Marshman

Taro ponds photo look great! Great addition to Wikipedia! --Menchi 09:51, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a digital camera for about 3 years now and I have a thousand pictures on all kinds of stuff, but mostly plants and insects. Happy to find a use for them!- Marshman

I already moved Composite family. I deleted Fabaceae but didnt move anything there because I wasn't sure what you wanted moved there. Wish you good luck on the nomination... --Jiang 22:33, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm surprised! Anyway, I responded there and moved the legume stuff into Fabaceae. Thanks. - Marshman 22:51, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Grass

Hello Marshman -- Im glad to see that someone of your higher level has come to down to our low level to give some treatment to our low level concepts. While ordinarily I might quibble that the colloquial referent is more important than the latin scientific name, I dont seem to care much either way on this particular subject (how much can one argue about grass?) as long as all the redirects work fine. I would suggest keeping grass as a redirect to pho...whatever... and not as a disambiguation page for "grass=pot" -- which is not enough of a reason to maintain a disambig page. --戴&#30505sv 20:14, Aug 27, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I came on too strong after you switched grass<>Poaceae. I had just done that one and 3-4 others (fair bit of time and difficulty getting sysop help to clear pages so documentations (=Talk) could move over too) for what I thought were "obvious" (my take, not valid) botanical reasons. I can understand what you are saying about redirect vs. disambiguation, but I submit that grass is a definite for disambiguation. Just so there was no doubt, I fleshed it out this morning beyond the grass as lawn / grass as mary jane. Of course others might be better for redirect, but in plants and animals, common names often refer to different things to different people - Marshman 21:26, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pointing out the existence of "false" grass is very useful. It'd be informative to say what family each one belongs to (as you've already done for some), since they are obviously not in Poaceae, and most have no articles (for now anyway). --Menchi 09:14, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. And I will, once I find out all the famlies we have articles going for. But I'll keep returning to the non-grass listing - Marshman 09:17, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

sorry but the floating sidebar on elm is no good -- most screens are simply not wide enough to support it. -- Tarquin 18:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I realize that I have a high resolution screen and therefore will not encounter that problem. But how does the other sidebar on that page not cause an identical problem? The sidebar I suggest (as presented at Elm) is right justified and will expand as far left as needed to accomodate text. Use of <BR> can control that to keep it from filling across screen. - Marshman 19:00, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

it's best to use tables as little as possible; as for the line, I don't really see how right-aligning it is any better. It's only an extra formatting convention we would now have to replicate throughout wikipedia, and it's ugly markup that confuses the novce editor. Simple is best, in my opinion -- Tarquin 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If we do not use table formatting as you suggest, I think a standard <DIV> "right" format with bullets or similar at the top would still be preferable to the current practice of dividing lines and bottom billing for these minor alternatives. Of course a disambiguation page is a better solution, but obviously needs to be used only where there is a clear need to split articles. The problem with the bottom billing once the lead artyicle gets large is that a person looking for the minor word use is not going to scroll down through the text he is not interested in (human nature). - Marshman 19:36, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree that bottom billing is no good, but I think right-align is needless clutter -- Tarquin 19:42, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to reflect your new status. --Uncle Ed 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I will be a credit to the organization %^) - Marshman

Hi, I dropped a reply in Talk:Kahoolawe. - Hephaestos 21:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is a reply to your note on Wikibooks, since you don'y (yet ;) ) have user page over there. There is no problem at all referring to Wikipedia from Wikibooks. I've done it on one or two glosary modules. I'm still treating the use as experimental, hoping to find an easier way to set markup, since right now I use the full URI of the Wikipedia page. A couple of us are lloking for a good method the get this kind of thing into a popup window or frame so that a TOC/Outline as you suggest can be handled better. I'll also post a little different info to Wikibooks. Lou I 19:06, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi :) Why the cap and tt of the subject area (re Fruit and Cuticle)? Its a bit nonstandard and not really necessary, in my opinion...without the extra formatting the article looks a bit more homogeneous. Thanks :) Dysprosia 09:26, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I discussed this on Village pump recently. In the natural sciences there is a need to distingush different uses of common and technical terms by discipline. This may not be unique to the natural sciences, but is especially "critical" there. I'm searching for a way to do this that can be easily picked up by the reader without being glaring. I find the usual "In Botany, the term blank means ...." to be not entirely satisfactory, and difficult to pick out if not at the very beginning of the first line. My rendering of BOTANY is non-intrusive but used as a discipline marker. Supposedly some new changes in the Wikipedia server may satisfy this, but I have my doubts. I find any suggestion of imposing needed structure through formatting always meets with someone's objection, so I'm trying to be conservative. But there are ways to organize thoughts that make the presentations easier to use.... homogeneity is not necessarily a plus; just means less information is conveyed. I appreciate your input. - Marshman 19:56, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Membrane related

I believe you deleted membrane processes? Some nitpicks...

Unless there's a good reason for deletion, please redirect rather than delete - see wikipedia:redirect and wikipedia talk:deletion policy/redirects for background.
You didn't check the backlinks, so you left Membrane Processe as a broken redirect, which was non-ideal. Where deletion is appropriate, it's best to delete all the redirects too. This is an easy thing to forget, I know: maybe there should be a warning, similar to the one you get for deleting a page with page history?
You didn't check talk pages - Talk:Membrane Processe, in this case. I just moved it to talk:membrane. Such talk pages show up on wikipedia:orphan talk pages, and someone has to come along and tidy them up later. Again, easy to forget.
You didn't leave it seven days, and the page wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion (wikipedia:deletion policy).

It's no loss: it sounds like there was nothing worth keeping in the page history, and I could create a redirect easily enough, but maybe worth bearing in mind for next time? Sorry to come over all critical and such - just caught my eye... :) Martin 23:17, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) (insane in the membrane)

No problem Martin. In my defense I did explain my reasoning for not waiting 7 days (my earlier inclination). I did consider Redirect and should have gone that route, at least initially. I did check links and saw Membrane Processe (a misspelled word?) and intended to delete that as well, but -- well forgot. The Talk page went right by me (I'm new at this). Otherwise (that is, forgiving my errors which were errors) I do think it was a candidate for speedy deletion just because it was generated automatically some 18 months ago, had one erroneous edit which caused confusion, and the entire brief contents fit perfectly into an article elsewhere. The history was just this: 1) Automatic Conversion, 2) added "cell" to membrane causing confusion, 3) my initial changes (marking for deletion). I'll continue to learn - Marshman 23:38, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The "automatic conversion" was a conversion between two software versions of Wikipedia - See User:Ryguasu/conversion script AI and Wikipedia:Usemod article histories for more. So it's not really correct to say that it was generated automatically - it was all written by hand. Martin 08:52, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The two lists generated at the site I destroyed and the one I moved stuff to were similar but not identical which indicates hand typing rather than automated machine. Question (you seem to be pretty wise about these things) -I looked for answers but have been unable to locate anything written down: 1) what does the "block" mean after "Talk" (Talk|block) in Recent changes by Wikipedes not logged in? 2) Is there a magic way to revert a page if it is found vandalized or erased (also form of vandalism) or is that done by going back to an older version and cutting/pasting into the edit plate? - Marshman

This is your magic IP-blocking ability. You can also access it via the "special pages" link. See wikipedia:dealing with vandalism and wikipedia:vandalism in progress.
I think the answer is at wikipedia:revert (or it should be)

Martin 09:33, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In re Maui Dollar, I will add more. I believe it is of interest. They have been issued since at least 1975. Most visitors to the island are familiar with them. See: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3046265428&category=3455 and other examples by searching.

Well, I think I misread the article Plantae then. I also have a misunderstanding then algae can't be bacteria and bacteria can't be algae! Luckily I have an excuse of poor high school education for biology :P -wshun 23:23, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Marshman, Highway 50 IS a US highway, but 99 is a state highway. RickK 03:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Boy, you could be right, but that would be a surprise to me. I lived and traveled that highway for many years between Stockton and Sacramento (and as a kid between Sacramento and LA). It is in sequence with (east of) US 101 at the coast. I just checked my atlas and it does have it as a State Route. My suspicion is (and I'm not a Transportation expert) that US 99 was removed from federal authority sometime after Interstate 5 was built and given to CalTrans. We shoud have someone who knows the history weigh in. But I'll concede, it is now State route 99. - Marshman 04:10, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, when I look, I see the same thing happened in Oregon - Marshman

Re: Hawaii and the UN in 1999.

You mentioned on User_talk:Xamian:

That is a wierd factoid; What is UN Article 73? - Marshman 04:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah ... I thought it was interesting too ... it was mentioned a few places on the Internet:

and a few others. I thought it should be mentioned in the article ... I never knew myself.

Xamian 05:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Re: Groin/Groyne - I believe it's wikipedia policy to name pages in international English, not American English. -- Steinsky 12:30, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Not correct. The policy is to be liberal (easy going) where British and American English differ and not push one or the other (International English? No such animal). - Marshman 17:04, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Marsh photo

Dear Marshman, yes, the Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-vs.jpg photo is mine. I took it on July 17, 2003. Actually it is part of a much larger photo (the actual photo is over 5,000 pixels wide). I made the larger version because of the amount of detail. I use a high resolution screen and it pops up fine on mine. I am not quite sure if you are having a problem with the smaller image or the the larger image, Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-s.jpg. I tried to make the smaller version something like 800 pixels large which is within the standard limit but I guess it is still too large for some browsers. If you want to reduce that one, maybe that is the one to go ahead and reduce and leave the detailed one so someone can study the details of the image? That was my intention in uploading such a large image. Alex756 02:09, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that reformating of the marsh photo. The smaller version works for me, but Stan is still having problems with the size of the image. I have a hi-res 1024 screen so any version looks great to me, I defer to those who use 800x600 browser windows to determine compatability. You should see the 3000x1000 px image that I got printed on a 8 x 22 epson six ink photo printer. I can almost hear the frogs in that photo! Alex756 03:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I bet! Amazing how far that technology has come. I reduced it to still a little large, so it could go down if making problems on low-res browsers. It is 600 wide and max recommended is 400. - Marshman 05:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I took the formatting off on purpose. See the talk page. Angela 17:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm confused. Did you try and put the subheaders back in? When I looked at the diff, that is what it looked like, but I just checked and now I can't tell what you did. Angela 17:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I changed the formatting to be consistent with the way it has been on that page. It was (before I made changes) subheaders for each article listed for deletion. I'll go check the discussion (missed that?). Anyway, thought I was helping out; I've no stake in how it should be laid out on that page, and will help put it back how you want. - Marshman 17:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) There was an edit conflict when I did my changes, so we may have both been doing the same correction. I still casn't get up eaerly enough to stay ahead of youu 8^).

Sorry, I got confused. Seems like we were actually tying to do the same thing. Thanks for helping. Angela 18:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So the great debate upon the Lib. of T.B. is now archived. Seems to have been considered as having some vague relevance, best not to identify too personally with the fate of a single page . Abandon hope all ye who contribute here should be inscribed on front page of wiki perhaps. . You are quite right of course, just no use whatsoever ranting when in the long scheme of things ALL will be erased. Just intellectual pride, but thanks for your concern over my blood pressure. Sir T.B.'s particular interest in botany appears to have been fungus and the microscopic in nature. He made many sharp-eyed botanical notes which were last reprinted in 1905. Norwikian 10:19, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not like I have not been there more than once myself, and defending is certainly called for in many instances. It just looked like you were making it a do or die proposition — not a stand (at that point) worth taking. Best to look for work arounds. Otherwise the change you defended to the death just gets made against your wishes next yerar or next decade. Have fun is more important 8^). A botanist? I should have been on TB's side (actually, I think I was)! - Marshman

My comment "AKFD" on VfD refers to the ongoing "AIDS kills fags dead" controversy. Your comment that the title "stupid multiplex" was inherently problematic, even before we start on the article, struck me as yet another reason why we shouldn't have 4 or 5 redirects to the article Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. Onebyone 16:43, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was able to figure that out after I did some searches. I'm still unsure if you are agreeing or disagreeing that starting an article with the word "stuped", in most cases, indicates it is POV (my point), in that calling something stupid usually really means: "in my opinion that is pretty dumb" Anyway, no bigee either way. Thanks for explaining AKFD; sounds like we agree - Marshman 16:54, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Image format

Nice tweak on island, can you do islet too please? --Uncle Ed 19:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I went straight there! - Marshman 20:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Just a minor query re Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. My Birder's Guide to Florida, purchased for a trip to Nova Scotia and southern Florida last autumn gives the area as 10,720 acres, don't know which is correct. Jim