User talk:Saforrest/Archive 2

hey steve

i remember you.. PMC 4 life! hahaha; and you lived with steph on columbia.. i think she was kinda scared of you, hehehe. Mlm42 05:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

actually, she may not have been scared of you, i don't know.. but she sure was scared of me! yup, phd student in cambridge now.. my first real contribution to wikipedia was ensuring the place i live, Leckhampton, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, wasn't deleted! it was a close call, let me tell you; it's a good thing they didn't delete it.. i do need a place to stay, after all, heh Mlm42 15:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Museveni on peer review

Hey SF, just thought I'd let you know that Yoweri Museveni is now on peer review as you have contributed to it previously. I thought now was about the right time, as it would be good to get a feel for the kind of things people will say in WP:FAC now, rather than pressing ahead with expansion and then having to change a whole load of stuff later. TreveX^talk 11:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category: British Hills by Height and Category:Mountains by_Elevation (km)

I am posting this to all the particants of the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Books by title discussion and debate. (Where the categories were voted for deletion).

This earlier discussion has been cited as an example as to why the category Category:Mountains by Elevation (km) (and sub cats) should be deleted.

Could you please take a look at the following CFD and vote. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 1#Category:Mountains by Elevation (km) and its subcategories

A complication could be that Category: British Hills by Height seems be to liked by the actual British Hills content contributors. By contrast the category Category:Mountains by_Elevation (km) is not liked by User:RedWolf who seems to be a major Mountain page contributor.

Special note: the Ocean trenches by depth categories were added after the all of the people had voted. But frankly these have no real contributors and would probably get deleted if another vote was taken. You should specifically mention these to ensure there is no confusion in future.

ThanX ¢ NevilleDNZ 11:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ¢[reply]

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Hamilton, Ontario. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Hamilton for instructions.--Rmky87 02:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Ruby

As I recall, he's always described himself as an anarchist. He's a left-wing anti-establishment lawyer so I don't know why you'd be surprised. I know of a few anarchist lawyers, though I know of more lawyers who are socialist or communist. Homey 02:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Tubby

Hi there. It's not true that Right Honourable is reserved for former Canadian PMs, see The Right Honourable#Canada. Aside from that, Black is British now, and that's where the title comes from. --Saforrest 16:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that now and also when I saw the edit. Thanks. P.S. I hear that one of the conditions that Lord Tubby is negotiating if he goes to The Joint is that he'll be allowed to start a newspaper for the inmates called The Big House Daily Examiner. Imagine the "society" columns. Also, I hear that he wants black and gold coveralls with braided epaulets on the shoulders, instead of the standard-issue orange coveralls. Barry Wells 01:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Witness

Hey. I understand your correction, but I already knew that he wasn't "English" in the sense that you interpreted it to be, as in nationality to England. I placed the word there because the whole film is about Amish perception of the "English" world. "English" is what the Old-Order Amish refer to "Americans" as; see the Amish page for further information. I presume you've never seen the film, or did not understand it. Either way, I'll play nice and not revert back to "English" just to avoid an edit war. But, I did change "big-city" to "Philadelphia" just for "city" clarification. Poisonouslizzie 02:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfrun and Lady Wulfruna

Thanks. Sorry. I created Wulfrun without knowing that Lady Wulfruna already existed. Afterwards by text-searching for "wulfrun" I found Lady Wulfruna, and then I felt that I better merge them. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 06:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rwandan Patriotic Army

Hi Saforrest. It's been a while. I noticed that you broke RPA off from Rwandan Patriotic Front and have a question. My understanding is that the RPF was the political wing of the RPA, or the RPA is the military wing of the RPF, depending on how you approach it. This is similar to the SPLM/A, National Resistance Army/Movement, Sinn Fein/IRA structure than many rebel groups have. RPA currently states, "It is the successor to the army of the Rwandese Patriotic Front", when it actually was the army of the RPF as far as I know. Do you mind if I change that article around? (I normally don't bother separating out the military and political wings of rebel groups in most cases as you immediately end up with problems of where to draw the line between them.) Just to illustrate how much information I procrastinate putting into the wiki, many months ago in the Glossary of Armed Groups on Second Congo War, I had stated that the RPA had changed its name to the Rwandan Defense Forces in 2002, but I have no idea where I sourced that!

I would appreciate some advice on how to organize these articles. Should RPA redirect to Rwandan Defense Forces, or should Rwandan Patriotic Army have its own article to focus on its existence from creation through the formal end of the Second Congo War? Thanks, Banyan Tree 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Rwandan Armed Forces. Did I overload you with my brain dump above? - Banyan Tree 17:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of #REDIRECT

Remember, if you put a space between the hash and REDIRECT the redirect will not work. I have corrected this mistake in Lightning Crashes. haz (user talk) 20:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McHugh-Russell

Hi Zanimum. Liam McHugh-Russell is not an alumnus of U of T: he's currently a law student there, and his undergraduate degree is from Waterloo. So I've added a category for UW alumni and put him in it. :) --Saforrest 17:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for letting me know, Saforrest. I guess I jumped to conclusions too quickly there. -- user:zanimum

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Saforrest regarding "The Honourable" prefixes to names

Hi Michael, welcome to Wikipedia! With regard to your addition of "The Honourable" to Josée Verner:

The convention Wikipedia has chosen thus far regarding honorific prefixes is to avoid their use in the first instance of the name. This is why there is no "Right Honourable" in the beginning of the pages for Joe Clark, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, etc. This is mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes.

I'm not sure whether I agree with it (and I do like the fact that the French Wikipedia has chosen differently with le très honorable), but as it'd be a pain to change everything, it's probably best to go with that. --Saforrest 03:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I started changing them over because I saw someone else do the same; then I caught on later that it was convention not to do so, as you mentioned, so I stopped... Thanks for the heads up anyway! RealMontrealer 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plant diseases

Hi Saforrest, I think that the category Diseases is implied to be the place for human disease only (it's under Medicine). I just realised that there is no Phytopathology category for plant diseases (I'll make one when I get time). Keep in mind that Category:Diseases is under Medicine, which does not encompass plant diseases or animal diseases. They belong in Phytopathology and Veterinary medicine, respectively. BTW, and off topic, I'm an undergrad at UW (though on a co-op term now). Small world :P ? --CDN99 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R1a and R1a1

The reason I edited the R1a page to talk about R1a1 is that almost all of the statements on the R1a page are true specifically for R1a1. In particular if you are European, and you are R1, and you're not R1b then you are overwhelmingly likely to be R1a1. Also of interest is to consider the Cinnioglu et al (2004) Anatolia paper [1], one of the most revelaing papers for study of the R1 group to date, where 36 out of 36 who were R1a were also R1a1.

The interesting statements about R1a are those made about R1a1 -- even the first line of the article says that the deciding marker is M17, which is actually the deciding marker for R1a1. That's why R1a1 deserves the wikipedia article, with R1a* just a footnote, and R1a just a redirect. IMO.

So I think it would be a good idea if you could rv your edits back. -- Jheald 14:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I think renaming the whole page to R1a1 (and updating corresponding text in the pages that link there) is probably the best way forward, if you would like to do the honours. -- Jheald 17:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Haplogroup I

First of all, great job on the cleanup and structuring of the Y-DNA articles. One minor thing though, in the Haplogroup I article, you changed "Croat" to "the Balkans", which is not correct. For instance in Greek populations, haplogroup I is rather rare. According to the references in this article and some others (see for instance the Bosniaks article) it is only in Croat populations where the HG I frequency is relatively high (higher in Bosnian Croats than the Croats in Croatia). Further north (in Slovenia) and further south (Serbia, Macedonia..) the frequency of HG I drops rapidly. So while saying that the haplogroup was common for the Balkans would have perhaps been correct 2000 years ago, but not today. --Denoir 18:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would hazard to guess that there is a nationalist component to it - altough more cause than effect. The modern-day difference between the groups (who after all have shared the region for some time now) could be an indicator of historical national/ethnical segregation. But that's a different story altogether. --Denoir 01:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rwanda

I need to have you know that i appreciate your Rwanda edits on LoPbN, bcz changing the one i did - - - convention says i'm supposed to say it broke my heart - - - but the truth is worse than that. It made me nauseous to do that edit. Thinking about writing you about it put tears in my eyes, and so is writing you about it. I only hope this affects you differently, and i hope you won't need me to explain my edit. Thank you for yours.
--Jerzy•t 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair & valuable questions. I'm not sure if it's clear to you that in my mind NPoV is in this context just another form of detail that doesn't support the LoPbN task of getting to the bio users who have some information about the name; i assume you grasp that i see detail as redundant when it is standing next to a lk to a bio that should include the same info. (Knowing that a soldier is a general very seldom helps, nor does knowing an athlete is a champion, nor a politician a Prez or PM. And sometimes having it there just confuses things: most people who know Gov. xxxx broke the Boston police strike are likely to keep looking for a more plausible possibility, or give up, when they see "30th President of the US" next to that gov's surname. On the other hand, occupation (the usual cause of notability), time, and nationality, each help often enuf to make a good standardized entry out of them, and the cases where they are identical for two identical names (usually two modern American politicians) are few enough that they can be given plenty of thot for a word, maybe two, to add to each of the pair for further dab'n of description. But i'm probably abusing your hospitality, which is why this is now in paren.)

"Activist" is my choice without hesitation, tho i'd welcome another scheme that works as well. My definition for LoPbN purposes is fairly rigorous (someone out to affect stranger's lives from outside the fundamental institutional structure that includes government, economics, education, and religion), but on reflection i think all that's required for "activist" (or its replacement) to work well is that people unfamiliar with LoPbN have some idea of some things it includes, and no real idea of how far afield from those you have to go to reach things the term is likely to exclude -- if that's true, when they don't see other entries nearby with "occupation" terms that apply to the person they're after, they are likely to say "well, maybe this is a form of activism", and to be sure to further consider the "activist" entries.

So i put abolitionists, terrorists, the French Resistance, Nazi hunters, Scouting leaders, demonstrators, and Alfred Nobel together as activists, along with people doing genocide as volunteers.

There are a few cases where for some reason i know the nationality but nothing about occupation etc.; i'm as happy to put "German" or "Rwandan" (or for that matter, probably Dutch tho it's unambiguously an adjective rather than a noun) alone as with "man" or "woman" following, especially since they would just be fillers. (But is saying "man" a coincidence? Yesterday someone added

*Baartman, Saartjie (1785-1815), Khoisan woman

-- who is also a bit of an emotional entry.) --Jerzy•t 07:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swords of Righteousness

I saw you edited this a bunch. Nice job. You may be interested in Jeish al Taiifa al Mansoura. KI 02:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CPM Hostage

At the time of my edit CBC and CNN were both reporting only that hostages had been rescued, without naming specific units. The edit was intended mainly to replace the previous statement claiming an "all-British force led by the SAS". As no other information was available.... I assumed it was best to err on the side of caution and leave the information general until the facts surfaced.

CanadianPhaedrus 05:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus[reply]