Jump to content

User talk:Cactus.man/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Block of 86.31.254.14

Just wanted to commend you on your speedy block of this vandal. No response needed. Newmhost 13:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

RevolutiondeMai

with all due respect to your removal at AIV, Revolution de Mai is a vandalism only account. All contributions at the high school page have been either vandalism, or non-notable vanity. Also vandalized my user page, and another subpage of it, and has been coordinating with at least 1 other registered user and an IP to both personally attack me on my talk page, and on the article talk page. RevolutiondeMai should receive an indef block as a vandalism only account, whereas the other IP's should be blocked temporarily as IP vandals. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

With equal due respect, on checking this new user's contribs it had only 18 edits, 12 of which were additions of nonsense / nn vanity content to the high school page which you reverted. This caused him to go on a childish vandalism spree on your user page and sub pages which had been reverted, and for which he had been warned. There had been no further vandalism for an hour when I checked and I disagree that this can be classified as a vandalism only account. The entry on WP:AIV referred only to RevolutiondeMai, no mention of other users or IP's that you claim were personally attacking you. Blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive, and on the evidence available would have achieved nothing. I will look into the other personal attacks you mention. Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Cactus.man, if you get a free couple of minutes, please review my talk page history, particularly the last set of personal attacks that I've just removed. They're coming from the anon IP's that are editing that page with Revolution de Mai (although not RevolutiondeMai his/herself). They're continuing to attack myself, Wesley Pinkerton etc. I've removed their personal attacks both on the talk page for the article, and here. It's getting absurd at this point. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually take that back...RevolutiondeMai just left a "Kill all the jews" comment on my todo page. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello Swatjester, I have reviewed your talk page history as you requested, and the only dubious edit I can see after the earlier spats is this one by 131.194.230.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Not something I would characterise as out of control, just the everyday nonsense we all get for keeping things in order. I have left a strong warning on RevolutionDeMai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) talk page after his latest edit to your to do page. Any more nonsense like that will incur a lengthy block. Let me know of any more problems. Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More CFD fun

Request for comment:

I have pointedly ignored the rather bitter aside regarding my good self, but I don't mind telling you that I get a tad p'd off with the low tone adopted by my detractors. Is such behaviour really conducive to the best interests of Wikipedia? Every single Scottish cat that I, or anybody else, has created is a subcat of the appropriate UK cat: a fact which the anti-English/Scottish/Welsh/NI cat campaigners choose to ignore or obscure. (While you are there, you may want to have a look at the :Category:Cinema of Northern Ireland deletion nomination. I really do wonder about some folk sometimes.) --Mais oui! 08:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Hello, I would like to draw your attention to the plight of DYK again. This morning, I noticed that the template had not been updated for almost two days. I posted a notice on Main Page talk and someone updated it, but very arbitrarily, picking some of the newest nominations which he found interesting and leaving the older ones to become stale. Probably an early update is required this time, so that the items from April 20 and April 21 wouldn't be lost? What do you think? --Ghirla -трёп- 16:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ghirla, yes you are right again and it should be updated to avoid losing the older suggestions. I have been holding off updating this myself because I have a self-nom in there and don't want to be seen to have bias in favour of my own submissions. Why don't you give me a list of the older articles you think should be listed and I will prepare and post them later tonight? --Cactus.man ✍ 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. If you ask me, you shouldn't hold off in this case. User:Gurubrahma regularly updated the template with self-nominations and I don't remember that anyone said it could be improper. So please be bold and update the template when you think it's time. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Nonetheless I would be interested to know what articles you would promote. You make many, many nominations and are extremely active in writing and finding good articles to be featured on the main page. You obviously have a "nose" for a good DYK item. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I left some comments on template talk. If we exclude questionable noms, we have The Night Attack, Willow Tearooms, Ford Mustang SSP, Battle of Gdynia and Felix Landau left. And only article has a free image to illustrate the template. Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 19:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good initiative from Ghir. I was thinking the same. --Candide, or Optimism 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


I award this DYK medal to Cactus.man for his efforts to keep DYK afloat. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Willow Tearooms, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know...

DYK Stewardesses

Thanks for the DYK, it's an honor ... but can you correct the grammar? It currently says "...first year it's of showing in theaters". It really should be "first year of its showing in theaters" - reverse its and of, and remove the apostrophe. I'd do it myself, but it looks like you need admin powers or something. Thanks again AnonEMouse 07:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OOPS, thanks for pointing out the mistake. I've fixed it now. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Reaper, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know...

  • Hi Catcus Man - thanks for updating DYK, and thanks for leaving me the message that Cedric Griffin made it on. It looks like you started with 28 April entires, rather than the 27 April entries. I'm just curious as to whether any of the 27 April entries can be added before they hit the 5 day mark. I'm hesitant to make an update because I have a self-nom on the list (The Masked Rider) and I don't want to do anything that may appear improper. Best, Johntex\talk 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Johntex, my apologies for the late reply but I received a message from Trident13 just five minutes after yours. When I got the new messages flag this morning I just checked the new section at the bottom and missed yours (must remember to check the history when new messages flag up after an overnight break!). Anyway, the 27 April entries just didn't seem to be as interesting to me, so I started with the 28th April entries and wanted to get a good balance of articles. I'll have another look and see if I can do an update before midnight UTC as they would still be just eligible. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cactus Man - thanks for the message. It may be that none of the ones from the 27th are worth putting up. As I said, I wrote one of them so I don't want to let my bias get the better of me. Actually, the article I submitted is about the mascot of a rival school to the one I attended. So, if it doesn't get picked I can either blame my prose, or I can let this be validation of my belief that the rival school and all their traditions are very boring! I'm especially glad you are taking a look since you live in Scotland - there needs to be a good mix of articles that have a chance to appeal to a world-wide audiance. I tend to work on articles related to the US, and I am sensitive to not flooding DYK with US articles. Best, Johntex\talk 16:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Escher image

I came across the supposed image for Metamorphosis III uploaded in February; this image is actually the same as the one in Metamorphosis II, just larger and laid out differently. Metamorphosis III is about twice as long. There's a Quicktime version here at http://www.studioargento.com/optical/meta3.html but I haven't come across a version suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProphetM (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out, I think you're correct. I have managed to source 9 individual pieces of Metamorphosis III from the official Escher site (LW446A.jpg - LW446I.jpg inclusive) which I will combine in a similar manner to the wrong image. I'll transfer that over to Metamorphosis II as I think it's better for the article than the one that's there right now. Thanks again. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for the notification on the page on Rollie Free appearing on 'Did You Know?' Well chuffed - I hope we share a dram or two some time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trident13 (talk • contribs)

No problem, it was just too interesting a fact to leave out :-) A wee dram or two sometime would go down well. !! --Cactus.man ✍ 06:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the discussion on the Rollie Free talk page. This is not my area, but if the Photo really is significant as one of the most famous photographs in motorcycling history, then we would have a pretty good fair use claim, as long as the article makes this point and discusses the photograph. See the {{HistoricPhoto}} template for further details of the appropriate image copyright tag. The photograph would definitely benefit the article. Hope that helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.254.58 (talk • contribs)

Swim suit motorcycling photo

Cactus - thank you for your investigation of the above photo of Rollie Free. I agree with your analysis - only one, historic, low res. I will give you the honour of placing the phot on the article - your work! Best Regards --Trident13 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for the update. It seems that nobody cares about this wretched template except you and me :) --Ghirla -трёп- 15:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the "Wretched Template", the previous regular updaters seem to have vanished? I'll try to do my bit, but it'll probably not be more than once a day or so. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) PS, forgot to say thanks for the recent DYK medal :-)
I care. I think DYK is wonderful. You just need to be an admin to do an effective job of updating it, so give me a few days and I'll (presumably) be more able to easily help out. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Teresa Bagioli Sickles

Thanks for picking that one, and it is particularly gratifying that it was selected during my RfA (in which one voter voted neutral for "not enough mainspace edits"!... ya, OK... 300+ different articles touched, 11 DYKs out of 11 noms... (this one took 11 edits to go live but I've gotten DYK quality articles with only 5-6 edits) not enough mainspace edits all right!) and thanks for your support in my RfA. I'll be after you and Gurubrahma soon to show me the ropes on doing DYK, it's one of the reasons I stood, I want to help there. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem picking Teresa Bagioli Sickles, quite an interesting topic and juicy facts, even if it did take a few efforts at the correct wording. I hope you dont mind but I tweaked it a bit further, that's one of the trickier bits about updating DYK, balancing the word length for a good fit on the current main page. You'll be "pleased" to know that it's been vandalised twice already!! It was also a pleasure to support your RfA, looking forward to welcoming you aboard, even though I'm still a newbie myself. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
(Keeping the thread together, don't worry, I'll see your comments here, I watch). I don't mind a bit! I thought it was a good hook/wording tweak, getting it even tighter was goodness. I agree that getting the hook right is a large part of the battle. For my views on vandalism of DYKs and DYK in general, see User:Lar/DYK. Two silly vandalisms is a small price to pay for the critical correction to the identity of Lorenzo da Ponte, (who she lived with as a child) that some anon did for us. I looked and looked but did not find it, and the sources were mute, but with that link it's obvious that's who it was. Like Gurubrahma says, DYK is a way to get articles better. and it works. Which is why I'm such a big fan of it. Happy editing! ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, keeping the thread here, I absolutely agree with you about the improvement potential that DYK exposure gives articles. I have seen it at first hand since I first started submitting nominations, and especially since I became involved in updating the template. My initial estimate is of at least a 3:1 benefit ratio, probably more. I also saw the improvements that Teresa Bagioli Sickles had received, but the first edit after featuring on DYK was puerile vandalism unfortunately :-( Such is life. And you are correct that wording of the DYK entries is important, something I am a bit of a pedant about. But it will be good to have another pair of eyes and hands, as well as a brain, to lend a hand to keeping this up to date (Ghirla is becoming very upset over the lack of maintenance). --Cactus.man ✍ 17:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI - The link to Philip Barton Key in the DYK entry points to a disambig page. The person you want is Philip Barton Key (U.S. District Attorney).
That is my fault. But I can't fix it. Hopefully it will be fixed fairly shortly though. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, the gaslight link in the Chased-El Synagogue entry points to a disambig. The entry you want is Gas lighting.
Epolk 21:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anders Uppström

Hello Uppland, thanks for creating the article and for nominating it for DYK. I see there has been a bit of difficulty in agreeing a suitable wording for the entry, which is a shame because it is a nice article and I would like to see it feature. I think the problem is the length of your suggested wording. Can I suggest the following compromise wording, with the possible inclusion of the image from the article:

  • ...that Anders Uppström's 1854 edition of the 6th-century Codex Argenteus was missing ten of the original leaves for over two decades, and that these were then returned to him in 1857 by a dying library janitor from his deathbed?

Let me know what you think. Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but with your version one gets the impression that it was the edition that had been missing ten leaves for over two decades, rather than the manuscript (the edition only missed them for three years before the leaves were returned). "Dying... from his deathbed" also introduces some redundancy. I have now suggested a variation on Ghirlandajo's last version on the Template talk:Did you know page. up+land 18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I think your new wording is excellent and I have commented on the DYK talk page. I understand what you say about the impression that the publication is missing the original leaves, but this is how the article currently reads to a non expert reader (which includes me). "His edition contained only the 177 leaves then extant .... " Perhaps you could revisit the article and adjust as necessary. Anyway, I think it will make a great DYK entry. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK correction needed

I double checked the date Dmitry Pavlov became General of the Army (USSR) and it turns out this was actually on February 22, 1941, according to this website at least (unfortunately, I don't have a print source). So the year on the main page notice is off by one. Could you fix this? Note that in my nomination comment I did not add the year as I was not 100% sure. Balcer 22:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem is now solved. The correction was put in by User talk:Piotrus. Balcer 22:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Only got your message this morning, but thanks to Piotrus for doing the fix. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was Sleep Terror (band) deleted?

They are an actal band. The entry was not self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evil0verl0rd (talk • contribs)

Hello Evil0verl0rd. This article was tagged {{db-band}} for speedy deletion on 11 April by User:Jdcooper. I reviewed the article as it was at the time and agreed that it did not assert the notability requirements set out in WP:MUSIC for inclusion in Wikipedia. As such, it was a valid deletion under Wikipedia's Speedy Deletion Policy. I hope that helps. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello Cactus.man/Archive 4, and thanks for supporting me on my recent request for adminship! It has succeeded with an unanimous support of 67 votes, so that I am now an administrator. Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page should you wish to leave any comments or ask for any help. Again, thanks a lot, AndyZ t 22:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, Cactus.man/Archive 4, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 05:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Catherine Cranston

Well it was a long time in gestation with a lot of diversions on the way, but that's Catherine Cranston put together. There's a bit of overlap with Willow Tearooms#The early tearooms and I pinched a line of yours, it strikes me that the Kate article could be linked from there with a see main, and detail reduced a bit in that section. There are also some discrepancies where the Kate sources seem pretty solid, will try to go over the Willow Tearooms article sometime. You'll note The Dug Out: info from books I have. Enjoy, ...dave souza, talk 23:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article Dave, nice work. Great photos of Kate and the waitresses as well !! You should nominate this on DYK. I have added a {{main}} link to the Willow Tearooms, but will let you do the trimming and fixing of discrepancies as you have the hard copy sources to hand. I have found a bit of a problem with the elevational study for the Willow however. It looks like the drawing was not by Mackintosh, more likely some architectural student, as the source site has numerous other studies of various buildings all in the same style. It's probably a copyvio therefore and I will remove it meantime, pending possible agreement for use. You don't have any suitable Mackintosh elevational drawings in your printed sources do you, I haven't found anything online? --Cactus.man ✍ 07:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Glad you like it, sorry about the Dug Out drawing being dodgy. I'm a bit concerned about the nice pictures of Kate and the waitresses, they were taken around 1903 and I'd thought that made them public domain by now, but from subsequent re-reading of the advice this may only apply to US publications, and I've no evidence of when and if they were published there. Did some further investigation and the photographer apparently died in 1946, which could rule out these and other nice photos of the Willow Tearooms for another decade. Can you advise? In the meantime will add a nice CRM poster instead of the waitresses and remove the dugout drawing. ...dave souza, talk 09:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Woa Dave, woa, keep Elfie on a tight rein there!! Leave everything as is for now. The problem is not with the Dug Out drawing which is a valid Mackintosh published original (pre-1923), but the main facade elevation. I have removed it meantime. The original Miss Cranston and waitress photographs are probably OK, but I will do some further reading on the issue of dates of "publication" v "creation" in relation to US / non-US sources. Will get back to you. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much, have listed it on DYK along with a miniature of the portrait in hopes that's OK. Will now look through the books for ext. elevs., but not too hopeful. ..dave souza, talk 11:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Hmmm, who'd be a lawyer? I usually refer to the Cornell public Domain Guide for these things, but the key question here, as you say, is probably "were the images published?" No doubt you have read the same or similar material. It is probably reasonable to take the view that these photographs were published, at least in the UK at the time, as a result of the press interest that the new tearooms seem to have generated, particularly the Willow Tearooms. That being so, I think there is a pretty solid case that they are public domain as works published outside the US prior to 1909. I'm not sure if your book sources shed any further light on the question of when they were actually first published, if at all? All thoughts appreciated. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Right. Firstly, no sign of a drawing, but a photograph of the elevation with reasonable verticals / lack of perspective problems "Provided by T & R Annan and Sons" which as a commercial photographer might be expected to publish, given international interest at the time. They're also credited with other pictures which, like the portrait and waitresses, were by J. Craig Annan, son of the photographer Thomas Annan, Hope this helps. What I read was the guidance on Wikmedia, which tends to leave me more baffled than when I started. ..dave souza, talk 12:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
From what you say Dave, I think these images are almost certainly Public Domain, as images published before 1909. I would leave the excellent Miss Cranston images as they are, and substitute the Willow Tearooms facade image with your historical one. But, as they say, IANAL --Cactus.man ✍ 12:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Voilà! Image:Willow Tearooms JC Annan.jpg. It's informative, but the original was on plain slightly textured paper, so it hasn't the definition of the others scanned from images on better paper. I note you've rearranged the images on the Willow Tearooms page, so will leave it to you to decide which images suit best. Thanks to your request a book turned up that I'd forgotten about, with Margaret MacDonald's menu design. Amusingly "TheWillow Tearooms" have pinched it for their logo, and are selling "Charles Rennie Mackintosh gifts" including "china mugs" etc with a Margaret MacDonald image on them! So it goes. Have tweaked the Cranston page a bit, adding that image and a CRM poster. ...dave souza, talk 17:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the JC Annan image Dave, it's absolutely perfect for the job, which is great as the copyright holder for the previous drawing has declined to grant permission for use. I've added the photo in to the facade section of the article. I'll leave the other adjustments to your fine judgement. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the Reverend John Thomson

I think you've done a great job with the Reverend John Thomson article. My attempt to get Jock Tamson's Bairns deleted failed, but I don't really mind, seeing as it led to someone who so obviously deserved an article getting one. Alls well that ends well, I suppose.--Nydas 18:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nydas, thanks for your message about the Rev. It's funny how these things work sometimes, but when I arrived at the Jock Tamson's Bairns AfD page, what stood out for me was all the great research you had done, flagging up the Rev in the process ... an article crying out to be created. As you say, all's well that ends well, and another jigsaw piece is placed. There's plenty more material in there to be exploited such as the link to curling, and the Jock Tamson's Bairns article needs to be expanded with more information on the source, the link to the Rev and cross references. Keep up the good work. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Am sore tempted to try to find a way of linking The Skating Minister in somehow, though it's a bit of a tenuous connection...dave souza, talk 19:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
There's definitely a connection in there somewhere. Duddingston Loch is well known for skating and curling in the 19th century. The Tower is also reputed to be where the rules of curling were first written down, and Thomson was a contemporary of Raeburn, mixing in the same circles. Warrants further research. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought he might be a predecessor, but wrong kirk. Still, it'd be good to give the nonchalant Rev Walker a mention. ..dave souza, talk 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cactus Man - Nice job - how do you produce well-crafted articles so quickly? Love that romantic (?) murky orange pic! Reluctantly, I feel I have to express scepticism about JT as origin of the phrase. --HJMG 08:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to link to this! (So my last message was stupid.) Really, I don't know - but it would be great to find some solid evidence! --HJMG 09:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There's quite a bit of variation on web sources about whether or not the phrase is attributable to him, and how it came about. I tend to trust material from the Gazeteer for Scotland which attributes it to him, albeit rather vaguely. If you can track down anything definitive that would be great. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This article is growing well! Yes, I agree that the Gazeteer is a high quality source of info. They seem to have used more than one book on JT as a source. (Would I believe it if I saw it in print? Who knows! "Often credited" is a nicely-balanced phrase.) And I do hope this will be chosen for the DYK place. --HJMG 09:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think "often credited", whilst potentially weaselly, is a valid phrase when there are sufficient sources with variable descriptions and dispute over validity. Moving it into a trivia / anecdotes section also diminishes its significance in the article. There's probably a fair bit more information that can be added to the main body of text, so please chip in :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 10:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me that DYK is crying out for a nomination on the lines of ....The Reverend John Thomson, minister of Duddingston Kirk near Edinburgh and distinguised landscape painter, is often credited with originating the famous Scots adage "We’re aw Jock Tamson’s bairns"? Any advice? ..dave souza, talk 12:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your DYK wording sounds pretty good to me, perhaps with a slight tweak to clarify that he was a former minister. Please go ahead and add it if you think it's worthy. I also like your addition of the community website anecdote about the numerous, variously sired children giving rise to the phrase! He was obviously a randy old bugger for a Reverend
I've also sourced some Scotsman material that provides a bit of a link between Raeburn and Thomson, plus a nice quote from Turner: "By God sir, I envy you that piece of water". Still working out how to work it into the article properly, so the skating Rev may yet still make an appearance - watch that space :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 12:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ta, have added it with an indication of when he was minister: the article's more than a stub though some improvement is possible, the subject seems to me to be eminently worthy (and randy!) ...dave souza, talk 12:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Dave, I've expanded the Reverend John Thomson article a bit and worked in a reference to the Skating Rev. in a trivia section based on the strong connections with the Loch, studio, skating, curling etc. Would be grateful if you could give it the once over and comment on the worth of inclusion. I am worried that it's still too remote from the article topic. Comments welcome. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Have read the expanded version as requested, and it's looking good. A couple of minor comments:

  • "The two artists went on to collaborate" - which two? presumably Thomson, and Turner or Lauder?
  • The "Trivia" section might be renamed "Anecdotes"
  • "One version attributed to Thomson" would more correctly read "One version attributing the adage to Thomson", but I've not thought of how to relate that to the rest of the sentence.

The reference to the Skating Rev. looks fine to me and is useful both to link the local connection, and to dispel possible confusion. Wikipedia is not paper! ...dave souza, talk 09:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, good advice as usual. I've tweaked the article as necessary, and you're right, Wikipedia is just electrons and magnetic storage. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Russian Futurism

Thanks for your warm words. It seemed strange to me that WP had no article on such an important subject. As for the Victory Over the Sun, I would like to see my stub expanded sooner or later by someone more knowledgable. I still don't understand what that production was about :) Cheers, Ghirla -трёп- 21:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thanks for your comments and the vote in my RfA! It did not gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination. - Amgine 17:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

{{DYK-Refresh}}

Hello Conrad, you seem to be the main author of the excellent refresh template and you kindly fixed some formatting anomolies recently. Unfortunately it seems to have "gone off the rails" again for some reason. It's currently displaying "Earliest time for next refreshment is Wednesday, 11 May 2006 00:15 Wikipedia time (UTC).". I'd be grateful if you could have a look into this, thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be fixed. The template uses Julian dates to create an exact date/time stamp as a single number for easier use in mathematical computations. The problem is that Julian dates update at noon rather than midnight. My original {{JulianWeekday}} template handled that by adding 0.5 (half a day) to the Julian date before calculating the current day of the week, but this was switched to {{WEEKDAYNAME}} which tries to cover alot of different scenarios (such as Julian dates prior to 4713 BC - which I didn't really think we needed :]) and has some sort of glitch so that it doesn't handle the 12 hour gap correctly. So times between noon and midnight would show the correct date, but times in the morning would be one day early. I have switched it back until the problem gets corrected. --CBDunkerson 10:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the interim fix. Such are the joys of collaborative editing I guess, with little bits here and there being switched back and forward :-) I just find the template incredibly useful for updating DYK, both in refreshing the update time without having to compute UTC offset factors and as a quick glance view of when an update is overdue. Thanks again. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Cactus.man. It's good to know that the 'update clock' is useful. I remember seeing people trying to keep it up to date manually and just thought that was inordinately cruel. :] --CBDunkerson 22:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Please check Wikipedia talk:Did you know when you have time. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Reverend John Thomson, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know...

Great article. I can't believe I forgot to notify you though... (blushes and looks sheepish) ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't, you just notified the wrong person (me) :) Stevage 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Lar, no need to blush though, and sheep are not allowed on my talk page :-)--Cactus.man ✍ 06:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Thought you Scots liked sheep? Are all those jokes wrong? O__o !! ++Lar: t/c 08:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha :-) Although we did create Dolly, there is generally no particular "fondness" for sheep in Scotland, other than on the dinner plate. Although some consider that Aberdeen football supporters are partial to sheep in "other ways", this particular familiarity is generally considered to be confined to countries with high sheep:human population ratios such as Wales or New Zealand. [1] --Cactus.man ✍ 09:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha back. My alma mater MTU had a 5:1 male/female ratio, and a very unofficial motto. "Michigan Tech, where the men are men, the women are too, and the sheep are nervous". N0o idea why, really... the UP is not sheep raising country. Nice update by the way. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Another update monday morning

Thanks for another great update. I was going to do it last nite but got to BOS really late and I just didn't feel comfy. I wonder if we should start putting "I think I can do the next update at 1100 UTC but if it gets to be 1200 and I haven't started it, go for it!" sorts of comments in the refresh area (inside html comment tags)? (you can answer here, I watch talk pages) ++Lar: t/c 13:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Exploding Boy 15:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I always check the history of the DYK template itself before I start. Something in the template inside html comments with a meaningful edit summary might be useful, rather than on the talk page which is pretty busy. How about a template that can be substed in to provide commented out opening lines, something like:

<!--
*****************************************************************
Update in progress by Cactus.man.
Please do not edit the template if this notice is in place.

Thanks.
*****************************************************************
-->

Subst in the template before you start updating, with an edit summary of "update in progress, please don't edit". Remove the substed code when you're done. Nice and simple, the history page indicates that an update is underway, and the text on the edit page does as well. Thoughts welcome. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
See {{UpdatingDYK}}, seems to work fine. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been doing it with the commented out thing uncommented because I want it visible on the talk page that it's in process. Last update cycle several noms were made while I was in mid update and it played holy havoc with me I kept getting edit conflicts... made it hard to make sure I correctly removed the selected items and not anything else. So I'd rather see it as not a commented thing? ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, reading too fast, I missed that this goes in the template itself. yes, commented out is the way to go! and for it to work it has tobe subst'd or else the comments won't show. I will update in about 60-90 min if you haven't already. Maybe we should move this convo to the wp:DYK talk page? ++Lar: t/c 10:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Update away my good man. The noinclude text on the template make it clear that it must be substed, but I'll also draft something for the talk page and instruction pages to make this as clear as possible. I'll also post this thread over to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know --Cactus.man ✍ 10:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!!!!

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Moray Firth fishing disaster, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know...

  • ...that in the 1848 Moray Firth fishing disaster on the east coast of Scotland, 124 boats sank and 100 fishermen perished, leading to a major redesign of fishing boats in the following years?

Thanks for your efforts as always. ++Lar: t/c 13:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks
Thanks
Cactus.man/Archive 4, thank you you so much for validating my RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support. Deizio talk 18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Cactus, I hope to get involved in updating the DYK temp in the future - in the meantime I'll be watching and learning, and if there's anything I should know then please tutor me! Nice one, Deizio talk 23:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you

The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.
Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales.

If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate.

For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate!
♫Bucketsofg✐♪

li vs *

not sure where to put this bunch of trivia... a couple of times lately when you copy the archives over you haven't been changing the <li> to a "*"... (at least I think it's you, maybe not) no big deal, I do it when I see it. Also I think we are low on pictures so I left the top article this time, watch out if you do DYK and archive next, that article and pic is already in the archive. Finally, I think the tool that generates archive entries from the entire DYK template is broken. Not sure why, it was working OK on Saturday. Who authored those? Also maybe you could weign in on this "articles MUST have references" thing again, the encylopedic standards guys are all turning up and being insistent that process must be changed. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Replying here as you prefer Lar. Taking the "trivia" as you raise them:
  • When I first started doimg the DYK's I always changed the <li> to a "*" before archiving. Then after the <ul style="text-indent:-1em;margin:0 0 0 1em;padding:0;list-style-type:none;list-style-image:none"> got stripped from the template by accident, causing bullet points to be displayed, I realised that the lone standing <li> formats just the same as the "*". Then I spotted somebody had left the <li> in a previous archiving, so I followed suit - it's less work after all. It still formats OK, but I'm not sure if it's needed for the archive bot or not. I've seen {{User:AllyUnion]] mentioned in connection with the bot, not sure if he authored it or not. You say it was working on Saturday?
  • Thanks for the warning about the article and picture. I'm a bit low on time at the moment, so not sure If I'll manage much updating in the next few days but will do my best. While on the topic of pictures, your last commons image transfer had the {{mprotect}} instead of {{C-uploaded}}, I nearly missed that it was from commons and could speedy delete when off the main page. It's also useful to keep the same image name as commons so that the link in the archive is not broken after image deletion.
  • I've had a quick scan through the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know - AARGH. Completely over the top to mandate this, and will treble the amount of work required in updating. I am a believer in process but, to use a currently popular term, this is not only wonking for the sake of it, but challenges the very nature of DYK. I very much doubt I would remain involved in DYK if this is sledgehammered through. I don't have time to make meaningful comment right now but will add my thoughts later tonight.
Keep up the good fight. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert war?

Please consider participating in Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#What_.22recent_additions.22_links_to ... thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

John Thomson (photographer)

I'm so glad you expanded this article on a seriously neglected important photographer! Pinkville

Thanks for your comments. He's been on my list for a while, and somehow he managed to leapfrog the queue above several others yesterday :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 10:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pink, I see you've been busy working on fixing the article, thanks for that. I had a lot of difficulty resolving the Chinese locations mentioned in the references, with current day usage (particularly "Taiwanfu" which I had to admit defeat on). You seem to know your way around this area, are you from China, or have you travelled there? --Cactus.man ✍ 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a great article, by the way. I believe there's more that can be added, but as it stands it's an excellent summary of his career and importance. I haven't been to China, but for the last 4 years I have worked documenting (thousands of) photographs for a museum collection, mostly for a project dealing with photos from China, Japan and Southeast Asia (which is one reason you'll see photographic subjects relating to those regions prominant in my user contributions). Handling historical placenames in Asia can be tricky, depending on the country (Japan doesn't present too many problems, except Edo/Tokyo). In China, specifically, there's the problem of which transliteration system to use (usually a choice of Wade-Giles or Pinyin), added to the confused usages and spellings by many 19th century visitors to China. I try to use the most common form from the time the photo was taken with a parenthetical update, like: Foochow (now Fuzhou), or for better-known paired names, just the older form with a link to the new form: Peking, since both Peking and Beijing are well-known names for the same place. A couple of resources might be of help when you're trying to find the "definitive" name for a place: Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names and the Library of Congress Authorities. Let me know if you need any help with these two sites, or with any name questions. One of the weird things about doing this kind of work, which almost entirely involves 19th century photos, is that I know my way around various distant places very well, such as Hong Kong, but unfortunately my familiarity is 150 years out of date... Pinkville 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers, I'll file them away for future use, although it's not usually something I encounter in my normal editing, but thanks again for cleaning up my initial efforts. If I ever need help on this front, I'll give you a shout. Happy editing ... Cactus.man ✍ 10:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I warn you, I may come to you for help regarding Scottish subjects (and others) in the future! (In fact, at work I'm currently documenting about 500 photos and other objects relating to the Forth Bridge, so look out.) Pinkville 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Scott Monument close.jpg

Howdy! Whilst editing, I came across an article using Image:Scott Monument close.jpg, which you uploaded claiming a {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} license. However, on checking the source (bflickr's Flickr account), it appears that the image is only available under a non commercial ({{cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}) license, and so I've listed it for deletion. If you disagree with this, add a {{hangon}} tag to the images talk page. Otherwise, if you're aware of any other photographs that have been uploaded from this source to either Wikipedia or Commons, could you check to ensure that they're available under an acceptable free license? Happy editing! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Not sure what happened there, it must have been re-licensed at Flickr after I uploaded it. I only search Flickr for images tagged as {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. Either that or I made a mistake. Anyway, I've deleted the image now, shame because it was a nice shot. Thanks again, cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Hello, thanks for the notification. I am glad, that a fact from the article, created by me, was selected for the DYK. Actually, I was really stunned by that fact, and I suggested it. Cmapm 18:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cmapm, thanks for the article and I'm pleased to have added it DYK. It would be nice if you could find some English language references, but I understand that may be difficult. Keep up the good work and please add more nominations if you have any. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in the article about GSE, the encyclopedia was translated into English and printed in New York and London. But I couldn't point out exact volume/page of it, hence I provided a ref. to the Russian edition. However, I've just added a web English-language ref., not very detailed though... Thank you for the support and being interested in this topic! Cmapm 19:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, on your User Page the Hairy ball theorem is mentioned. Do you work in the field of algebraic topology or are just interested in it? Softly speaking, pretty advanced topic for non-mathematician :) Cmapm 21:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the reference. If I read things correctly, the new Sport-Express, launched in 1991, is a different publication from Sovietsky Sport and (one of) the main reason(s) for the decline in circulation of Sovietsky Sport. I think this needs to be worked into the Sovietsky Sport article because it is a key factor. Without that, the reference doesn't seem to make much sense.
As for the Hairy ball theorem, no I don't work in the field. My mathematical expertise only extends as far as 1st year university level, but I am interested in maths and physics topics, and science topics generally. I am strictly a reader of these, rather than a writer. As I say on my user page, I arrived there by accident (from Tokamak as I recall), after becoming absorbed and diverted while doing some serious research on behalf of a good friend. This is one of the reasons this place can be so addictive: check out six degreees of separation ... :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely right, I've added a sentence, based on the information there, thanks!
Well, my expertise extends to 6-year university level, and we hadn't a course on algebraic topology :) But I'm very interested in functional analysis and general topology. This is off-topic, of course, as I don't contribute to math-related topics in Wikipedia. Just I like people, who are interested in scientific topics without being "forced" to work on them by the university, institute, etc. :) Cmapm 22:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi there prickly one, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I will do everything I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! It's been great doing DYKs with you, and I look forward to lots more... ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Hostile biography - what do you do?

I am a bit concerned about the Gillian McKeith article. It seems to be getting used as free advertising space by people who strongly dislike her. I know very little about the woman, although the little I have heard has been positive, so I was a bit taken aback by the very hostile tone which the Wikipedia article adopts. I have removed the article from Category:Quackery as I consider this to be clearly defamatory, and Wikipedia cannot lay itself so open to legal problems (I have also nominated that category for deletion, if you would like to take part in that debate).

Anyway, I am asking you because I do not quite know how to go about resolving the situation, but I feel that "something ought to be done". I commented at the Talk page, but to no avail. Any suggestions?

(The above is a copy of a comment I left at User talk:Leithp, but I just saw your name on my Watchlist, and immediately thought: "two heads better than one... ") --Mais oui! 14:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mais, she's not familiar to me at all, other than as a media "name". I'll have a look at the article over the next day or so, although I'm not sure what enlightenment I might be able to shed on any controversial content. I'll also have a look at Category:Quackery, the mere title sounds a bit dubious. Thanks again for the pointers, keep up the good work. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've had a quick look and the article starts off OK but fairly quickly turns into a bit of a POV hatchet job. I think it's reasonable to say she is a controversial figure, but that could certainly be presented more neutrally and properly referenced. Some of the external links are highly dubious, and at least the last 2/3rds of the article could quite conceivably be liberally sprinkled with {{fact}} notices, but I see you've already had some problems trying to attach one. There seems to be one fairly vocal main protagonist, although there is quite a bit of editing activity, so things may pan out better over time. I'll keep an eye the article, although I'm not particularly inclined to contribute any fixes at the moment. The joys, the joys ... :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

3D_6_v3

Hello. I noted that you are the creator of the 3D_5_v3 graphic. I would like to ask: can you create a 3D_6_v3? My reason for asking is -- I'm already there. Thanks. Jason Palpatine 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jason, things must be pretty bad if you're at level 6 already! I'm no Photoshop guru, more of a plodder really, but let me know what you have in mind and I'll see if it's something I could manage. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's really simple -- the thermometer busrts. your 5_v3 shows it just about to. Rmember, its state is "RUN FOR COVER." next would be "BANG."
Thank you -- Jason Palpatine 12:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like somebody beat me to it. See Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 6 and Category:Wikipedians with wikistress level 7. Hope that helps.--Cactus.man ✍ 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Jason Palpatine 13:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On November 15, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Thomson (photographer), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know...

John Thomson, self portrait with Honan Soldiers, 1871


Brilliant, but useless

Anti-Userboxers - go and write some articles; Pro-Userboxers - go and write some articles.
*sigh* Isn't it odd how many people have been saying the same things for so long, yet with so little impact? The real problem is that often on Wikipedia simple bloody-mindedness is an effective strategy. If you keep hammering away, ignoring all opposition, eight times out of eleven the "other side" will eventually get bored and go away. I want a button to press that *boing* ejects non-compromise editors through the roof of wikipedia, still in their seats, trailing mouse and keyboard cables behind them.
brenneman {L} 02:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aaron, *sigh* doesn't quite encapsulate the frustration that many are feeling. Apart from the obvious expletives, the four words that spring to mind are: bang, head, brick, and wall. Unfortunately, neither side shows signs of becoming bored and going away - we will be "celebrating" the 1st anniversary of the userbox wars come New Year 2007 I fear. Who knows when this will end? Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, it's always good to know there are voices of reason out there. And let me know when you have a draft policy in place to implement the *boing button*, I will be one of the first in line to support it. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thomson and Gong

Hi, You might be interested to know that there was a previous upload of Thomson's photograph of Prince Gong (aka Kung), but yours has more information and is properly tagged. Do you think a request for deletion of the previous version is in order? Pinkville 19:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The image is redundant (and orphaned), and can therefore be speedily deleted. So I'll go ahead and do so. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought so (but the deletion protocol is not something I'm up to speed with...). Pinkville 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom Weir

Hi Garry, thanks for sourcing and adding the Tom Weir image to the article. I've been trying to get a decent one for ages, and this one's great. Perfect Tom Weir image, complete with bunnet !!! Well done, cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

About the Tom Weir image. No bother. :D

GarryMc 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you would like to know...

I thought you would like to know that someone has nominated Shaker Aamer for deletion. In their explanation of why they think it should be deleted they state they picked it because it was the first article in alphabetic order, and, if the afd succeeds, they plan to nominate every article about Guantanamo detainees for deletion. -- Geo Swan 02:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever this person you are refering to is -- they are nuts! Jason Palpatine 03:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note regarding Shaker Aamer Geo, I'll have a look over the next few days or so. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen's RfA

File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg Hello Cactus man. Thank you for your strong support and lovely comments at my request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. You can see me in action and observe what then happened as a result. Naturally, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out. I look forward to working with you in the future, hopefully updating some DYKs. In the meantime, enjoy the Scottish summer?! Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Redon/Ensor

If you like Redon, I bet you also like James Ensor? Pinkville 13:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to James Ensor (such a non-Belgian name!!), not an artist I was familiar with but I do like what I've seen ... (adds to list for more research) ... And I would be happy to help in any way if I can with Scotland related matters and the Forth Bridge - such a fantastic structure. I can't guarantee any definitive knowledge in any areas but just ask anyway :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 20:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome and thank you! Pinkville 20:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cactus.man/Archive_4&oldid=1096187898"