Jump to content

User talk:Stan Shebs/archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is not a matter of "challenging the line between fact and fantasy" as this would be to assert some sort of legitimacy to such a putative line. Rather I am suggesting that such a line is a product of a point of view in motion and that different people see it in different ways. You say things should refer to sources, yet this is not very often done - as you admit. Also when dealing with places like Limehouse which I transverse regularly, I do feel very vexed that blatant nonsense is put up on the page. But I see that rather than moan, it is important to realise that the automated placing of even limited and often wrong information about places in London neverthless serves as a starting point. I find your suggestion that I should exclude myself from this project because I do not have a naive realist viewpoint hardly helpful. Harry Potter

I am glad that you have responded with more candour and are prepared to be more open with your prejudices and personal slurs. Of course I do accept that other people, as myself, do make distinctions between fact and fantasy, but I also appreciate that they do so in different ways and that none of us can ever be sure that the distinction we have made is correct. Indeed this is reflected in how science developed in the twentieth century abandonning the naive realism of people like Kelvin moving towards principals of falsifiability. Nowadays scientist do not claim to grasp reality, but to produce an operational system which can effectively be instrumentalised so as to be useful. Of course, this shifts problems along to the issue for whom and what purpose are these techniques useful. As regard my remarks about Limehouse, my relationship to the place and other features mentioned in the topography is that I walk, drive, cycle and ride the train around those places on a daily basis. Indeed I had just recently been to a cartography conference where the mapmakers insisted on getting of at the Limehouse station even though Westferry was the nearest. I have never considered the Limehouse station to be in Limehouse, I think its in Ratcliffe, but I realise that this is not a question of objective fact but how I and other people who have lived in the area for a long time use language, compared to other people newer to the area who accept the names given to stations by bureaucrats unquestioningly. However when myself and my companion greeted their arrival at the pub with our half-full pints of beer, the reality of the situation became what we like to call "blatant" Any process of distinguishing between fact and fantasy must start at the pre-verbal. When our friends arrived, we were already refreshed, while they were still in need of a god drink after a long walk on a hot day. This variation of visceral subjectivities underlined our friends admission that we were right. HAving made such a distinction, we can then place the preverbal closer to facticity and language closer to fantasy. Already in language we face different ways of understanding reality. This is why, for instance that inuit languages have many different words to describe white, a feature absent in most European languages. Having grasped the cultural specificity between languages, we also have to recognise that within languages there are also substantial variations. The question whether or not the differences within languages varies more than that between languages is hard to answer, because there is such a difference between a gliobal languages like Arabic, Spanish or English and Aymara. When we consider English (which would be wise considering that wikipedia is an English language project]], it is clear that we are dealing with something which such a broad range of people use, with such vast cultural diversity, that any conception as it being homogenous is unlikely to be rooted in fact. Nevertheless, just as the language has spread through the anglo-american imperialist process, it should come as no surprise that there are those who consider such an ironing out of language into a perfectly smooth surface not only possible, or desirable but that they actually consider it an acheived fact. The promotion of such a fantasy is very much to do with notions of hegemony, and whilst I deplore much of Toni Negri's book on Empire at least he sets out to grasp the issues. (For myself I find his scant references to Dante's Monarchia which had such a marked effect on the intellectuals and explorers of sixteenth century England as they prepared to initiate thier imperialist adventures. Dante's influence on John Dee is quite clear and the centrality of this hermetic magician to the iperialist project ia apparent to any person who gains the slightest familiarity with the topic. That the early explorers should mingle their alchemic exploits with their exploring, and bring back strange black rock with the expectation that they could make cheap gold should not raise eyebrows. Likewise that a sailor should encounter a sea monster in uncharted waters is not such an unlikely event (as compared to encountering a sea monster in a docteor's waiting room, for example). I have no doubt that a dedicate group of zealots committed to some sort of cultural hegemony could reagularly treacherise pages, removing anyrthing they considered ideologically unsound, and indeed they might use language similar to your own, in the pretense that they were defending the wikipedia community as a whole, with various rhetocical formulations rooted in that rarest of commodities, common sense. Resistance is futile you suggest, however I suspect you will find that our resistance is fertile, and I doubt that your threat to stir up a vigilante mob to exterminate the contributions of those who you regard as being unworthy of participation is morer rooted in fact than in fantasy. You may spend your time searching the world for islands of deception, but perhaps if you were more aware of your own fallibility in make a real distinction between fact and fantasy - a fallability which makes you as human as the rest of us - you might find your personal interactions less fraught. Harry Potter

Have you always read all the warnings? Seems like you did!

God bless you!

Antonio Not Perfect so What?? Martin

Stan: Its dumb of you to judge anyone for an error. You can ask anyone overhere and they will tell you Im one of the most well-liked citizens here.

Like Mav always says, the most important thing is to have fun here. Remember that.

Antonio Mars and Venus together Martin

Hi Stan, about the List of Republican Roman Consuls -- Most of the names above 145 BC came from an anonymous contributor who added them to the consul page -- look back in the history of that page to see if you can find M. Fulvius Flaccus. The rest come from a URL that fonzy gave me, & may be more authorative. (I'll admit that I haven't done much fact-checking on that list; it's a pain just formatting it, & trying to identify all of the names in it.)

As for your comment, ``I'm half-inclined to make links out of all the consul names, can use to ensure that everything links consistently." One of the points I would make to anyone who wants to work on that list is that every consul was in his day one of the leading men of Rome; in the ideal Wikipedia, there ought to be an article on each one. However, the historical record is not in an ideal shape, & so many of the names in the millenium of that office will remain just that -- names. Feel free to link these names to as many articles as you can manage. -- llywrch 05:38 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just passing through on an obsessive quest to remove links to disambiguation pages ;) Regards -- sannse

I had written a lemma on the Brown thrasher for nl.wiki and wanted to link it here but found it empty. I saw your name linked to the mimid page. I have a question. There were two links (both) empty. One brown thrasher the other Brown Thrasher. which one is correct? Jcwf at nl.wikipedia

Use Brown Thrasher please. brown thrasher looks like a bit of Michael vandalism, should be a redir to the capitalized version. Stan 03:36 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I just looked at your latest changes to the consul list. While I am happy at your choice of authorities (I have a copy of OCD near me & use it often when I make changes to Wikipedia), I hope that you are following up on all of your new links & fixing them whenever necessary. For example, Gaius Caesar is listed as consul at AD 1, & you converted that to a link; however, the link then takes one to Caligula, who was not born until AD 12!

Now you know the reason I have been slow at proof-reading & linking this long list of names. (But I hope this does not discurage you from this work -- it is much needed, & I believe will prove to make Wikipedia a far more useful reference.)

PS -- With my addition, you now have 30K of words in this Talk: page. Not only is it time to archive, but I'm envious of you as I have been on Wikipedia longer, & accumulated fewer comments. :-) -- llywrch 02:16 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Stan, no problem about the consul list. Now you know why my name is the most common one associated with it: it's a tedious job maintaining it, & you're about the only other person who's taken more than a passing interest in it! Hope I don't scare you away from further contributions. --llywrch 16:12 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And about "Galus Sulpicius" -- I don't have any printed references that mention him (the original source for the consul list suggests he may be mentioned in Livy's History in either book 19 or 20), but I know Galus makes little sense as a praenomen. (IIRC, Gallus is Latin for chicken.) I'd say you are right about "Galus Sulpicius" being a typo for "C. Sulpicius Galus", but don't be afriad to wait until you can verify this. -- llywrch 17:21 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

May I ask why you removed my comments about the firing of the Director of the FBI in the comments about Vince Foster's death? It certainly seems pertinent to me. One of the great advantages of Wikipedia is that we have the opportunity to correlate facts that you wouldn't find correlated in other sources. Is there some guideline that you can direct me to that led you to make that edit? In the future, if you find it necessary to remove facts from pages, could you at least make a new "Speculation about the death of Vince Foster" page, and move the information there? Bobby Martin 10:33 am central, June 10, 2003

Hi Stan, u are on to something with the funding suggestion: I have been promised £200 from the Arts Council of England (not Britain). But not for a wikipedia project, unfortunately. It's for a project at the Cartography Conference. So if u want to get involved in a discussion on mapping London on wikipedia, then come along to the Limehouse Town Hall on Sunday for the closing of the Cartography Conference, and i'll be more than happy to give you a cut! User:Qqq

Hey Stan, you're not going to like this but I have found a big problem with zillions of wikipedia pages. Those dealing with fictional characters! As fictional characters are fantasy, why are they allowed on wikipdedia. When I looked at Stan it says "The first three verses are delivered by Stan, with the third actually being spoken in the car itself as he is about to drive off a bridge." I am sure if this were true then Eminiem would have been arrested for making a snuff record. So Stan is not a fictional character, but a real person "in the car itself". I think I better warn Tuf-Kat that you are on the warpath .Harry Potter 22:18 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You'ld also better check Talk:Reconstruction if you are going to rid wikipedia of factoidsHarry Potter 22:36 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In regards to those Middle-earth pages, some anonymous contributor creates them in spurts. I wikify most of them, but have no knowledge of the subjects. I'll look for existing articles in the future, but normally I can barely keep up with his/her additions. -- Notheruser 23:21 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Heh. Avathar :) -- Notheruser 23:32 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)



Hi there! Hey Stan, did you not know that many people do not see meaning as existing in atomised units of words, burt rather are familair with as semantic field whereby new words are continually brought into new relationships with each others. Why not checkout [[John Dee}} he first put the words British and {{empire]] together. When faced with a term like neo-cartesian fundamentalism most english speakers can comprehend the prefix neo, the term cartesian (even if this requires some knowledge of philosophy and science which you suspect you have) and the more popular term fundamentalism. I know this requires mental effort for which you will receive no financial rewards and indeed may lead to a change in attitudes which can be experieneced as tension with the dominant view of social reality in the society you live, but fortunately or unfortunately, this is simply a consequence for all those who seek some sort of Neutral point of view.Harry Potter 22:54 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I have been adding a few articles on military history over the past few days (and I was quite pleased to have two articles of mine linked to from the front page for a day or so). A couple of those articles were ship histories, of which I will have to do more at some point. I have also added quite a few articles that are orders of battle, or contain that sort of information. That means that I think it would be a good idea to define naming conventions for military formation articles more clearly. There is already a wikiproject on the subject, but it doesn't define naming conventions for articles very well.

There seem to be quite a few articles on American formations with the suffix US to distinguish them from the equivalent formations of other countries. You adopted that convention when listing American divisions here. I have adopted that when naming things in my order of battle articles covering US formations, for example, those on the Korean War. I have also done some listings of British formations in World War II, and in those, I have adopted the convention of the suffix British for ground forces units. However, in some of my other articles, I have linked to RAF Squadrons, and for those, I have adopted a naming convention like RAF No.1 Squadron, using the suffix of the service to distinguish the squadrons. That avoids confusion with services like the RAAF, RCAF and RNZAF which have similar squadron naming conventions. Moving on to the Fleet Air Arm, I have been using the convention No. 800 NAS in links. That might be advisable to change, since there are other countries that have Fleet Air Arms with similar conventions.

What do you think? David Newton 11:54 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I've put a piece up on the wikiproject talk page about this, I have also expanded the article itself, although some of the expansion may well more belong on the talk page, as it is rather vague. I've also put a piece on Jniemenmaa's talk page alerting him to what I am going on about. However, according to his own page, he is on holiday until 20 July, and so likely won't respond. Therefore we may well have to thrash things out somewhat ourselves. David Newton 17:38 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You are quite right. I was going a little stub crazy this afternoon. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Magna Culpa.

Hope you enjoy my entries.

Now, with three tildies … PaulinSaudi

Please see my response on the talk page of History of the United States (1945-present). I wanted to assure you that the article is a work in progress and that you will be quite pleased with the discussions pertaining to domestic issues and the Cold War very soon. 172

Thanks Stan. lol FearÉIREANN 04:06 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please see Talk:World_War_II, and note that I have no reason to believe you to have acted out of bad will.
-- Ruhrjung 11:09 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sometime ago, Eloquence complained that the lack of standardisation on dates and spelling (British/American) made the encyclopedia look unprofessional. For obvious reasons we are likely to be stuck with those, but what I though looked particularly amateurish were the 19th century book references and the 1911 BE comment in a 2003 encyclopedia. There are two issues.

  1. The old references are likely to be unobtainable, and for all but the most obscure characters, there must be more recent sources, and I think there is a good case for not keeping these in an article.
  2. In the case of the 1911 ref, I can see the logic of keeping it, although I would point out that the majority of articles, including history ones, do not give sources. What I originally did was hide the ref using <!—hidden text-->, but I never got any feedback even when I deleted instead of hiding.

Having said that I should have had the courtesy to consult you, as an experienced contributor, before meddling. Apologies again, Jim

Very impressed with (and heck I might as well say it, jealous of) your stamp collection.  :) Do you know if there are any of those 1889s left without the overprint? - Hephaestos 04:19 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Alas, it seems the Chicago MoS's references change between editions. I think the ones you indicate on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions are, in the 15th edition,

  • 8.3 (for names vs. generic terms: "They asked to speak with President Bush, but the president was unavailable")
  • 8.21 (for capitalization of titles and offices: "Cardinal Newman; the cardinal").

I feel so up-to-date! <G> -- Someone else 01:00 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I like your history of Icelandic stamps! I've added a comment that nobody knows for sure why the Minister of Iceland changed his mind about the I GILDI stamps, and the story of the fraud over the Althingi stamps. -- Arwel 19:52 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the impression you got. I have respect for you as a scholar. I'm aware of your background from your talk page and your great contributions. And I do have respect for chronicling the history of postage stamps and find the subjects very interesting. Thanks for pointing out your articles; it will be illuminating reading them. I myself have stamp and coin collections--I'm sure nothing compared to yours nevertheless-- but the history of currency and postage stamps is a long-running interest of mine. However, it was just frustrating to hear you insinuate that my contributions are a form of "Marxist" rubbish because they weren't specifically geared toward your interests. 172

I can assure you that there's no "socialist bias". The reference to the Berlin airlift merely illustrated the great amount of ideological capital that the United States accumulated domestically and within Europe due to the airlift. It was mentioned in the context of escalation of Cold War tensions, after all. I also don't refrain from trying to examine what underlies the ideology of any society. If that means that other US interests aside from humanitarian concerns will be dealt with, it doesn't at all mean that the ideology is being derided, just examined critically.

Your criticism of the content detailing the 1950s was, however, correct, when you only take into consideration the article in its present form. I am currently writing a new section on the prosperity of the 1950s. So, viewing the article in its unfinished state, you were correct to come to that conclusion. However, it will soon be corrected.

I have clarified the sentence on the Berlin airlift. Take a look. Thanks for pointing out its lack of clarity.
172

Didn't you see that I fixed the Berlin airlift paragraph? I agreed with you that it lacked clarity, being ambiguous and unintentionally negatively connotative, conveying to you an impression that I had not intended to convey. Please tell me if the rewording accomplishes the task. Thanks once again for pointing it out. I'm glad that you saw it before others might have been greatly offended.

BTW, let's not have the US history pages turn into CNN's Crossfire or Fox's Hannity and Colmes, especially before it's really finished. Remember, you initially though that I had a right-of-center bias when dealing with the end of Detente and the Reagan administration (suggesting that I was conveying a 'Cold War was great' attitude). Some US liberals, for instance, might not like some portions that suggested Reagan's role in the end of the Cold War. And I'm going to present some problems with the New Deal later on. I'm just trying to steer clear of partisan, politicized debates really by sticking with a more historical framework. 172
I got your last message. Thanks for reading the article so thoroughly. That paragraph was a huge gaff on my part, and I probably would have never noticed it without your assistance. I'm glad that we have reaced a wording that satisfies us both.

I got your message about the paragraph on "post-Cold War triumphalism." This message was pretty alarming. Someone of your caliber should be aware that there are many skeptical of the idea of the "victor's history of the Cold War" who do not favor Soviet communism. The "triumphalism," "end of history," "new world order of liberal democracy" account has been questioned by non-Marxists and non-communists. A great deal of academics quite hostile to the Soviet Union still insist that the United States' status has been declining steadily throughout the post-1945 period and that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a mere distraction. Others argue that thee has been a shift since the 1980s toward Japan, China, and East Asia. Many postmodernists see the post-Cold War era as "Enlightenment's wake." "Triumphalism" was the general mood of Reaganite hawks and even the public. But it's not a historiographical consensus yet.

By the way, I don't know how you got the impression that my contributions to the history of the Soviet Union had such an ideological tilt. I believe that the topic discussed in greatest depth in the post-1945 article was the stagnation of the administrative command economy and its contribution to Russia's wretched state right now. If I wanted those articles to convey a pro-Soviet tilt, I must have failed miserably. Furthermore, there are many academics critical of some aspects of Russia's reform strategies that did not favor Soviet communism, such as Joseph Stiglitz or Marshall Goldman. If anything, I'm in their league. It is a fact that living standards have deteriorated since the collapse of communism, but this is something acknowledged by all experts, with those in the majority arguing that it's an inevitable result of indispensable structural reforms and stabilization.

Once again, I'll tweak the working of this paragraph since it could give some the wrong impression. But the paragraph was merely arguing the contrasting impacts of the end of the Cold War, with Americans empowered by a sense of triumphalism with the general attitude of defeatism in Russia, where the public is generally content with their new found freedoms, but upset about the collapse of "Soviet power" and the optimism of their superpower past, which was characterized by achievements such as the space program (and I know a great deal of staunchly anti-Communists from the former USSR who are quite proud of such achievements) and steadily rising living standards from 1945 to the early 1970s.

So in short, the article, while still unfinished, actually conveyed points emphasized by all these diverging historiographical interpretations that I listed. Using one particular framework, including the "end of history one," although it's the most popular among non-academics, wouldn't be NPOV. 172

I believe 172s documents are brought in from offsite and pasted here, which is why they are the way they are. Pizza Puzzle

Please ignore the slander coming from the user above, who has been banned under the names Lir, Vera Cruz, Susan Mason, Dietary Fiber, and many others.

You're quite astute; Braudel has been a great influence on me for a number of years, although I disagree with some points. But there is not Braudeleque narrative for Soviet history. If anything, I'm closer to Marshall Goldman, Paul Gregory, and Robert Stuart when dealing with the post-1945 period. And if you reread parts I and II of the Soviet history, you’d see that I'm referring to very well-known, well-respected, and "mainstream" Soviet and single party state specialists.

In fact, I contend that my writing on the Cold War and Soviet history comes far closer to NPOV than the typical Western accounts, which have the overtones of a victor's history.

I also will get around to summarizing Soviet history someday, for the sake of that "college freshman" about whom your concerned. The History of Germany will be a model for all the historical series on which I've been working.

172

The Braudel idea is excellent (and sounds far more interesting than the broad drudgery with which I'm involved now), but I should embark on another project until the US history, Great Depression, and New Deal series are complete. Hopefully, when all this is done, we can work on something. But the US history series is very urgent especially. 172

Here is a "temp"; don't let it go to waste. New_Imperialism (temp) Some text, such as the long "definition of imperialism" paragraph at New Imperialism can be moved to imperialism -- other text has been moved to theories of imperialism -- topic specific text on the Panic of 1893 or the Congo Free State or Cecil Rhodes...or....or...etc can be reinserted at those appropriate locations. I urge you to read New Imperialism very closely and you will find some amusing things (not to mention a migraine headache). Pizza Puzzle

Thanks for your feedback. I'll admit that I have not often run to formatting problems from the intra-paragraph line breaks (except where using any of the indenting features - I try not to accidentally insert linebreaks there). And, while you're right that the diff feature highlights changes in red, I have two dislikes with the current system that the intra-paragraph breaks seem to minimize. 1) After making a minor edit (like a spelling or punctuation fix) in the middle of a really large article with long paragraphs, an intra-paragraph break can reduce the lag time a lot. (I routinely work on dial-up so response and download time is important to me.) 2) Intra-paragraph breaks make it easier to see what happened after moving whole sentences and paragraphs around to improve the readability and flow of an article. The existing system will highlight entire paragraphs in red after that kind of change - not very helpful. I will try to be even more sensitive to whether it's created a format problem, but I'm reluctant to give up what seems to be a useful tool. Rossami 15:18 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Figured the direct link didn't matter since the link goes to link to IBM anyway. Am busy trying to direct link. Not gonna argue with you, just giving my original reasoning. Dmsar 21:00 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it would useful if you read the discussion on the talk page before reinserting a diagram which has no connection with the text and the discussion of Ley lines drawn from the work of Watkins. Currently I am going through the arguments which Alexander Thonm, produced in his book Megalithis Sites in Britain, which must be one of the best books on megalithis alignments. Although the centre of his argument is some sort of Quantum and an analysis of flattened circle stone circles with the suggestion that there is a megalithic yard of 2.72 feet. he uses statistics and careful site measurements, instead of the unholy alliance of spurious ley hunting and spurious statistics which you seem to being promoting.Harry Potter 23:40 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive comments about the photos I uploaded. All the photos are in copyright and were released under the GFDL by the photographer. I provided the relevant information for several but..it was late..and I figured I'd do the same for the rest sometime today. Kat 17:09, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the lists. Look what i found...

http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/legions.htm  :))
see you around... Muriel

Hello, I just reviewed my additions to concentration camp and noted that they went the wrong side of readdition by an anonymous IP of text that you have reverted out. Please correct this if you feel that it is appropriate. Thanks -- Alan Peakall 16:44, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Stan! I just made a proposal for reorganizing the Roman topics. You can find it in Ancient Rome Proposal. Can I have your opinion? Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 08:09, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

  • Welcome back! It's good to have somebody else interested in romans around :) I created a stub for princeps senatus. Do you have any idea on where to get material to compile a list of them? Cheers Muriel Gottrop 12:35, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the Arrow mashing Stan. I've reverted most of it, but left some for further reference. As you note, most of it was just plain wrong. I looked up the author on the 'net (only took two googles) and found a host of postings on the US destroying Canada's economy etc. He's also running for office, with postings on the electons' canada site complete with spelling mistakes. User:Maury Markowitz

Fixed the disambiguation of Mount Rainier, per your suggestion -- hike395

Thanks for moving Ferdinando Gorges. I forgot about the Sir/Dame rule. sugarfish 07:01, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect on Crater of Diamonds, I debated about which it should be. Ark30inf 04:20, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Stan. Would you mind having a look at User:80.225.73.197;'s contribution history? This anon made a substantial number of edits today, which seemed on first sight to be OK, but included at least three complete fake articles (see vandalisim in progress for the details). Quite a few of this user's edits remain intact: would you mind running your eye over the fish-related ones and make sure they are OK? Thanks, Tony (Tannin 14:28, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC))

Thanks Stan. Yes, they looked OK to me, but then both of his fictional bird articles looked legit enough that two or three people came along highlighting and and fixing spelling errors without noticing. Beautiful fakes - but dangerous stuff because of that. I figured that we better have a proper fish expert look at them. Cheers -- Tony

Why did you remove the fish common names I added? I can assure you that all such fish were genuine, and a quick google would confirm this. 80.225.etc

Hey Stan, I took the pictures of some places in Houston. I plan to upload them onto Wikipedia tommorrow. I will get more pictures later.

These are the pictures that I have:

WhisperToMe 03:43, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just uploaded a picture of downtown Houston. :)

I hope you like it. I'll get the rest very soon. WhisperToMe 22:23, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Stan, I can't help you on the airline information. As you may know I specialise in putting pics onto Wikipedia and don't do any writing so I don't need much info, just enough to identify the aircraft.

Just like you I simply put the registration into Google. For UK registrations the UK Civil Register is on the net at: http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aircraft_register/ginfo/search.asp

All my photography is done at Heathrow and Bristol, where I don't see any exotic airlines. Sorry!
Adrian Pingstone 18:38, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted Titus and moved the other thing there. I was really confused why you were listing it on VfD. Then I realised you are not a sysop. Why not? I am going to nominate you. I always thought you were one. Angela 03:35, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)

Sysop promotion

You're now a sysop. I predict you will now feel the weight of responsibility falling heavily upon your shoulders. But you will also experience an upwelling of strength to carry that burden! --Uncle Ed 23:30, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey Stan, I noticed you're working on a List of garden plants. I doubt you've memorized every garden plant in alphabetical order. Please site your source so that people can go to the source while you continue to move the list to wikipedia. Thanks! -- Tjdw 02:45, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, just a friendly note: Maybe you could avoid linking the same word more than once in an article (eg. Tanganyika). It just makes it look more cluttered without adding anything. Thanks, --snoyes 21:36, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Vfd warnings

Hello. I see that you removed the Vfd warning from Varia. Maybe it was just an accident... I've put it back, anyway. The warning is to tell people that the page is listed on Vfd, so it should be there as long as the page is listed there. Thanks! -- Oliver P. 23:31, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stan_Shebs/archive_2&oldid=16203465"