User talk:Silversmith/Archive 2

Talk:Jesus

You've just deleted a vote (and a minor format correction) [1]. I don't see any sign that you're the sort of person who would do that deliberately (though I can't seee how it could have happened accidentally); still, could you be more careful? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silversmith: Would you be interested in e-mailing Jacob Neusner (E-Mail: Neusner@webjogger.net) for his comments on the CE/BCE convention; it is my high suspicion he personally began the current popular use of abbreviating the term [2], and if he didn't he certainly can steer us in the right direction where he picked the convention up. Anyway, it will be very interesting to hear his comments. Keep up the good work! Thx. Nobs 19:19, 17 May in the Vulgar era 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome

Glad to have fixed your link on your user page. I have only been editing for a few days here, so I hope editing here on Wikipedia will be a fun and enjoyable experience. See you around. 10qwerty 18:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vatican.jpg

I am working through PUI, and I noticed you uploaded over this image. I would just like to confirm that in fact you took this image and it is in fact GFDL. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 07:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course she did. Now, delete the image so that the one on the Commons can be used. Chameleon 11:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Personal attack

Thanks for the kind note. I don't take that kind of talk too seriously and I've been called worse. I think Slrubenstein has got a bit too personal about the whole thing and needs to cool off but I don't take it too personally myself. Slrubenstein's a well-intentioned editor, who gets a bit too fond of his POVs, that's all. We all fall foul of that from time to time if we work on articles on subjects with meaning to us, so I don't take it too amiss that there's a little bit of friction. Grace Note 04:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

Brookie here - I loved your User page - well done! Brookie: A collector of little brown things 19:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zzyzx11 has returned

Because of some of the comments I received by you and others on my talk page, and some other events, I have decided to return today -- but with a few self-imposed restrictions on myself. See my user page if you are interested. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Happy editing and see you around ;-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, the puppy had something to do with it... :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cute little doggies do have magical powers, don't they? CuteLittleDoggie^{Let's play!} 04:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I appreciate the comment you made on the proposal talk page encouraging people to take their problems with me up on my talk page. A very sane comment, and I thank you, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

favor?

You don't owe me any, God knows. Also, I really am committed to not commenting on my proposal page. However, I just noted Clem McGann's most recent comment:

Meanwhile User:Slrubenstein continues to change dates from AD/BC to CE/BCE. He is now mapping 200CE to 100AD! I assume that the article is referring to the Council of Jamina which (if it actually took place) was in the year 92. See Bible#The_canon_of_Scripture The date 200CE maps to 100AD. --ClemMcGann 00:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should just ignore all of this stuff (and if that's your advice, okay). But aside from not liking every edit I make now immediately be considered vandalism, I also don't like facts misrepresented in these rare instances when the facts really are objective and available to anyone. First, I did not change that article's dating from AD to CE. When I went there, the dates were already BCE/CE. All I did was change the closing of the Hebrew Biblical canon from 100 to 200. As Clem implies, the Council of Jamina may not even have taken place. Changing the date for the close of the Hebrew canon — a process for which we have bits and pieces of evidence, but no single authoritative historical record – to 200 is merely being conservative, and it is a figure many scholars use. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — you were great! Slrubenstein | Talk 01:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to begin the Septaugint article; I beleive this is the reference Slrubenstein makes "around 200 BCE" in the Bible article (unless I'm mistaken). Thanks. Nobs 14:49, 18 May 2005 of the Vulgar era (UTC)

FYI, I did not do anything to the "200 BCE" figure. That is what the text had when I went to the page. The only change I made was to change "100 CE" to "200 CE" as the outside date for the close of the canon. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and thanks

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. It is true that I formed an opinion, and one that I have learned was false, too soon and I regret that, as well as some of the language I used towards you in some of our debates. You have been and are very gracious and I appreciate it, and only hope that my behavior towards you from now on follows your example, Steve

PS who can turn down a lifetime of Chinese food? Of course, you may have to get used to another calendar ... ;-)

PPS I know that shortly after calling you a troll on the Talk:Jesus page I apologized, but I have reread my comments and wish I could apologize seven-fold. I admit I am still very upset at a few editors. But my having called you a troll after the comment you made was (well, as you know) entirely un-called for. If time ran backwards I would undo it, and if I haven't deleted it it is only because I don't like covering up past mistakes. But I do hope to move beyond them, and again appreciate your encouragement, S

Who is S? It looks like Silversmith is having an interesting conversation with herself! image:Wau.gif :D El_C 03:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is S? Well my friend El_C, after I, CuteLittleDoggie, started digging around (as I like to do when my owner isn't in town), I found out who this mysterious S is: [3]. CuteLittleDoggie^{Let's play!} Waltzing Matilda, Waltzing Matilda. You'll come a-Waltzing Matilda, with me... 06:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Steve L. Rubenstein!? Of course, I've heard of him. Oh, and notice anything different about me? If not, click on my username to learn more. EI C 07:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imposter!! Anyway, I have also heard of Professor Rubenstein, I know him to be the author of Alejandro Tsakimp: A Shuar Healer in the Margins of History, a work on Ecuadorian shamanism. Perhaps he'd be willing to tell us more about the experience of writing it.

Sorry, buddy, you will just have to buy the book (which partially answers your question), or buy me a beer. Or, hmm, you're a dog so ... nah, forget it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually hoping for free copy (hard copies, please!) after this totally-unwanted PR work. File:Meh.gif El_C 00:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's read the intro:

By Steven Rubenstein, University of Nebraska Press, 2002, ISBN 0803239297

In his own words, Alejandro Tsakimp tells of his lives and relationships, the practice of shamanism, and the many challenges and triumphs he has encountered since childhood. He was born at the time when Shuar were first confronting the impact of Ecuadorian colonialism, which had triggered devastating intertribal conflict over the production and trade of shrunken heads and intra-tribal feuding fueled by accusations of witchcraft. Anthropologist Steven Rubenstein, who began working with Tsakimp in 1989, has skillfully edited Tsakimp's stories and provides essential background information. Rubenstein argues that although these stories reveal tensions between individual and collective autonomy on the colonial frontier, they also resist simplistic dichotomies such as state versus indigene and modern versus traditional. Alejandro Tsakimp provides a revealing look at the relationship between anthropologist and shaman and an insightful glimpse into the complicated lives of South American Indians today. -- (the real, the one and only) El_C 09:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~I reverted my changes. You won't be hearing from me again informally. For the record though, my intentions were in goodfaith. Dosen't matter. My apologies for the intrusion.~~ All the best, El_C 13:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, as I will let El_C know, I do not think my personal or professional life should be relevant to anything going on at Wikipedia, unless I need to refer to it to explain a position I take. There are some people who think that because of my job I should be given some extra respect (or benefit of the doubt) and perhaps some who think because of my job that I am an elitist. I wish people here would judge me solely on the basis of what I write here, and reach any conclusions (he is smart, he is a solid researcher, he means well, he is rude, he is an asshole, he is arrogant) solely on the basis of what I write here.

Silversmith, thanks for the explanation about Chameleon. I do not want to stir the embers of a dying fire but you and he should know that I was genuinely and personally offended when he made the comment about stuffing the ballot box with Jewish voters. I bring up my being Jewish when I think it helps explain why I am aware or sensitive to an issue, or where I think my experiences as a Jew may be relevant. But I would like to think that the positions I take in Wikipedia, such as what language to use in the Jesus article, are based on rational arguments (not perfectly rational, or incontrovertable arguments, but nevertheless arguments based on reasons I think any reasonable person, regardless of race, creed, color, nationality, or gender, could understand as "reasonable"). But it seemed to me that Chameleon was implying that many people would vote not on the basis of reasonable arguments, on a desire to follow at least some interpretation of Wikipedia policy, but solely on the basis of their race. Maybe I am being too subtle, but I think there is a difference between these two ways of appealing to one's Jewish identity, and found Chameleon's remark hurtful. Beyond that, I am glad you told me he is your boyfriend because whatever differences I may have with him, I do believe gallantry is a virtue, understandable and admirable. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

answer

Well, I saw the comment from Nobs on your talk page and wasn't sure what started it. Rather than take the time to trackdown who made the first comment, I just put my response on your talk page & on Nobs' talk page. I hope you don't mind. Or s/he. Or both. Whatever! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

answer?

Sorry, I seriously am lost about the 'answer' (heh: no, not about the dog). Strage things always take place on his talk page. I can't confess to having read it closely, but from a brief glance, it seems more or less normal. Or did I overlook something? El_C 01:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegetarians

You might be interested in the current debate/edit war going on at List of vegetarians. An anonymous editor insists that Hitler was a vegetarian, but from what I can tell this is at least disputed, if not false. I believe you have commented on this issue before. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your help with my user page

Thanks, I figured it out. If you have any suggestions about how to make it more aesthetic, I would wlecome and appreciate them. I can tell you this: I do not want salmon pink or mauve or anything like that for a background! (just my own POV again). My general aesthetic s minimalist, but I do know that colors and sometimes pictures or illustrations can add a great deal. But what I did this week really is the very first clue to anything about me (beyond my comments on talk pages of course) that I have ever placed on my user page and I am inclined to go slow, and listen to other people's judgements, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am still not ready to go whole-hog, but I appreciate it, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bastards

Saying "don't let the bastards grind you down" in a general context is fine; saying it to someone who is engaged in a disupte with two other people isn't. In the former case, no-one is being called a bastard; in the latter case, they are. It's no use insisting that SS's previous behaviour is irrelevant, because it isn't. If a new user, or one who is normally pleasant and collaborative, had made that comment, she'd have deserved the benefit of the doubt; SS is habitually aggressive and uncollaborative, so he doesn't. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "I am just upset that you are harassing a person who seems to be trying to better himself and his relationship with fellow wikipedians." First, I'm harrassing no-one, and it would be better if you didn't make such accusations. Secondly, what evidence do you see that SS is trying to do anything of the kind? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam has made a few enemies who now use every chance they get to attack him. As Mel noted, if Sam does it they assume the worst, while if you or I do it they don't assume the worst. I feel some of them are displaying the very characteristics they denounce in Sam's past behavior. I've communicated with Sam a little about this. He's definately getting better (He's ALWAYS been very nice to me, for example.) All in all there are no totally innocent victims on either side, this is all just virtual reality, and Sam could always try out a variety of different personalities with different sign in names until he finds one no one feels is Sam-like enough to be his sockpuppet. After all, if he signs in as Joe and Joe is always nice, cooperative, etc who really cares if Joe might be in the nonvirtual world the same as Sam? 4.250.27.236 15:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to both the anon and Silversmith:

First, SS is pretty consistently aggressive to other Users (not all; mainly those who don't share his political, religious, social, etc., views, or who challenge his edits); this is accepted even by those who try to defend him. The idea that he was once unpleasant in the past, and now we're holding a grudge or are unable to see him for the kind, gentle, collaborative, NPoV editor that he truly is — well, words fail me.

Secondly, "assume good faith" is fine the first time you encounter someone, or even the second or third times. Assuming good faith when the person has a long history (and in SS's case, it's a long history, predating my arrival here by a considerable period) of bad faith editing and unpleasantness to others, then not only is assuming good faith not required: it's both impossible and imbecilic. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, I began my time here severly disliking Sam (and others) and it is only through assuming good faith and giving him a second chance that I have come know him better, and to like and respect him. Perhaps you should read the interactions I've had with User:Slrubenstein on our talk pages to see how people who are one minute saying "you're a troll" are the next minute helping each other out and getting along perfectly well. People can change, and people (especially on the internet) are misjudged. People just need to be given a chance. --Silversmith 19:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shortage of other editors willing to step forward here at wikipedia and testify that Sam has abused and insulted them in all manner of ways; it's hardly a case of Mel and myself, "a few enemies", attacking Sam at each turn. Indeed, that Sam's history of being abusive and confrontational is long is a matter of record and accessible to all. And that record already encompasses the suggestion the anon here (who seems very interested and knowledgeable on the subject for someone who can't be bothered with a handle and who coincidently just happened to leave their own rather trollish comments at the scene of the crime [4] fanning the flames) that Sam try out another username, something Sam has already done, as User:JackLynch. His behavior with that handle was no better than his behavior now, telling us that Sam is refractory at best, irredeemable at worst.

The fact that Sam continues to this day to insult other editors [5] is directly attributable to the fact that there is a dedicated cadre of editors willing to excuse, overlook and defend Sam's abusive behavior. This conversation is proof of the truth of that fact. In doing so, they've become troll-enablers. Abetting the abuse of others is a personal moral failure, a point generally lost to them. People partake of communities in virtue of elective favors. Politeness is the key to the community spirit. Politeness is more demanding than morality. Morality is more demanding than law. Thus law enjoins its subject from insulting others, whereas morality encourages him to stop others from being insulting, and politeness requires him to avoid gloating when the offender is punished. Men imbued with community spirits go out of their way to be law-abiding with the authorities, moral with peers, and polite with deserving parties belonging to the communities of their choice. When their neighbors seek information, they try to formulate an authoritative answer, not a belittling one. When their neighbors seek material assistance, they try to provide it within their means. When their neighbors overstep the bounds of civility, they try to avoid boorishness and banality in guiding them back. This we have done.

Our anon friend here also labors under the misbegotten notion that there are no totally innocent victims on either side. Nothing I did prior to or subsequent of Sam's abusive email that justifies it. My statements about Sam have consisted of asking relevant questions and drawing responsible conclusions from matters of public record in regards to his behavior. I have leveled no personal attacks. I have used no profanity. When I have confronted him, it has been to set the record straight when Sam misrepresents himself and his actions or others and their actions, to refute particularly hypocritical comments, or to seek redress for being wronged. All are within the bounds of policy and convention, and all have had as their goal the rehabilitation of Sam and barring that, the education of other editors. As I have said before elsewhere, this conflict has raised issues far beyond the content of Sam's email. By his own admission Sam feels he can abuse other editors without fear of being held accountable by exploiting policy loopholes. His actions are a matter now of public concern beyond a mere personal attack. FeloniousMonk 19:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been both having a chat with Erin in the other room and also been having a look through the various exchanges that have been made on the matter on Wikipedia. This is what I see: Jack's comment was a personal attack. It wasn't really meant as one (it was meant as solidarity) but it was one. However, it wasn't a really bad one, and Mel and Monk should chill out and not get too annoyed about it. After all, Mel has slurred me as an anti-Semite in the past, so this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Jack's statement of solidarity was with Ungtss, who was trying to make Wikipedia accept pseudoscience as science. So, personally, I'd be more inclined to condemn Jack's statement because it was intended to encourage someone in their quest to make Wikipedia worse, rather than condemn it because of a rule (WP:NPA) that Wikipedians wholly ignore when it suits them. But that's just me. — Chameleon 22:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since my name and my comments have entered into this discussion, I might as well clarify and state that, throughout nearly a year, no single editor has treated me as poorly, with as much contempt and disrespect, as Sam Spade has. No one even comes close (!). I see absolutely zero indication that Sam Spade is changing his ways, even symbolically. And furthermore, in terms of this latest: I will engage in polemics with whomever I want whenever I want, Sam Spade had no right, absolutely no right to call me a bastard. I am more than entitled to refuse editing under these conditions, which are clearly and transparently in violation of policy. El_C 00:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to the suggestion that ignoring Sam's insult is what I should do has already been written, you can find it here. FeloniousMonk 04:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic Realism

I'm already assisting with the mediation of Aesthetic Realism. If you have been asked to take over by the disputants, please let me know. – Clockwork Soul 12:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I might need an advocate in the mediation process to assist the mediator. So I asked Silversmith for advice because SS appears in the list of advocates and is interested in art. --Aperey 15:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadlocks

See Dreadlocks talk page for more on the picture discussion. If variety is what you think is needed, please find a better picture.--The Grza 20:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Australian Town Stubs

Hi Chammy,

I left a reply to your request on my Talk page. I definitely agree that stub town pages need to be eliminated, but have a suggestion for a different approach to take. :-) Bryce 21:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australia geo-stubs

Hi Silversmith - I see you added geo-stub to two articles on Victorian towns. If you're doing any more, could you add {{Australia-geo-stub}}, rather than just {{geo-stub}}? It'll save editors a little work later on. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Grutness...wha? 03:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I figured out the australia-geo-stub thing for a couple of them. Will do for all in future. Are you really familliar with stub templates? Whenever I try to load the template page it doesn't want to work. If I'm unsure about which stub to use, could I ask you? I'm already familliar with quite a few though. If it's a biography, should you put the country, or just bio-stub?

There's a full list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types (far too many to remember unless you're a crazy stub sorter :). As far as bio-stubs are concerned, we're only just starting to break them out into countries, but there are a large number of separate-country geo-stubs. If in doubt, you can always try countryname-geo-stub and use previoew - if it comes up as a red link don't use it - if it comes up blue, that's fine. Please don't use any "un-created stubs" (ones that bring up a red Template:red text). if you do, they'll disappear from any of the stub sorting categories and we won't be able to find them! If in doubt a simple geo-stub, bio-stub or whatever is fine, it doesn't take long for us to correct it - the main reason I wrot in the first place was in case you were panning to do a whole load of Australian stubs! And yes, if you've got any questions or problems, feel free to get in touch :) Grutness...wha? 12:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Thanks Silversmith! I really appreciate that you supported my nomination.--Wiglaf 21:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, but what is the image name that you uploaded to commons, so I can replace it in the article? Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:42, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Vatican.jpg

Do you need help adding the copyright tags on this? I almost deleted it today. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 02:59, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Gah, sorry about above. Cache playing tricks with me again. I will deleted the image, and can you note on teh commons page that you took the image? Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 09:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

No worries, will do so now. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue crabs

Hi, just to say that I liked your support, although I'm not a vegetarian. --wpopp 20:40, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Answer

~~While I confess to no longer being interested in discussing these issues with you, and honestly, I no longer place that much weight on your opinion,~~ I would just like to make a quick point of clarification: It isn't very fair to make assumptions like that, particularly when Sam isn't here to defend himself. That is the offical notice board to discuss such matters. Sam Spade read and responded to these "assumptions" on the w-l mailing list, so your point escapes me, unless your intent was to discredit me. El_C 06:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, and I've retracted my response from the page.--Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hewwo! :) El_C 09:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

Please see this and comment if you like. Thanks. El_C 22:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some positive things on Wikipedia are needed

I think your page creation is a good idea. Disputes here are sometimes very bitter and I have been involved in several bitter disputes, mainly related to cults and new religious movements. Andries 16:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too really like this idea. I think that a category for wikipedians active on here and on other projects would be worthwile. For example I believe Uncle G does quite a bit of work at Witkionary and Wikiquote as well as here. Thryduulf 18:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erin: Your Fabdabulous Wikipedians page is so great that it should be in the wikipedia: space instead of hiding in your user space. --Theo (Talk) 18:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go on ... have the courage of your convictions ... move it to Wikipedia:Fabdabulous Wikipedians. I promise to start playing when it is in the project namespace. --Theo (Talk) 19:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silversmith, frankly, I'm not crazy about it, and I'm going to remove myself from the page. I don't mean any disrespect by it. Sango123 seems to be a new, or at least rather inexperienced, user—I'll drop a separate note, and hope they don't feel it as a slap in the face. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 21:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bishonen, for any inconveniences it may have caused (thank you for your frankness!). As she mentioned on my talk page, there are many Wikipedians who should be credited for their contributions but never are, so it may be unfair to create a list of Fabdabulous Wikipedians without (at least) the consent and awareness of a large majority of the community. Sango 123 23:16, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the page is unsuited to the project namespace, it is inappropriate for a user page. I understand the objection that praising the few can diminish the many. This is as true of a user page as it is of a project page. Either way, I think that selected lists of editors have no place on personal pages because positive lists can be used to justify negative lists. Putting such a list in the project space exposes it to open discussion without invoking the "user pages are personal property" argument that so often derails such debates. Meanwhile, let us continue to build the positive by praising individual editors on their talk pages. --Theo (Talk) 12:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox

Would you be so kind as to use the term "Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox", rather than just "sandbox" when letting people know how they can practice editing pages? Gets a bit confusing when you go to a page expecting to find a page you can mess up how you like, and find its somebody's article about a childs plaything! :-D Cheers!! 80.177.152.156

Attack pages

One relevant distinction is between public, advertised pages, and private, personal pages. In the latter case, it can be useful to collect material preparatory to some complex task (such as creating a new article, bringing or defending against an RfC, etc.). The problem only arises when such pages are advertised and made public — partly because they can seem sanctioned and even supported by Wikipedia, but mainly because they involve one person's view, and are thus likely to be unbalanced at best. I'm not sure how that distinction could be built in to policy, and I'd be reluctant to argue for a ban on any creation by Users of a temporary evidence-sorting or article-development page. On the other hand, most users manage perfectly well without such things, so perhaps it wouldn't be too much of a hardship to ask that if people really feel they need something of the kind, they do it in their own Web space, not in Wikipedia's. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Harbour Bridge

Hi Silversmith,

I notice on the current FPC for Sydney Harbour Bridge that you mention the photograph was actually taken by a friend of yours. It is a minor point, but you should probably add that comment to the image description page, along with a statement that your friend is happy to release it under GFDL. Otherwise it is implied that you are the copyright holder and licensor. - Solipsist 20:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Happy page

Oh, and my sister is basically living in Reading - send her my condolences ;-)

You should move your page out of your userspace into the Wikipedia: space - it's good! Dan100 15:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Re: My RFA: Oops

I apologise for not letting you know about my RFA. I think it slipped my mind. Sorry. Here, have some cookies! My treat :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)