admins to determine whether a certain vote is a sock puppet.—Eloquence 23:56, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

I still don't understand what harm is done by having the disambig message at the top of the page, where mistaken users are most likely to see it. Meelar 01:18, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, if you have a look at the list of species you have pics for on my talk page, most of the articles are now written. I'd be grateful for any pics you can add (especially the wonderful Black-necked Stork. Thanks, Jim

Hi Tannin, do you take requests? ;) I know it's not your usual type of photo - but if you ever see an Australian Jack Russell Terrier I would be very grateful for a photo (preferably a full side view). What I'm looking for is the type registered with the Australian National Kennel Council - which is a little different from other breeds of the same name. Many thanks -- sannse (talk) 17:51, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for listing you as deleting User:Japan. Check this out, though. When I look at the deleted page history for User:Japan it shows this:

13:18, 25 Mar 2004 Tannin deleted "Wikipedia Revolution Movement" (content was: '#REDIRECT [[User:Japan/Wikipedia_Revolution_Movement]]')

06:34, 25 Mar 2004 . . Japan ()

Can you look and see what it shows you? Why the mixup? - Texture 20:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for editing State terrorism. You struck a good compromise between User:Cuye's version (the one I was restoring) and VV's. But I bet "puppet state" is going to make its way back somehow. 172 11:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, figured it out for myself P0M 00:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You may have noticed that the discussion centering around the Race page has been particularly unpleasant. Part of the problem seems to be with people who are looking for "marker characteristics" that will let them make snap judgments about other people. Part of the problem lies with the wide varieties of meaning that have been attached to the word "race." There does not seem to be an easy way to move people toward agreement on even the first paragraph. But I hope that we can avoid an attitude of vindictiveness among participants. Best, P0M 00:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I put some comments for you here. It may be easier if we both use this place to discuss things. Maybe we can figure out a good way to straighten things out. User:Patrick0Moran/Race_discussion P0M