User talk:Deville/Archive 1

STOP BeiNG A COMMUNIST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.12 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 December 2005

User_talk:Deville

Hello, Deville/Archive 1, and

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages!
  That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Whoops! Thanks for pointing that out :) Can 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deville, if you're willing to help that's great. Just pick a guy (or woman) you want to write about and do so. The concentration at the moment is on having a page on everyone who has competed in Test, ODI or T20I cricket - although do feel free to write about others that you want to. I think as a minimum it's best to aim for a page with an infobox, references or links to both Cricinfo and CricketArchive, and for the page to be fully categorised (have a look at some that have been done to see what I mean). There's no particular order anything's being written up in - and there are plenty of cricketers left, so don't worry about taking over someone else's patch. Also, do feel free to expand any articles you want too - the aim is to have quality articles for every international cricketer, not just an article for every one.

You don't appear to have signed up on

Hi- Many thanks for formating my table so professionally. I really appreciate it!David Justin 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good short article. I've thought for a long time that it looks bad that we had nothing on Ramadhin, so it's good to see that omission rectified. I hadn't realised when you first contacted me that you are a West Indian fan. I'm trying to improve the articles on

Just to let you know, I've removed the stub tag you put on Mindarus; although the article is short, it contains everything notable we know about him--he's not mentioned at any great length in the ancient sources. I added a category to the article to replace the stub category. --Robth^Talk 03:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I find the Henry Clay example pretty bad - waaay too much box. It's one thing to have the INFO that he served those posts, and it's another to make a huge navigation box about it. Particularly in the cases of representatives, since districts change so much, and the role is—on the broader scheme of things in American politics—rather weak, I don't think we need boxes for those. I also kind of disagree with boxes for senators, since it places too much emphasis on who this person replaced. It would work better if there were only one senator from a state. If you remove House and Senate from Clay's navbox, it halves in size and gives a much more useful list of offices, IMO. But I haven't done much work with navboxes in a while. A bot might be possible, but I'm not familiar with any bot scripting. Sorry if I seem a bit terse, just got in from a long plane flight and am a bit tired, but wanted to check messages before bed. :) Thanks for enjoying my work! I plan to get back to those tables and verify them some time, I'm getting a new reference work next week. --Golbez 17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops my bad. I thought this was uncyclopedia. The item on BDSM seemed a little too coherent. ;)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page related to my articles. Happy Editing. :o) Cookie90 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, I'd just started on them myself. Here's a bunch of ready made infoboxes/stubs if it helps you at all --Paul 14:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded each players page, and made a Visual Basic program to create the files. BTW, bear in mind they're not always perfect, particularly with respect to the birthplaces etc., so some hand editing is usually required. Also CI sometimes omit FC 50's or balls bowled for some reason, but they can be filled in from CricketArchive (when its working)--Paul 15:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winston White - I guess so, I don't know how to get that done, so I just moved on. --Paul 16:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it up AfD.

Hi: I see that you have taken on the Tamil disambig effort. Thanks. I'm sorry that I had put it down for awhile. Much of what was left was cinema related, and I didn't feel that comfortable. Thanks again. --BostonMA 18:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for the pointer to the tools page. I'm a bit intimidated by the instructions, but I imagine the payoff for using the tools are worth it. Perhaps I'll get around to a test drive in a few days. Thanks again. --BostonMA 01:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I finally got around to installing the popup tool. It is quite nice, and wasn't hard to install at all, the instructions seemed so long, but there is really only one step! I shouldn't be such a technophobe. Also, I notice on the bottom of your talk page that someone reverted a Tamil disambig. Says it was inappropriate, but I can't see why. To me, 'Tamil areas' clearly refers to areas occupied by Tamil people, but ... --BostonMA 23:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I may have spoken too soon. I added the dab line in my monobook page, but I'm not sure what new tools that is supposed to give me. Thanks for any help. --BostonMA 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I get it. Yes it does help speed up disambig greatly. --BostonMA 00:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both forms are used quite widely. As

Hey, thanks for removing that bit about a public backlash, I posted a message on the user's talk page who added it, asking for a reputible source. I'll let you know if they provide anything that proves this "addition" --lightdarkness 01:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it sorta sounded like someone with an axe to grind, and in any case I doubt there's going to be a massive public outcry over Disney channel commercials --Deville 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...I saw you did a disambig with popups. I've got popups but can't figure out how to do that. Could you tell me? Sorry if this is a silly request but I reallly would like to learn. Thanks Pschemp | ^Talk 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I got it to work...very neat. I am so not code literate so I really appreciate the help. :) Pschemp | ^Talk 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you not adjust any links to The Nation for the time being. There is disagreement about how the articles should be set up. Most editors who've commented on the matter think that The Nation should be the U.S. periodical, but one editor keeps unilaterally changing it to a redirect to the dab page. We're probably heading toward a listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves. In the meantime, unless you feel confident about predicting the ultimate resolution, any work you do may have to be undone. Sorry for the inconvenience. JamesMLane t c 10:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that

The Nation (U.S. periodical) would probably still exist, but the majority viewpoint is that it should merely be a redirect to The Nation. Your dabs wouldn't be wrong but they wouldn't be ideal, either; we might as well avoid redirects. As for how we proceed, it's already been on RfC. The RfC responses supporting the prior setup did not deter the determined editor from constantly reverting any attempt to deviate from his personal preferences. That's why I think that Wikipedia:Requested moves is probably the next step. JamesMLane t c 16:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Deville, I would appreciate it if you could redraw the flag on the Volkstaat article and save it on the article for copyright purposes (The copy whas e-mailed to me and I think it has no copyright, but I have no proof). Regards Gemsbok1 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deville, sorry I do not have the colour values, just green vertical, orange top horizontal, white middle horizontal and blue bottom horizontal. The colors are the same as the old South African Republic flag, incorporating the orange in stead of the red, the orange being the same as the one used in the old Orange Free State flag. Thank you. Regards, Gemsbok1 06:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deville, thanks for the new drawing, I appreciate your trouble. The green (vertical) should be a shade darker, but otherwise it's great. Thanks again. Gemsbok1 17:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you took the trouble to disambiguate the hundreds of links to

Deville, your answer was spot on. Go ahead with your question. Nabhen 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Dropped by to tell that I reverted this edit because, it is not appropriate in that instance. Thanks. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

Tamil people from within the same article creates a self-link. And yes, Tamil is a disambiguation page. The only possibility is a wiktionary link that explains the usage of the word as an adjective. For now, I've removed the link altogether and reworded the sentence as part of a larger cleanup effort in this edit. I appreciate your other disambiguations for Tamil language etc., Thanks for your effort. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Deville. Could you please modify User:Deville/monobook.js so that it does not show up in Category:Articles that need to be wikified? Thank you very much, Kjkolb 18:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too am in the east coast at the moment. Won't be so for long :-) Tintin (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed some of your edits changing "cassette" to "cartridge", and I'm in two minds about the whole thing.

I understand that linking to disambig pages is frowned upon, but linking "cassette" to "cartridge" without updating the "cartridge" article to explain why is likely to cause confusion amongst people who are (possibly) not aware of the generic nature of the term "cassette". I wrote this, then noticed that cartridge is *also* a disambig page.

That having been said, I've noticed that to all intents and purposes, cassette and cartridge are somewhat interchangeable terms (e.g. the paper cassette in my new printer is not a "little box"), and on reflection would like to merge them properly, leaving cassette as a pure stub).

Any thoughts?

Fourohfour 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the details in design methods. It is appreciated. (67.173.159.109 20:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You have twice redirected the term "franchise" in the Detroit listing to an exclusive right" article. In Michigan, as a matter of law, a municipality may not grant an exclusive right to any cable television provider, MCLA 484.3108, so the link you inserted is incorrect. Please restore back the original term since there is no Wikipedia article on non-excluve franchises and this will have to be sent to a disambiguation page until that article is authored. Thanks. Jtmichcock 02:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the language on the page to clarify that while Comcast currently has the only franchise granted, other cable operators are allowed to obtain such rights. I hope this makes the situation clearer. Thanks. Jtmichcock 12:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you troke Persian from Link disambiguiation page. Many thanks for your contribution in this. However there are still lots of pages linking to Persia. Could you please let me know why you took it off from disambig project? Mahanchian 23:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant Persian and not Persia. Anyway I removed most of them. The problem is filtering all user pages and talk pages. Do you know an easy way to do it? Mahanchian 21:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've been disambiguating mentions of Greek Orthodox to either Church of Greece or Eastern Orthodox. Due to the condition of the article Eastern Orthodox Church, those disambiguations are wrong. Greek Orthodox Church, Church of Greece and Eastern Orthodox Church are three different things. Miskin 10:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is (2) functionally different from (1)? Whatever your answer is, then please articulate why there should be the explicit case where one has to prove n=1,2 by hand and then start the induction at 2? And etc.? In any case, this article contains absolutely zero mathematical content not contained in other articles. --Deville (Talk) 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see no difference between (1) and (2), then you're not paying attention. "Why there SHOULD be"? I never said there "SHOULD" be; I said there ARE very many such cases. I suggest if you don't know that, you're simply not a mathematician. Michael Hardy 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was intended to be comprehensible to all mathematicians.

It was not intended to teach mathematical induction. It was not intended to explain what mathematical induction is, nor how to use it.

What I see is (mostly) a bunch of non-mathematicians looking at the stub form in which the article appeared when it was nominated from deletion, and seeing that

• It was not comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians who know what mathematical induction is, and

• The article titled mathematical induction is comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians, even those who know --- say --- secondary-school algebra, but have never heard of mathematical induction.

And so I have now expanded the article far beyond the stub stage, including

• Substantial expansion and organization of the introductory section.

• Two examples of part of the article that is probably hardest to understand to those who haven't seen these ideas.

• An prefatory statement right at the top, saying that this article is NOT the appropriate place to try to learn what mathematical induction is or how to use it, with a link to the appropriate article for that. It explains that you need to know mathematical induction before you can read this article.

Therefore, I invite those who voted to delete before I did these recent de-stubbing edits, to reconsider their votes in light of the current form of the article.

(Nothing like nomination for deletion to get you to work on a long-neglected stub article!) Michael Hardy 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not expound on the case where one has to do n=1,2 by hand and then start the induction at 3? It's just a matter of indexing.

No -- you're missing the point. The answer to the question above is given in the article. It is not just a matter of indexing. There is no case n = 3 in the relevant sense. It is not just a matter of doing by hand the cases n = 1 and n = 2 and then starting induction at n = 3. That would in no way be analogous. You've simply missed the point. The number 3 is a sum of fewer than 3 numbers each smaller than 3; therefore there is no such case as you suggest. (Of course, obviously, there are cases in which one does the cases n = 1 and 2 by hand and starts induction at n = 3, but that has no relevance to the present article. Those would probably fit into the "first form" described in the article. Michael Hardy 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I appreciate the support, it won't help much unless it goes onto the AfD page, where I'm sure you intended it to go. But I can't tell where it should go . . . Monicasdude 04:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Parsis "Persian people" is like calling descendants of the pilgrims who went over on the Mayflower "Britons". Worse, actually, because a) we don't actually know where precisely the Parsis came from (some sources say (greater) Khorassan because the first migrants were called Khorassanis), and b) its a matter of some twelve centuries. Perhaps you're confusing Parsis with Ur-Zoroastrians? Parsis are Zoroastrians, but the inverse is not necessarily true. But even that would be wrong, since "Zoroastrian" denotes religion, while "Parsi"s are a community of the Indian subcontinent. Alternatively you might be confusing the community with the anthropological definition of Parsi (person from Pars/Fars, or person who speaks Farsi)? -- Fullstop 09:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think a better analogy would be calling those descendents "Anglo-Saxons", or "Anglo-Americans"

actually, no, at least not for me :). IMO, Anglo-xxx, like American-Indian, or Italian-American, has strong implications of ethnicity. "Persian people" on the other hand implies geographic origin - after all, the vast Persian empire encompassed a number of different ethnic groups. If you insisted on a hyphenated term to compare to, the term needed would be "Euro-Americans", or some such thing. :)

In any case, if there is confusion I believe it is not only mine.

true, true.

Both the articles Parsi and Persian people explicitly claim that there is a link, see e.g. Parsi#Definition_of_Parsi and Persian_people#Related_sub-groups.

well, if you read that in Definition of Parsi, then I must have screwed it up badly. :) But, I certainly didn't explicitely claim that there was a link. In fact, I would have thought that the Ethnic definition section would have made the lack of relationship clear. As for Persian people subgroups, well, as you said, others make the same error, but in this case its totally whacked since the article begins with The Persians of Iran are an Iranian people who speak the Persian language and share a common culture and history, and the Parsis are neither Iranian, nor speak the Persian language, nor have a common culture. They do share an (ancient) history though, like most of the people on the planet. :)

Moreover, it is a matter of 12 centuries - heck of a lot of DNA mushing in 1200 years I think. :)

Actually, that Persian people article was once really quite good. In Iran itself, Persia is apparently considered to be restricted to Pars (Fars), whereas outside Iran, Persia is of course equated with everything that once was the Persian Empire. Moreover, "Iran" is a relatively new concept (the name itself is ancient, but it referred to a people, not to a geographic entity), but some people just don't get the distinction, which leads to articles being mangled the way the Persian people article has been.

I am very willing to accept the fact that the conventional wisdom is incorrect on this matter, but AFAIK this is the conventional wisdom.

I'm not sure it is conventional wisdom. Perhaps "conventional wisdom" is a confusion of the Parsi (someone from the geographic region Pars) vs Parsi (someone of the ethnically distinct Indian community) thing. Geographic-Anthropology != Ethnology/Anthropology in other words.

Anyhow, Parsis themselves will say they of persian origin, but they won't count themselves as persian people. Perhaps it really is the time factor - 12 centuries is after all a loooong time. Perhaps its national pride. Perhaps simply because they have traditionally avoided being put into a basket with anyone else.

-- Fullstop 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I'm aware of this as the pages that I edit are usually about ethinc groups. :) However, in this case, the article is about a group of ethinc groups, and I think that when someone in English thinks "Iranians", the most common meaning is "someone from Iran", not "one of the Iranian peoples. Therefore, I think it's necessary for it to link to a dab page. --Khoikhoi 04:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! I don't think I've convinced anyone of anything in awhile. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of these changes -

Hi there, I saw your recent changes to the Japan Series article. I would suggest that only the first time a team name appears on the page should be wikilinked, and the colors in the table seem distracting. Are they related to the leagues? Do the leagues have traditional colors, like in MLB? eae 18:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Gotcha on the wikilinking every occurrence; I'll have to do that to another article I recently added stats to. As for the colors, it's not that I don't like them, they just look more like Easter than like baseball. This is probably one of those consensus things I hear so much about though, so I suppose I withdraw my objections. Although the ideal thing would be if the colors were pale versions of colors traditionally associated with each league. I see they have different logos, one blue, one green; maybe that would look better, what do you think? eae 01:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I've uploaded the logos for the Pacific League and the Central League to those webpages, I'll go back to Japan Series and change the colors to match the logos. --Deville (Talk) 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded Elbow Room by Daniel Dennett. The article could use some work, but this is an important book on free will which I happen to own. I'm not sure why you thought it was nonsense? NickelShoe 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That really was a good question for the cricket quiz, but I'm a big Monty Python Fan, so I'd have kicked myself if I hadn't got it. What I'm interested in, is that I see by your user page that you live in New York, is what exposure have you had to cricket. I mean I'm in the UK, and will be involved in the cricket season, which starts very soon: do you play at all in America, and what sort of TV coverage (if any) do you get? I should, all things being well, be a member of the MCC for the start of the 2007 season, so if you ever want to get the chance to watch a Test Match from the Lord's Pavillion give me a shout. Also interested to see your in maths. I'm currently in my last year of school in the UK, doing, amongst other things, Maths and Further Maths A-Levels (equivalent to APs, sort of). What field of maths are you in, and what exactly does someone who works 'in maths' do? (I want to go into law, so all my maths will probably be pretty worthless, can't really ever see myself needing to do calculus with complex numbers, or use De Moivre's Theory, or see whether I have a pair of isomorphic groups etc., but hey it's pretty interesting none the less). Now I've got to try and think up a good question for the cricket quiz, something not stats related, not quite sure what yet. But I'll think of something. --Wisden17 21:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recent edit seems rash. Granted, hard numbers are not available; the census does not ask about religious affiliation. In November, 2004, the Minneapolis StarTribune reported on the distribution of Jewish residents within the Twin Cities area, and it is substantially in accord with what you deleted. But can you really say it is "unverifiable" that that stereotype is associated with St. Louis Park? Michael Hardy 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your prejudice shows big time.

You cite that my revisions to this page were not verified, when they are. This is a blatant stab at censorship. Even the links can be verified.

You make a slap that I am only citing my point-of-view about certain issues which you never name.

Then I see that you have connections to Louisiana politics (the Old Confederacy and the OLD DEAD CAUSE) and possibly Louisiana families. No wonder you want to say that the page is not verified, because you feel anyone talking about crossed bloodlines has an axe to grind. That this kind of thing is still happening, even in the 21st century, makes me think that Wikipedia is not, repeat IS NOT, what it claims to be. That it suppresses history under the guise of being open to everyone.

66.188.129.20 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)(gab)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad I added a chuckle to your day. Cheers. PJM 18:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Perhaps someday someone will design a neat little cruftometer graphic that AFD partcipants can insert into their comments while discussing the likes of "List of Playboy centerfolds wearing red nail polish ". :) Cheers. PJM 00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deville, and thank you for taking time to vote on my RfA. I understand that my last 6000+ edits were not sufficient to convince everyone that edits like some of my early ones would never be repeated again. Of course, I'll continue working the way I've been since November, and hopefully would develop trust of more wikipedians in future Regards, and I appreciate very much your kind support. deeptrivia (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous does not mean the same as endemic - indigenous means native to an area, endemic means restricted to an area. Guettarda 23:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Deville, I'd really like thank you for taking the time to vote at my RfA. I withdrew due to certain controversies, but I appreciated your vote and hope to see you here in the future. Thanks again. --Khoikhoi 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In biographical references "French" should disambiguate to "France", not to "French people". That is the convention, or it certainly is for other countries, so I fail to see why the French references are being dabbed incongruously. --Mais oui! 05:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you requesting the Monkey-baiting article be deleted ? This article is historically accurate and is part of the baiting wikiproject.

I am going to remove the tag and advise I did so on the articles talk page. If you want to discuss the matter further please post your points at that location. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I mistakenly reverted your removal of the prod tag on this article. Sorry about that. I've reverted your change back again, so I hope no harm done. Best, Gwernol 02:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me. I agree it is an odd and unusual topic that is difficult to verify, this makes it a strong addition to wikipedia as no one else on the Internet has it...only in books -:) Cordially SirIsaacBrock 14:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deville/Archive 1, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I see you are a mathematician! I'm doing a PhD in it at the moment; what was your PhD in? Is there a community of mathematicians on wikipedia that I could join?—Preceding

whats an "envirocruft? it returns no google hits. please explain or remove the nomination for deletion Spencerk 23:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments on my discussion page regarding placing the named article on the AFD list. I now understand that it was improper to do so. However, I simply wanted to bring attention to an article I felt was one sided as it did not discuss some of the possibly hateful things she has written. I now understand the proper route to bring attention to articles that need work. Limbojones 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your kind, advisory and supportive comment on the Jaja Wachuku article. It's been a tasking, but soulfully fulfilling article for me to write. And I'll keep expanding it appropriately. GOD bless you abundantly! (Lord777 12:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

yeah, considering the extent to which Indians use the Latin script on computers, there are few people who can type fast in devanagari, and then, one has to type somewhere else (e.g., [1]), and copy the results onto wikipedia. I think that explains more than anything else why there are only about a thousand articles on the hindi wikipedia. Thanks for your message! deeptrivia (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

m

SirIsaacBrock 19:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you are characterized as a New Yorker so perhaps you might be in the NYC area in June. If you are interested we are having a meetup for Wikipedians in June in NYC. Take a peek at this and please tell any other Wikipedians that you think might be interested in participating about this event. Thanks. Alex756 02:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hello Deville/Archive 1. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Qz Tintin (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I asked a question in your place. Hope that's okay. Tintin (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I am a regular defaulter myself :-) Tintin (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support of my recent RFA, which passed narrowly. I will try to be worthy of your support. Regards, Kaisershatner 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I use the national atlas pictures, although I usually just edit out the legend on the side as well as the title just for clarity's sake. After looking at yours on Louisiana's district I quite like the tables you do with colour showing past represenation - I'm not brilliant with the technical in's and out's of such things - was wondering if you could enlighten me as to how to create the tables / footnoting.

I get the statistics from various state almanacs and such, and a few political journals. Since I'm doing my masters in political theory and districting I've collected resources on demographic information for Congressional districts for most states. I'm back from overseas so I expect I'll be casting my hand at continuing to expand information on congresspeople and their districts. Orchid Righteous

• Yes, a standard would be good. I personally best like the political character sections, but its been an evolutionary process and I'm working on the congressmen simultaneously, and since I work a fair bit + my studies I never seem to get enough time. See
  The fifth district as the most current conception of how I think it should be. I got rid of the Safe v Marginal bar because it became too hard to objectively quantify, and it was entering into the realm of my own opinion. I've always been fascinated in US Politics, possibly because Australian politics is so dull by comparison. After I've done my honours (which Im doing on US political polarity) i plan to do my Doctorate in US government at UC Berkeley. Heres hoping. And yes, I did do the congressional district map in photoshop, it takes a bit of perseverence but it does look good in the end. Orchid Righteous 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Deville, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

Greetings Deville. For your information, I have given evidence that I think that this is a pure hoax. If it were true though, I would have been vociferously campaigning for its retention. By the way,

Dev: An anon IP tried to add a one-liner to the Elizabeth Morgan page, but Musical Linguist reverted it. Could you please take a look and consider re-adding the line. It was about a retrial in the Elsa Newman case. There was also a useful link added to the Stephen A. Friedman page. -- 71.139.165.206 17:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]