User talk:DJ Clayworth/Archive

Hi I am Chaddington. Your most recent here post was 2004?

In regard to your Upper Deck deletion. Sports Internet Destination! includes HSC Publications, which is one of the world's 3 largest sports collectibles publishers, and they have written extensively since 1996 on Upper Deck and the industry and are very knowledgeable and leaders in this area (you removed the award as trivial, and I know you wanted to be helpful) but it is informative that Upper Deck was voted by Industry Leaders as the most influential company in the sports collectibles industry. Upper Deck entry is so short already for such a significant company, its not like the article is too long to begin with also and it is resource information visitors likely wouldn't know and is valuable. Thanks! Realize community revision aspect is important.

OOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo ok. SOrry about that

Why the heck are you erasing all of my posts???? (from # 24.201.45.73)

Hi 24...

Thanks once again for contributing. However as you will see, both in the text that I placed in Eye of Providence, and on your own talk page User talk:24.201.45.73, the posts that you made appear to be in violation of copyright. They were copied from pages on the web.

Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, and all text contrbuted must be released under this license. Unless you have explicit permission from the copyright holders to release what you posted, posting it may be illegal.

DJ Clayworth 19:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the tidy up work on my initial stub on Okanagan Lake. --GaryHayman 20:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alright, fair's fair. I would like to say that I am not opposed to what a Wiki is and I, in fact, support it and participate in other Wiki websites. What I did today was merely to try and show off to some of my friends here at school. We are tired of the excessive amount of work that John Cope gives us and I thought I would try to strike some kind of a blow at him, however unlikely it may be that anything would come of it. I apologize for what I did here today and I won't bother you guys again unless I have something worthwhile to say. - that guy who kept editing Alvin Toffler and John Cope

Well, that's a good answer. Actually of course you've identified where Wikipedia is in fact vulnerable, which is why I jumped on you fairly hard. In fact most vandalism gets found pretty quickly, but it does take work to keep on top of it. Now of course, if you were to renounce the dark side, and come over and help us make Wikipedia a reliable source of information, that would be great. You already seem to understand a lot about what's going on here. Who knows, maybe Mr. Cope would give you some extra credit, or ease up on you. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll take you up on that (note username/account now). I'm gonna add some stuff, I think it'll be useful. I'll update as I have time. Reverend Beastly

---

In answer to your question, the source for the list is mostly R.A.F. Squadrons by Wing Commander C. G. Jefford. When it comes to that book, for example, it lists the Swordfish I as serving with No. 8 Squadron and No. 202 Squadron. The Swordfish III is listed as having served with No. 119 Squadron. 8 Squadron flew the Swordfish from August 1940 to December 1941 at RAF Khormaksar. 119 Squadron flew the Swordfish from January 1945 to May 1945 at Bircham Newton and Knocke le Zout. 202 Squadron used the Swordfish from October 1940 to June 1941 at RAF Gibralter. The interesting thing is that the Swordfish I are listed as being floatplanes. I'm not sure whether there ever was a floatplane version of the Swordfish, but the information in the book does seem generally good.

When it comes to types that were in the RFC and RNAS, it does appear that the book lists them as well. It would take quite bit of work to get rid of the aircraft that have only served in the RAF. David Newton 13:51, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for that, David. I'll reply to you on Talk:List of aircraft of the RAF, so that everyone can join in. DJ Clayworth 19:41, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Well I won't change the Jesus text back again, but what exactly are these other sources? Adam 15:32, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Some other people have added notes on the Talk:Jesus Christ page to indicate the Josephus is considered reliable by many historians; also see Josephus on Jesus and Tacitus on Jesus. Not that I'm denying that the Gospels are the main ones, but there are others out there. I have Talk:Jesus Christ on my watchlist, so it might be easier to talk there. DJ Clayworth 17:38, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi David, thanks for spotting the potential copyvio at Roton. There is a boilerplate text that you can add to any others you come across. Angela 00:06, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi. Reptilians in conspiracy theories (you don't get reptilians outside conspiracy theories) play the role that Jews play in anti-semetic conspiracy theories. David Icke gets picketed by Jewish groups because his talk of reptilians is seen by some to be code for Jews. I'm not saying that reptilians *are* Jews (Icke says in his defence that when he talks about shape-shifting reptiles he means exactly that) but that there are parallels between the two types of conspiracy. I hope this makes sense - and I appreciate that it is all bizarre. Secretlondon 19:26, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hello DJ, thank you for moving and blanking my article on WMD in Iraq; there was no reason for me to make a new article; I just couldn't find the old article fast enough. Please continue to tweak, edit, move and blank whatever words I donate to this project. Thank you in advance. --Uncle Ed 20:31, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

We'll have to work together on this "Baptism in the Holy Spirit", if you dont mind. The thing is, all denominations accept that the holy spirit is received at the moment of salvation. What they differ on is on the endowment of power for life and service. Pentecostal/Full Gospel/Charismatic say that this endowment is given on a second experience, titled the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Some inside pentecostal circles see the glossolalia as a confirmation, some not. But thats it. Nbarr

---

On your page for the Westland Whirlwind helicopter you sometimes include a space in the type designation and sometimes not. I wanted to make this consistent but didn't want to make this consistently wrong; which should it be? --Morven 18:59, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Truly I have no idea. I checked, and the RAF Museum has both uses on the same page, so I'm guessing it isn't important. Feel free to pick one. DJ Clayworth 19:02, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear DJ, I realize that vision and prophecy are not identical, and I don't think I implied that they were, but I could be wrong. I was redirected from a literature subcategory titled vision/prophecy and I filled it in to my best understanding. If you wish to edit, you're welcome to do so. DavidA

---

re dates. I prefer using the ISO format. I don't mind creating the redirects. Eventually they all 366 will be there. ☮ Eclecticology 22:59, 2003 Nov 10 (UTC)

As an advocate for the ISO 8601 format for dates, I found that the position of this group was misrepresented. ISO 8601 does not support the use of spelled out months. It supports four digit years and two digit months and days, with leading zeros when necessary. I have never advocated omitting the year when this format is used. Where the year is omitted I do use a spelled out month. The work involved in creating the redirects is trivial. Since I am willing to do that work it does not impinge on anybody else's time.

As a Canadian I am well aware of the ambiguities in dates, which is why I support the federal government direction in using the ISO format. As for asking other people, this isn't the first time the matter has come up for debate, and I do enter into the fray from time to time. The argument that my format is not used by many is factual but fallacious. There has been a tendency to revert it to something else whenever it is used. Your argument is akin to that of the hunter who complains that there is no game to shoot after he has shot it all. Your argument suggests that perhaps I should be more dilligent about protecting my usage. If someone has begun a list or article with one date format I respect that, and expect nothing less in return.

As for the automatic date formatting feature, what it currently presents as Y-M-D format is not what its advocates support. Perhaps the feature should be modified. ☮ Eclecticology 22:55, 2003 Nov 12 (UTC)

---

David, thanks for the corrections in Monte Cassino. However, you don't have to change the letters in links to capitals, since the wiki engine does it automatically. It's just not worth the effort.Halibutt 10:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tank

Have you noticed that there is a article on Tank history? A lot of the information you have written can allready be found there.. It was linked from tank before, but it seems like a anon user removed a lot of the contents before you started to edit it. -- Jniemenmaa 20:22, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i undid a lot of your work. The version I reverted to was that of 19:10, 11 Nov 2003. The IP 81.152.101.129 had removed lots (all?) of the links and just plain messed around. europrobe 18:08, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I had started the Imponderables page, but it was marked for deletion. This is the title of an interesting book which focuses on interesting questions that may occur to us about day-to-day life which are not too technical. I'm not sure why we can't highlight articles according to their likelihood of being of common interest by categorizing them in this fashion (e.g., things concerning household items, interesting facts about nature, easy-to-understand explanations (such that a 5th-grader might understand) of aspects of the technical articles, etc.). Granted, people are likely to disagree about what is "interesting" or "easy-to-understand", but there is always some gray area. -Brettz9 08:43, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the point is that it will be easier to find these answers if they are put in articles whose title is the subject of the explanation. However this is a great idea for another site. DJ Clayworth 23:41, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

You may want to add your voice to: Wikipedia talk:Don't include copies of primary sources --mav 07:15, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Thank you for participating in Wikipedia:Cleanup. Please don't stop. But maybe you could reread Wikipedia:Patent nonsense; you seem to be adding quite a number of listings as candidates for immediate deletion, which are fairly comprehensible, even though by no means necessarily adequate. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 17:50, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Cimon. Point noted. I'll be a little stricter on what I consider nonsense. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for looking at my aircraft controls article. I agree with your update except for the elevators. Without offsetting balance changes, neutralizing the elevators should restore the original pitch attitude. Skeetch 19:03, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Wooops - except for yaw control. Pilots are taught to make even minor course changes with coordinated turns. That is to bank properly with the ailerons and recover to straight and level on the desired heading. Uncoordinated turns (with rudder only) cause unnecessary stress on the airframe and risk departing controlled flight with a stall/spin. Skeetch

Reply at User talk:Skeetch DJ Clayworth 19:41, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

David you are technically correct. Referenced solely to the airframe the controls work as you have indicated. However, I am trying to provide a basic introduction to how a pilot would use them to get from point A to point B. The introduction tries to convey this POV. For example, the distinction between yawing and turning is beyond the scope of my efforts. A subsidiary article giving a full-blown technical analysis would be an appropriate venue. I'm always open to further discussion and suggestions. Thanks for your input. As for flight experience: I'm a glider guider and have completed ground school and the FAA exam. Health considerations however bar me from getting a ticket. Regards! Skeetch

I'll be happy to expand on the difference between turning and yaw. However we have to get the primary controls right before moving on. I'll rewrite those again and then add a short piece on how to turn. DJ Clayworth 20:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think we have a very serviceable article there now. Thanks for your help. I plan on filling in the aircraft engine control gap next. Skeetch

Quebec Charters

That sounds good. However, user JeLuF has marked the page for deletion. I asked him if it was because of the excerpt of the actual law. It just happened, so I don't have an answer right now. I am willing to let people rearrange the layout of the page and shorten the excerpt, but I think this page would has no reason to exists without telling people what is in this Charter. Same for the Charter of the French Language (the one which most needs to be explained). -- Mathieugp

I will follow your suggestion. Thanks. -- Mathieugp

---

Perhaps you could reserve your irritation for the two folks who are edit warring over the issue? The rest of us involved in the discussion are just trying to find a peaceful resolution to the issue. It's a significant demotivator when our genuine efforts to solve this problem are dismissed in this way. Martin 19:06, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks DJ. Appreciated. Martin 19:49, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Why do you think that the Human-Truth Paradox is so called "nonsense" and should be deleted. please elaborate Paradox2 23:52, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(To Paradox2) - the term is not in common usage (e.g. no Google hits, no entry in Oxford English Dictionary, no entry in Britannica, no references on a Athens journal search...). The encyclopedia is not a home for original research, or to put another way, homebrew theories that have no wider credence. Thus we should delete Human-Truth Paradox. Pete 00:19, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's nonsense because it makes no sense. It takes a valid question (is there such a thing as truth?) and just rambles incoherently. DJ Clayworth 14:27, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

I believe you have to prerogative to remove your own nominations from Votes for Deletion. Kingturtle 19:24, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Allopathy article

I agree, that article is hopelessly slanted. My first instinct was to list it for deletion, but I am trying to restrain myself; perhaps some good will come of it, although I doubt it. In any case, it is listed on Cleanup for the time being; if nothing much good comes of it, we can list on VfD. Thanks also for having a go at Heroic medicine. I encountered the two last night and my eyes just glazed over -- I didn't know where to begin. -- Viajero 15:00, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Viajero. It's obvious that both are written by someone intending to be POV, and I don't really want to get involved in another battle like Reptilian Humanoid. Nor do I really have the expertise to write a genuinely NPOV article.

I considered adding "Some alternative medecine may be considered heroic, because it makes patients suffer (by persuading them to reject conventional treatments) and also empties their wallets while offering little in the way of relief".

DJ Clayworth 15:12, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Hello,

I deleted the article Gaucho (pesticide) to restore the authorship of the article, per gfdl license.

why did I do so you would ask ?

I did not care much about authors, until, about a week ago, I was told I had illegally recreated an article, without mentionning the name of the original author while I did. I was told I was infringing the license, which required to trace the authors of an article. Actually, this point is still being discussed on the legal mailing list; but fact is, I am very insistent on fairness, and if some say I am doing illegal action in not respecting other people authorship, I will insist that my authorship is respected as well :-)
One thing that is recommended in case a whole portion of an article is moved to another, is either to mention the main authors of that portion in the comment box, or more easily, to mention the name of the original article from which the text was moved.

Thanks a lot; Anthère 17:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I *entirely* agree they should be split and you did well in doing so; Split they are. I deleted the original article you moved, and restored it under my name. I saved Pollinator changes and suggested he restored them himself. If he does not, I will restore them myself and put his name in the comment box. Cheers. Anthère 18:01, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the message, and I have removed Diageo from VfD, with a humble pie summary. I note you list Theatre as an interest of yours and wonder if you'd be kind enough to run your eye over Irish theatre to suggest/make improvements? Thanks again. Bmills 09:24, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the fixes in Khand. My net connection died during posting, so I had no chance to fix my typos. Jor 17:31, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

I believe I will leave Abuse on VfD. Now, if you want to try some real abuse, read Talk:Alternative medicine. I've just ploughed my way through it and got that life's too short feeling. Bmills 16:32, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I always get the 'life is too short' feeling on anything controversial. Incidentally I do think Abuse really needs attention. I left a message for the author suggesting he clean it up, and if he hasn't in a couple of days I'll probably go and strip the article down to its bare factual essentials. DJ Clayworth 16:35, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Re: 1st Airborne Division, there's already a British 1st Airborne Division entry. Gsl 21:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Re: *H-60 Helicopters

See: Talk:160th SOAR. I think we are probably coming closer to an agreement. :) --Maio 00:57, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

I added a reply at the talk page of Ford Köln. // Liftarn

Anarchism and natural law theory Someone's essay with comments. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see Larry Sanger being called "someone" with no seeming realization that he is Wikipedia's founder. I guess this forum has grown since then. (He used to be the only paid employee.) Michael Hardy 23:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

David, The script is a part of an actual DVD that was created, didn't you read the top? May the Farce be with you!(if you know what it means) Jack Zhang

---

Hello! I see you put a comment in my User Talk page the other day. To tell you the truth, I never saw it until today! Somehow or other, the asterisk which *should appear when someone has written on my talk page did not appear.

You wrote: Hi David, and welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you've added some names of people to Born again. While I appreciate the sentiment of this, I'm not sure that this is going to be helpful. Since, as the article makes it clear, all Christians are born again (though some would be reluctant to describe themselves as such) the list is going to get very long. Maybe we could change it to "Famous people who describe themselves as born again". However the trouble with lists is, we start to get into argument about who describes themselves as born again. Mel Gibson? Let me know what you think. (You can reply here or on my talk page DJ Clayworth 15:39, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. Accordingly, I have moved the list of names on the Born again page to a new page (List of Born-again Christian Laypeople, with a disclaimer at the top that it is a list of Born-again Christians according to their own self-definition, as there is no academically objective criteria by which a born-again Christian may be defined. To make a subjective judgement about what constitutes a born-again Christian - a subject about which Christians disagree among themselves - would, in my opinion, be contrary to the "Neutral point of view" that characterizes this encyclopedia. There is a fine line between maintaining a neutral point of view, and citing a non-neutral one. For example, "George W. Bush is truly a born-again Christian" is a subjective judgement, open to debate, whereas "George W. Bush describes himself as a born-again Christian" is an objective fact. Once again, I'm letting self-definition rule here: George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter may be polar opposites in many ways, but they both describe themselves as born-again Christians, so they're both on the list. Undoubtedly other Wikipedians will, as time goes on, add many more names to the list, which I would expect to grow into a very diverse group indeed.

Ah! Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia, too. I think it's a great place to be-) Good talking to you. (David Cannon - 24 January 2004 - 12.27pm GMT)

Hi. About the page you moved to Amin al-Husseini, there is already a page on that person, namely Amin al-Husayni. The latter page has a lesser degree of awfulness compared to the first one. --Zero 00:43, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

DJ Clayworth: Why did you edit Oberammergau to remove:

Critics charge that the play is explicitly anti-Semitic, in that it blames the Jews for the "murder" of Jesus Christ. The text of the play has been editted repeatedly over the centuries. The most recent performances have had reduced amounts of anti-semitic content.

If you read the text of the play, or the book cited above about the play and the modifications to the play prior to its 2000 proformance, they above is clear, perhaps even understated. The "Critics charge that" is unnecessary. OneVoice 21:30, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As of 1965, Vatican II, the charge of Deicide has been set aside by the Catholic Church. The Church has worked with the town of Oberammergau to remove the charge of Jewish collective, permanent responsibility for the death of Jesus from the play and to more accurately reflect the role of Pilate. The work is ongoing. It is very difficult, both practically and theologically. Individual Jews may have played a role, hard to imagine that none did given the population of the area at the time. That is very different from the Jews killed Christ, just as we should differentiate between the individuals that attacked the World Trade Center and the concept that the Muslims attacked the US.

Please note the "INRI" that appears on many cruxifixes. This is considered by some to be a remant of the placard placed on the cross by the Romans detailing the charge of treason against Ceasar by Jesus(I) of Nazereth(N), King(R) of the Jews(I). OneVoice 23:24, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please do not revert pages without any discussion of the merits of the material. I have added a considerable amount of material to regarding the play and its history. I look forward to working with you to continue improving that page and other page in Wikipedia. OneVoice 04:05, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Clayworth, you are my first human contact at wikipedia, it is all a bit new to me. Why is this sign button on the wiki-editor if i should not use it ? is there a faq anywhere "when to sign and when not ?". another thing, i noted that the pictures look ugly if i make my browser window too small. is it advisabele to use html-tables for pictures, forcing the reader to have a given minimum browser width (640 pixel?) ?

--Horst_F_JENS 23:09, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)

(You didn't sign an article; rather, I was answering the question above.) Michael Hardy 20:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Swampy

Swampy (real name Daniel Hooper) was a British environmental protester

Is he dead then, or do you just mean that he has stopped protesting? --Phil 16:54, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

I think he just stopped protesting. I can't find anything about his activities after about 1997, but he was pretty young then (I think) and unlikely to be dead. Can't find a birthdate either. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

DJ, you posted a copyvio boilerplate at Christian Heritage Party of Canada, but it's not the one I'm used to seeing. It says the page is listed at Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements, but you did not do so. :) Anyway, I've posted a stub replacement at Christian Heritage Party of Canada/Temp. Any objections to my deleting the copyvio page and moving mine in? Let me know. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:42, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note: I appreciate it. :) Jwrosenzweig 17:09, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Both of your changes to Cricket terminology are incorrect. The term crease applies also to the lines that run parrallel to the pitch, the return crease I think, and these extend behind the wicket. I have not written the page on crease because I really want a diagram, there is an excellent one on the Lord's website but it is copyrighted. Read the sentence carefully where you changed of to off and you will see that it was correct. (i.e. it says "off of") Bob Palin 16:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Abuse/Old

You're right, we should run it through vfd again. - snoyes 16:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus satire

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire. - Curps 21:39, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think there are enough people fighting that battle at the moment. Let me know if you relly need my comments, but I think Talk:Tornado speaks for itself if necessary. DJ Clayworth 14:22, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

At Talk:Tornado you said: "I find that spiral galaxies look remarkably like water going down a plughole...." -- that's almost certainly the result of the black hole which exists at the center of spiral galaxies. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Mmmm. Next time I'll have to pick an even more outrageous example. DJ Clayworth 14:22, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're right

I didn't notice the page history and thought I was cleaning a stub. I've restored copyvio and moved my edits to the temp. We definitely have to delete before starting over. Good job. :) Jwrosenzweig 19:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

fmt

Thanks, I didn't know about fmt Stan 21:08, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies

DJ, if you feel like this. Nevertheless you should take into account that many people in Poland felt like this. Even if this was POV feeling, the very fact that it occured make it event worth mentioning. I agree, that somebody should take a look at it. I accept everybody except Adam Carr. Greetings. Cautious

And which one was the first country occupied by Germany? Poland was the first actually invaded country. Cautious

How about Czechoslovakia or Austria? They were certainly occupied (note occupied, not invaded) first. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ask Nico, he certainly answers you that Austria voted for annexation in plebiscite and over 90% were in favour, Sudetenland was ethnic German province were most of population aplauded German army. Occupation of Bohemia was act of violence, but under terror accepted by Czechoslovak government. Memel was taken with forced approval from Lithuania. Borders of Poland were guaranteed by UK government. Cautious

Exactly. My point was that you wrote that Poland was the first country occupied, when it wasn't. If you had written that it was the first country invaded, or better still the first country openly attacked that would probably have been OK. Let's leave that and move on to other things.

I'm sure you created Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies out of annoyance with the page protecting. Can we agree to delete it? DJ Clayworth 20:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No! It is a believe that was shared by many Poles and many Americans. If you talk with Adam Carr, he is completely ignorant of the fact, that this was perception of US and UK actions. I think, that the western historians should be aware, that the commonly shared by Poles view is that. Even if one argues, that the perception was not fair. Cautious

I'm not denying that many Poles share this view. But giving the article a name like that implies that it is the correct one, and that no other view is possible. Plus the information should be in a more general article. DJ Clayworth 20:39, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I hold the opinion, the this sentiment shared by quite a few Poles is rather important for their view of Poland in the world (not the least of Poland in the EU). Although I probably would favor a less inflammed title for the article, I believe that a separate article is a good idea.
--Ruhrjung 18:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

With reference to your changes to Wikipedia:Requested Articles, a Gunstocker is someone who makes gun stocks (rifle stocks, shotgun stocks, etc). A seperate skill from gunmaking, historically, since gunsmithing is metalwork and gunstocking is woodwork. These days the term is rarely used. Gunstocking at the highest levels was a fairly advanced woodworking art, combining the practical ergonomics and engineering requirements of a gun-stock (custom fitted, of course, for expensive work) and extensive, elaborate decoration and the use of fine woods. —Morven 19:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I already put it back; don't worry about it. —Morven 20:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've nominate you for adminship. Please indicate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship whether you accept. Maximus Rex 21:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Coyote Ugly

Sorry about the Coyote Ugly situation. I will endeavour to not repeat it again in the future.

Best regards, Robbie.

Sysop

Congratulations! Following the support of an amazingly high number of people (30), you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. Good luck. Angela. 17:59, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

---

Re: Wing Commander

Perhaps add a (wc) after the name and designation? It needs to be something relatively easy to type - I've gotten tired of writing Wing Commander(computer game)|Wing Commander over the past few days.

Iceberg3k 18:32, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hello David, I am Bozmo. I assume you will find this link fairly quickly since you found the last one fairly quickly, and kindly left me a note back. Today is my first day on Wiki so please excuse me if this is breaking any rules again. Is there any way of talking to you directly or do I need to leave notes here? Perhaps you could email me on Andrew@catesfamily.org.uk sometime to discuss?

Incidentally, there are a few things on the Christianity site which I think are wrong. Should I correct them or would you like me to discuss them with you first?

David,

Thanks. First time in today I didn't see any talk link and thought I would see how things work. Busy job, young kids tend not to read the instructions, sorry. I am delighted there is some kind of immune system even if called Clayworth: if my link had survived the pages will fill up with Spanish hotel adverts.

Actually controversy is fine with me and I don't mind people being blunt either but I'll go for the talk pages first, as you suggest. And sometime soon I'll read the instructions

Meanwhile I am looking for anyone prepared to comment on the book draft you so kindly deleted (but you left the link on my user page to my external home page on my user page, which links to the book... I guess that link is allowed? ). Where do I go for discussion?

Compared to the definition driven pedia the book is a bit abstract.

BozMo

PS faults on page were pedantry on formation of Church of England. We'll see...

All New: 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Orphaned: 500 1001 1501

---

Hi David,

thanks for the comments you will that i have moved the links around now so they link up with your changes. As I've just started it's taking a bit of time to get used to User:Scraggy4

---

David, I didn't see anything further from you about M. Scott Peck so I restored the reference to the criticism. I happened to be reading the article on The Bell Curve, which discusses the views of people who disagree with the book, and that reinforced my conviction that at least some reference was appropriate.

By the way, if you're working on the WW2 campaign in Italy, the article on the 10th Mountain Division cites some towns or battles that need articles. JamesMLane 05:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

re user 216.65.64.52

The IP address is hopelessly used for vandalism. Perhaps it is a public terminal, and 30- days will get him to go away. To frustrate that sort of behavior, consider blocking for a longer period and then not announcing how long th block is. Lack of attention to it's behavior may be useful from the psychological standpoint. Kd4ttc 20:03, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

re: Strange Star Trek Behaviour on Village Pump

Greetings, David! Just repeating this here in case you miss it:

Said user has been doing this over at Memory Alpha for weeks now. Has dynamic IP range 64.107.0.0/22, correct? We've been trying to deal with him by blocking, protecting, communicating, but no response. User also makes repeated edits to single articles in a short time frame (17 yesterday to James T. Kirk) Pattern seems to be to slowly move through Trek articles, adding and re-adding own content. Would agree with assessment 3. ;) -- Michael Warren 18:18, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC) (Memory Alpha sysop)

Returning Anons

from the pump

If an anonymous contributor is vandalising articles, and I go to their talk pages and find that the same IP address was warned (say) a month ago, what is the likelihood that this is the same person returning and what is the chance that this is a new user who happens to have the same IP address? I guess this boils down to how likely an IP address is to be reused. Any ideas? DJ Clayworth 16:11, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you ask them if they are the same as before, do you get an answer? - Bevo 16:21, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Probably the same ... I was wondering how feasible it would be to have some kind of model of what address blocks are dialup modem banks or DHCP etc., and which are fixed IPs. Piece of cake, right? A rather large cake. At least it's not IP v6 that we're trying to sort out.

Anyway some kind of history mechanism that sorts everything by IP and correlates user names ... like I always have the same user name (except when I log out and then finish up something I forgot to do), but my IP will be from a small group, usually, or another group when I'm at school, though the latter category is usually fixed IPs.

User histories can list all the IPs that user has logged in from. Coincidences in IPs across different user names can mean several things, but looking at it "by hand" can reveal patterns ... Are we getting anywhere with this? Talk amongst yourselves ... ;Bear 17:41, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

91 E Maynard Ave

(moved from user page)

DJ CLAYWORTH, PLEASE READ

Earlier today (19 April 2004) I wrote an article about my friend's house in which a poker tournament was held (91 E Maynard Ave). Not 30 minutes later do I go to show it to my friend, when lo and behold, I find that User:DJ Clayworth has deleted it. Mr. Clayworth, could you please post a response on this page as to why in the world an article pertaining in no way to you would cause such a reaction? If I have broken some sort of Wikipedia rule regarding the types of articles "allowed" to be posted, please inform me and accept my apologies. I look forward to your response later tonight. Thank you and have a wonderful evening.

END MESSAGE

Hi. Firstly, as I hope you have found by now, messages to people go on their talk pages, not their user pages. I've moved your message here.

As I hope you have found out by now, what we are doing here is writing an encyclopedia. We are aiming to collect information about notable people, places and subjects. That doesn't mean that we are looking for every piece of information about every person or place in the world. There are other places on the web for that. We are looking for information about people or places likely to be of interest to many people across the world.

The article you wrote gave nothing to indicate that 91 E Maynard Ave was in any way more notable than hundreds of millions of other houses. Thats why it was deleted. If we were wrong, and there is some reason why the house should be notable, then you can make a new article and put it there. If you don't then the article is highly likely to be deleted again.

If you want to know more about how we do things at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers. DJ Clayworth 19:27, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I've virtually finished the British WWII history page. The only thing now to be written under the existing headings is a portion on the combined bomber offensive. Please let me know whether you think this article needs anything more. David Newton 03:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Further to the above message, I've now added the final section on the combined bomber offensive. The portion about the war at sea could probably do with being expanded, but I'd say it's a pretty comprehensive article as of now. David Newton 18:24, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

---

You added a copyvio notice to FS Charles de Gaulle but I don't see it on the copyright violations page. —Morven 01:14, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oops. I've done it now. Thanks. DJ Clayworth 15:21, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, it's certainly an IP that has been used by Michael in the past, but it's an AOL address, so it can't be blocked effectively. As it isn't a static IP, there isn't much point blocking it for more than the normal 24 hours either. I'm not sure there is anything more that can be done about it besides just watching the articles likely to be affected and reverting them when it happens. Angela. 15:47, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

magic wand

Hi DJ Clayborn.

A magic wand seems to be a symbol of power. my references for magic wand: See my review on Amazon of the book Jesus the Magician by Morton Smith. I'm charlie turek magician. You can do a search for me on yahoo. You'll find my stuff.

I have no reason to lie. Please put it back. What am I? I am one of the most curious and scariest persons you will ever meet. What are boundaries? Too many years ago I did historical research, now in the American Museum of Magic, Marshall, Michigan on what we may know about ancient magicians. I learned a lot. But of course I have a passion for the obscure. Robin Jensen can give you more. There was a good picture on the dust cover of "Jesus the Magician". You might find some art in the catacombs of Rome. also see yahoo for charlie turek magician folie deux (Just for fun)

     Have fun.
           Charlie Turek  charlesturek@comcast.net

As the review says, it "steps outside the bounds of objectivity". DJ Clayworth 19:33, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Dear DJ Clayworth, It's nice to know another person interested in Barker Fairley. --Dkottawa 17:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Never heard of him before, I'm afraid. I just used Google to check a couple of facts and reformatted the article. (I took a little time to decide 'British painter' since he seemed to be quite associated with some of the Group of Seven, but most references seemed to refer to him as British). I was at the Canadian National Gallery at the weekend... DJ Clayworth 18:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Nice pictures of Abingdon. Thanks. --Trainspotter 17:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was visiting last week and decided to record the view for posterity. Fortunately it was a great day. (Of course a view of the shopping centre would have been more representitive, if less pretty.) DJ Clayworth 21:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Playwright

discussion is currently underway on Category_talk:Playwright regarding the labelling of this category. Could you wait until an agreement is reached before making any more changes?--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 15:24, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ra100a

I saw your comment on his page and I thought you'd want to know that User:Ra100a continues to make gibberish edits without context, even after you posted the warning on his site. Has he contacted you? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:20, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

No, he hasn't, and I'm giving him a short while more (maybe ten minutes) to respond before I start deleting his gibberish articles. DJ Clayworth 15:22, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oscar Romero

Hi. I'm just wondering why you removed the mention of CoE's setting aside a feast day from the article on Oscar Romero. It is entirely on topic (view also the recent addition that the CoE has created a statue of him), and important within the broader theme of eccesiastical support for liberation theology, of which Romero was after all one of the most popularly known supporters. Crculver 17:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, what I removed said that Romero was recognised as a Saint by the CofE. That can't be true since the CofE does not canonise Saints. Please feel free to add anything about other ways he is being honoured. DJ Clayworth 17:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

White Nationalism

Mr. Clayworth:

While the NPOV principle you pointed out sounds fair enough, it seems to me that most of the articles on White Nationalist people and personalities were written in the style of the ADL, with smears and blanket negative statements, which need correcting. While I have tried to refrain from making clearly opinionated statements in my recent edits, much of what I have put in has simply been correcting previous items which were not posted from an NPOV.

Thank you,

John A. Flynn

P.S. I see the point of the NPOV requirement and will endeavor to adhere to this in the future, but please make sure it runs both ways.

Hollywood Left

Seven to two for deletion isn't consensus? I would have deleted it without a second thought. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:38, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On reflection I may have been overcautious. I'm reluctant to delete if there is any doubt. I was also reluctant because I think the term is widely used outside of this one mailing list, though I guess I should have said that in the debate. We could re-post, or if we find enough admins who think I should have deleted then we'll just delete it now. DJ Clayworth 14:52, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mad Crowd Disease

Please try to understand my aggravation. I am not stupid or unreasonable. My entry on Mad Crowd Disease was deleted for the WRONG reason. Apparently principles mean nothing to you people. Despite repeated protests that it wasn't a copyvio, that specific 'reason for removal' continued to be claimed on the entry page. I asked that the charge be changed to POV, but it was repeatedly disregarded. If Wikipedia is about anything, it OUGHT to be about accuracy. I acknowledged that it was a POV (I was an inexperienced user when I posted it) but I was unwilling to accept wrongful deletion on the grounds that it was a copyright violation (which it clearly wasn't according to the Fair Use statute and several Wikipedia users). I will not allow the accusation of COPYVIO to stand, because it is slanderous and completely inaccurate. That's why I reposted it so that it can be properly evaluated as an ORIGINAL work (even if it is a horrible POV) and NOT a copyvio. Can't ANYONE understand the point I'm trying to make. I don't give a damn if it's deleted for the right reasons, but I will not cave in to wrongful accusations! Paxdora

---

Reversion on Caroline

Hi, sorry about that on Caroline. Something strange is going on--for example, on Caroline's history, the anon edits aren't showing up. Same goes Nychalp's edits to User:Marcus2, which I earlier tried to roll back. I'm not sure what's going on, but I'm going to try logging out and back in again. Sorry about the confusion. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I realised that something weird was going on when the edit of yours that I reverted vanished as soon as I reverted it. I'm presuming a bug at this stage. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi DJ Clayworth!

Thanks to edit my page. It was my first try out.

Esi

---

DJ, why did you leave me a message saying I couldn't link to my favorite fantasy sports site? Why would you let Google or Yahoo get links to their sports news sections and not Sandbox? Sandbox has been on the Internet for 9 years - longer than Google. Also, I am a huge Washington Redskins fan, and I thought linked to Redskins news on Sandbox is entirely relevant - as much so as the other links there. Please let me know.

---

Singularity is near

I saw you put a "stub" message on a stub about a Kurzweil book that hasn't been published yet. I had deleted that article earlier, because Wikipedia policy (as I understand it) is not to write about things that don't exist yet. (Otherwise, just think of all the articles we could be buried under about movies in the planning stages!) The person who re-created it appears to be new, but I thought I'd ask your opinion rather than kill it again. - DavidWBrooks 17:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I let it stand because the author seemed relatevly well-known. I don't feel strongly about it. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

deleting pages

When you delete a page, dont forget to also delete the corresponding talk page and any redirects leading to the article and talk page. I just deleted the talk page of [Jean Destrehan Roger], which you deleted on the 28th. Cheers, Jiang 03:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Theatre/theater

This issue has already been thoroughly discussed in the world war ii forum. No new posts have been made in over a week and it is time something happened. Also, see the discussion in the european theater of world war ii talk page. Also, I changed just the spellings in the main World War II page first, and no one commented, so I see no reason why anyone should complain in the daughter articles. And it doesn't make since to have the title different than the spelling in the article.

All action is unilateral because only one person can change a page at a time. :) I know, i once tried to change it in two seperate windows.

I'm complaining. I'm complaining because moving an article is a qhole different ballgame from changing spelling. If the title of an artticle uses Theatre then that is a very good reason for leaving the spelling in the article as Theatre.

Also please sign your posts on talk pages. I've left instructions on how to do this on your talk page. DJ Clayworth 16:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know (refering to comment on the talk page ofWorld War II, I'm sorry. At first I just thought it was mispelled, I knew about other differences in spelling, but not that one. Then I just thought that I might as well finish it since I'd started it. Then I felt stupid when people were mad. I didn't mean to make such a big deal out of this. Maybe I'll get used to the spellings anyway. Oh well, I still have some of my own pages to spell it my way. I hope this doesn't cause any lasting bitterness, I really would like to get along with other users, I just got out of control. Please accept my apologies--naryathegreat 02:45, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Welcome to the international world of Wikipedia. Hope you have fun; good editing in the future. If you edit lots of [[World War II] articles then we will probably meet again. I got started here because I found the Battle of Normandy article was pathetic, and I couldn't rest until it was brought up to a decent level. Then I found that the Allied invasion of Italy article was even worse... See you around. DJ Clayworth 13:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Patricknoddy

Hi David. I think I've found out why User:Patricknoddy has been posting copyright violations and then blanking them. According to his user page, he's in the 2nd grade. How can someone explain the concept of copyright violation to a 7-year-old? It seems that he's been blanking pages ever since I emailed him telling him to read his talk page. He appears to be trying to correct his mistake by blanking the pages, but unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand that they have to be deleted. What do we do now? Chris N. 23:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that does put a different spin on things. His User page was blank when I last looked. First I think for a seven-year-old he is showing remarkable maturity (I'm seen adult Wikipedians act less maturely in their first week). In fact although he was rushing into things and making mistakes he hasn't blanked any pages or posted any copyvios since I sent the messages to him. I suggest we do nothing except encourage him to contribute as well as he can, and keep an eye on his edits, and gently correct him where needed. Let him make some contributions at whatever level he can. I'm going to add a welcome to his talk page saying 'welcome to second grade' or something so that the people will treat him appropriately. DJ Clayworth 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your vote in the previous VfD on Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies and wanted to let you know that I have reopened the issue and wish for you to please cast your vote at VfD--naryathegreat 23:48, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Narya. I'm not sure I want to get involved in a fight over Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies. I try to not fight battles twice here, it keeps my stress level low. The article is obviously not a neutral one, but I think I've come to the conclusion that it is not without merit. It seems to be a good expression of how many Poles feel about the subject, maybe with some justification. (Though I personally don't see what the Western Allies could have done about it). However don't let me stop you from trying. DJ Clayworth 13:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

UK Flag

The edit war already exists. I used an empty page to give the basic information on the flag as it is now. Other uses, history, nomenclature, the USA and Canada have nothing to do with the flag of the United Kingdom so can be left at Union Jack. garryq 11:20, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reply on Talk:Flag of the United Kingdom. DJ Clayworth 13:06, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gedday

thanks for your comments David... but I'm guessing you skipped the intro that says:

The policy should place a fair system in the gaps between the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, Wikipedia:Banning policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism policy and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It does not seek to replace any of the above, but allows efficient management of recalcitrant, difficult, problem behaviour.(emphasis added)

does that address your concerns? this is realy about the borderline cases that cause everyone so much grief Erich 17:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Theatre/Theater

User:Naryathegreat seems to think that we should change the spelling of all the articles about World War II to US spelling. He has created a new category: World War II Campaigns and Theaters as part of this, and is moving articles from Category:World War II campaigns and theatres. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:World War II. Please feel free to contribute. DJ Clayworth 18:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not much to debate. Just an enthustiastic new contributor hasn't learnt the ropes of one of our most successful policies (handling spelling differences) yet. Pcb21| Pete 21:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi David. I moved this from the village pump as it was time to archive it and didn't know if you'd seen the reply. Angela. 00:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. I had seen it, and Narya and I had a frank discussion on Talk:World War II. What I really wanted was a few more poeple to join me in pointing out that multi-lingual spelling was Wikipedia policy, and not me imposing my personal views on him. All seems to be settled now. DJ Clayworth 02:29, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why did you remove Major Boothroyd's name from the James Bond article?

True, it was misspelled (as "Bothroyd") but a quick Google check convinces me that it is perfectly accurate information and is not include in the article anywhere else. Dpbsmith 22:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi D. Thanks for the note. Removing the reference was a bit of a judgement call, but there were a few reasons (the spelling wasn't one). I explained the short version of this in the talk page. The name is covered in the Q (James Bond) article. Technically Q (James Bond) is about the office holder Q. As you will see from the article, what exactly Q's name is is a little more complicated, even for Desmond Llewellyn's character. Also the article covers John Cleese's Q (who is unlikely also to be called Major Boothroyd) and Q'ute (who also holds the title Q and whose name is Ann Reilly). Basicly I didn't want to put a piece of information that is only partly right in a link, when people can get the full picture by following the link. I don't think anything is lost - most people know Q as Q and the details of the name are covered in the Q article. DJ Clayworth 01:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User 203.34.169.38

See 203.34.169.38

This user has been repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia pages, adding new ones with obscene content. Please block him indefinately, or for a good "wake-up call" amount of time. You are the only sysop I know well enought to ask. Thank you, please visit his page so that you can delete the pages that were put on Candidates for speedy deletion. Thanks!--naryathegreat 01:19, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Narya. I found no edits due to this user, so I assume he has been dealt with. Also Candidates for speedy deletion has been cleared. There are usually a few syops who watch both Candidates for speedy deletion and Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, so anything you put there will probably be quickly dealt with. Feel free to let me know again if you spot anything untoward going on. I'll respond if I'm logged on. DJ Clayworth 01:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apparently not, the link just doesn't want to work. If you go to

[1] in your address bar, you will find it. Note that the deleted pages are no longer in his contributions, but history pages for the seemingly legitimate changes indicate he really was vandalizing them.--naryathegreat 17:21, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Another note, this may be a public computer, so I revise my original statement and ask for at least 30 days or at most 3 months.--naryathegreat 17:27, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the revised link. I'm still a little reluctant to put a block in place, even more so if this is a public computer. Two warnings were put on the talk page, and that may be enough to stop the vandalism. Often people just stop when they realise that the stupid stuff they write is just going to be erased. I will keep an eye open for this user though; I suggest that if you see them doing something wrong, make a note of the article name (so we can go and examine it from the deleted articles archive). Adding of nonsense articles is one of the least problematic forms of vandalism, since it is so easily spotted; but if this user keeps going we will certainly block them. DJ Clayworth 17:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi David, Just a quick thank you for restoring my page at Serps. Despite the fact it is regularly repaired by other users. one particular user is constantly re-editing and vandalizing it. Thank you. Serps

---

Hi. About your message concerning "England" and BBC. I noticed that the moderators in this site are messing around with the established UN-approved name the Persian Gulf for a while now and they do not allow anybody to edit their writings. They immidiately put back the strange and biased sentence: "and some people stay neutral and call the Persian gulf, the Gulf"!!!!! Actually I know many people who call "England" the Land. If that's the logic behind falsifying the name of Persian Gulf. Why shouldn't the same "logic" be applied to the country which uses this forgery the most???? --Mani1 15:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:Mani1 DJ Clayworth 15:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

(I hope I'm writing this in the right place).

Hi. Thank you for your reply and explanations. I understand the policy of wikipedia but the sentence I have problem with and see as biased is the one which tries to promote the omitting of the name Persian from the name Persian Gulf by calling it being "neutral" to do so. You rewrote that sentence for me as: "some news agencies call it "The Gulf" to avoid having to choose". How are you so sure about their motives? How do you know they change the geographical names and ignore the UN resolutions just to be "neutral"? Does the Wikipedia regulations not compel the writers to write after it: There are some people who do not see using "the Gulf" instead of the Persian Gulf as being neutral?

And when the consensus of the countries of the world in the UN has produced 2 resolutions about the correctness of the name Persian Gulf, who are the Wikipedia writers to decide to put the name Persian Gulf inside question marks?

I hope you understand my points. Thank you for your time. Tane care.

--Mani1 16:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mani

You have a point. I don't know the motivation of those news agencies that use "The Gulf" (although I'm pretty sure at least some of them use it just for shortness - like Mexicans call the Gulf of Mexico "The Gulf" when there is no possibility of confusion). However I will remove the statement about their motives. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--

Thank you DJ Clayworth for paying attention to this point. The point which remains is my objection to the use of the name Persian Gulf inside the question marks. Also one should pay attention to the fact that the name Persian Gulf stemms from the Old Persian name Darya-yi Pars. That name was borrowed by all other languages around and then spread to the whole world. The idea that the name comes from Greek is just a Eurocentric idea without a strong base in the reality. Take care. --Mani1 18:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

put the Lochap page back please!

I wasnt experimenting, it is a website I participate in, and I think it deserves its page here. I just started it, and more needs to be added, so please put it back up!

Thank you

Reply on user talk page. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naming convention for television articles

Hi. Seeing as you were once previously interested in a naming convention, I'd like to invite you to vote on adoption of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). Voting is taking place on the Talk page and ends on Sep 13 2004. -- Netoholic 23:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004

You may be interested in a last-ditch attempt to save User:Pgreenfinch's endangered article European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 which is on a subpage page of VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004. Because this is a subpage it may not be noticed by those scanning the regular VfD page. Recent votes to keep appear to be sock-puppets or people who have become users only to support this article. You may wish to add your vote or comments or both. Jallan 13:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removing categories

Why did you remove Category:Legendary creatures from Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures? Also, why did you remove the Outer planes categories from some creatures (Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons), Slaad, Abishai (creature) & Modron)? ··gracefool |☺ 23:08, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Making a category a member of another category implies that all members of that category are members of the other category - e.g. "dogs" can be a subcategory of "animals" but not vica versa. Someone had made "Dungeons & Dragons creatures" a subcategory of "Legendary creatures" which is not the case. Most D&D creatures are not 'legendary' at all - many (in fact especially the ones listed) exist only within D&D.

I also removed some categories from creatures because the categories are listed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is because they are all names which are used by various mythologies, and so it's not appropriate to make them into D&D only categories. Given that some of the categories only have one or two creatures in, I removed them prior to deletion. You way want to rethink the question of whether we need a category for every plane of existence of the D&D world. DJ Clayworth 16:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. The existence of Category:Legendary creatures is questionable - what exactly is the difference between "legendary creatures" and "fictional species"? Respond at Category talk:Legendary creatures
2. A common misconception of categories is that they correspond only to "is a" relationships. This is not the case; they are simply sets and subsets. A creature which is used by various mythologies as well as D&D belongs to "category:various mythologies" etc. and Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures.

··gracefool |☺ 23:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you are coming from. However I think that not all fictional creatures are legendary (as I just wrote at Category talk:Legendary creatures). To be legendary they have to be part of a legend. Now some D&D creatures are that, especially the ones that D&D borrowed from mythology, and they should be in both categories. But not all are (black puddings, gelatinous cubes etc).

I think you will find we probably mean the same thing about categories. A subset relationship really means is a, at least in simple terms. If D&D creates were a subset of Legendary creatures that would mean that all D&D creatures are legendary creatures. DJ Clayworth 13:36, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right. Continued at Category talk:Legendary creatures. ··gracefool |☺ 02:43, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey DJ... can I ask your reasoning for removing the Pentecostal/Charistmatic Topics category from the "Left Behind" entry? Seems relevant to me -- while the public in general have certainly enjoyed the books, the eschatology contained in them is mostly allied with Pentecostal/Charismatic doctrines. --Jay (Histrion) 22:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Human

Hey, DJ. Have you seen the human page? Wow! It is funny. Species status: secure ROTFL Any ideas? Tom 23:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

redstar2000

Please check the page for new info. I didn't create the page orginally and neither did redstar2000, who is a 60 year old man with little skill when it comes to computers. Anyways, I believe it is reasonable now.--Che y Marijuana 09:22, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:Redstar2000 DJ Clayworth 13:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reply at Talk:Redstar2000--Che y Marijuana 21:02, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Rick Warren & The Purpose Driven Life

Thanks, DJ, for adding the link to the Rick Warren article I expanded (Purpose Driven). Great to know others are out there looking over articles like these. Wonderful you created the Purpose Driven article as well! You beat me to it. If you would like any help on expanding this stub, just leave me a message at my talk page. Happy Trails, --avnative 18:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Feel free to expand on anything. DJ Clayworth 18:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anime bandit

Those anime text dumps just keep coming. Can you block this dweeb before he gets us in trouble? Thanks. Talk to you soon! - Lucky 6.9 18:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped. If he starts again I'll block him/her DJ Clayworth 18:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User Xed

User:Xed is insisting on the Congo paragraph at September 11, 2001 page. WhisperToMe 20:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TV Naming conventions.

At some point in the past you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). I have instigated a new poll on that page. I am hoping that this poll will properly allow all users who have an interest in the subject to express their views fairly before we come to a consensus. I have scrapped the poll that was previously in place on that page because I believe that it was part of an unfair procedure that was going against the majority view. I am appealing to all users who contribute to that page to approve my actions. I would appreciate it if you could take the time and trouble to read the page carefully and express an opinion and vote as you see fit. Mintguy (T) 16:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Willow Creek Community Church & Bill Hybels

Hi again, DJ. I saw that you created the Hybels article already. It was on my list of to do's. I'll be expanding on it very soon - as time permits.

Please take a look at the Willow Creek article if you would be so willing. . . and let me know if I missed anything or made any misstatements, etc. in my expansion. I know it needs a very beefed up history section, which can be done later - and most likely in stages, considering the topic. Thanks! --avnative 21:44, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Willow Creek Community Church but basicly, excellent. Well done. As you say, we can expand by stages (and doubtless leave space for the people who think WC is diluting the Gospel to add their bit too). DJ Clayworth 21:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your very kind estimation of my writing abilities. I humbly bow. . . I certainly had dissenters of WC methods/theology in mind when I listed the honors thesis link. Just not enough time to do it all. . . Doing it in stages is the sane way, eh? (broad grin) Happy Trails, --avnative 22:15, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Incurring the wrath of One Salient Oversight??

Not really! However I'd just like to ask you if you looked at my talk page about the possible copyright infringements before you added the "warning" section on all the pages I created. In that discussion I admitted that there was a possible breach of "Fair use" policy and that I had contacted the author for direction. Moreover I then pointed out that I would remove the offending text if the author directed me to, or if he did not reply within a few days.

You've obviously done a lot of work in re-jigging everything that I had done. Please understand that I was prepared to do all this myself (and made it explicit on my talk page). If any copyright infringements were made it was all an honest mistake that I was prepared to clean up myself. The text you have put in place is all rather official and "we will ban you if you do this again", which sort of makes me feel like a criminal or an idiotic newbie.

I've actually seen some of your work and I think that your contributions are pretty good. I would love to work with you on improving all these articles to make them of a high quality. One Salient Oversight 22:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

see also Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Quotations_from_websites

OSO Again. I'm also of the opinion that many of the pages that were removed from the category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Topics are, in fact, important to the topic at hand. Even though Gospel and Pastor are not in themselves exclusvely Charismatic and Pentecostal, from the C/P perspective they are. Examples:

Sabellianism is an ancient teaching that was condemned by the church. It is present in Oneness Pentecostal churches.

Followership is a behaviour that is encouraged and even explcitly taught amongst many P/C churches.

Alternative worship came about mainly because of the influence of the Charismatic movement in the 1960s and 1970s.

etc etc One Salient Oversight 23:14, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reply on User talk:One Salient Oversight. DJ Clayworth 13:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wisconsin towns

I replied to your query on my talk page. older≠wiser 14:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

THE BATTLE OF BELLISLAND, CONCEPTION BAY, NEWFOUNDLAND

WW II? David, have you heard about two battles which took place near Bell Island, Newfoundland, in 1942 and involving enemy submarines. Four iron ore carriers were sunk and over 60 people lost their lives. For details see http://www.bellisland.net I was there, and 12 years of age, when it happened.

By the way, my url is ]http://www.flfcanada.com There is a forum. There we can discuss pneumatology, unitheism and the like.

About Adolf Reinach

Hi DJ Clayworth,

I'm still working on the article, give me some time and it will expand. Reinach, together with Alexander Pfänder, was a notable member of the Munich phenomenology group, who were inspired by the early works of the philosopher Edmund Husserl. I have created and been working on most of the articles linked from School of Brentano and was beginning to write the articles surrounding the Münich phenomenologists. It should take about a week or two for me to complete them.

Cat 11:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's great. That was the sort of information I was looking for. DJ Clayworth 13:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dabbawala

There is another article Dabbawalla (linked on the Mumbai page). Please could you merge matter shared between the two spellings? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:35, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Done. DJ Clayworth 14:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Systemic Bias section

Hi, you may wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, see - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. You can add your name to the list on my User talk:Xed page. The CROSSBOW page is here: User talk:Xed/CROSSBOW--Xed 14:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Let them come"

Thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Starseeds. VfD is often good for a bit of comic relief, but that one really takes the cake. I appreciate the laugh (though I'm not changing my vote). JamesMLane 21:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was borderline on it myself. Glad to lighten up your day. DJ Clayworth 21:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sellafield

Hi, now that you have mentioned it I have studied the BNFL copyright again I see your point. I used this section as the basis for use of the image:

"You may browse this site and reproduce extracts for non-commercial, informational or personal use only provided that whenever you do so, you incorporate in any such extract a clear written acknowledgment of the fact that such extracts are from BNFL's web site and that copyright in such extracts belongs exclusively to BNFL plc."

However in retrospect the following would seem to disallow its use:

.... nor shall it be modified or incorporated in any other work, publication or site. No other licence is granted.

Was that your point? As such the best thing to do would be to request its deletion wouldn't it? My mistake Mark 23:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That was pretty much my point. Also that Wikipedia is not necessarily non-commercial. Incidentally I know other people have had good success with simply emailing an organisation and asking for special permission to use an image in the encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth 13:21, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re: test

Good point on signing "test" messages. It's the first time I've done one of those things: I'll remember to squiggle like crazy next time! - DavidWBrooks 23:04, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congo Civil War

Over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, the Congo Civil War nod is being shot down quickly. Care to help defend? -- user:zanimum

Lupin III

You did a revert to this page which the anon IP subsequently un-reverted. Were you sure about your revert? The anon edit isn't obviously bad (even though the anon is). Should it be done again?

The anon was, if I remember correctly, adding copyvio articles for episodes of Lupin III. I removed some links to the copyvio articles. As far as I'm concerned it's rarely sensible to add links to non-existent articles. I don't think it makes much difference. Feel free to remvoe the link again if you like. DJ Clayworth 05:41, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Can someone please help me? I think there is somtehingterribly wrong with the messages that said that I had edited an article. Though the IP address is indeed "mine", but I HAD NEVER done any editing of articles. Can someone please comment?

If you are editing Wikipedia anonymously, then we use your IP address as your identifier. Unless your computer is connected directly to the internet, it may be allocated an IP address that is shared by other people. We cannot tell apart the different people using the IP adddress, which means that sometimes we accuse people of things they didn't do. The easiest way to avoid this is to create a login so that we know who you are. DJ Clayworth 17:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forcing all-caps in page titles

You just moved the page on the RTMC Astronomy Expo fixing the bad capitalization. How do I force a page title to have all-caps? Rsduhamel 18:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When you are prompted for the page title, enter it in the appropriate case. Wikipedia will use the case you type in (except that it uppercases the first letter). If you got to the 'create' page by way of a search, used the correct case for the search and you should be asked if you want to create the page using the correct capitalisation. Another easy way to create a page is to use the Wikipedia:Sandbox, make a link to the page you want to exist (with the right capitalisation) and then click on it. DJ Clayworth 18:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:24, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Falklands Communications

Hello,

I'm a bit miffed. I edited some of the information on the Falkland Islands, including updating 20 year old information on the communications section, something that I can claim to be a bit of an authority on. My name is Chris Harris and I hold a fairly senior position with Cable & Wireless the company that runs the communications on the Islands.

I'd like to know on what ground you have reverted my edit to such an out-of-date incorrect version?

Chris Harris

My apologies for the reversion. I actually explained what I had done on the talk page. The main reason was you had written that penetration of some gadget was over 100%; without any explanation this led me to suspect that it was the work of a prankster. I did invite you to resubmit the info if you could back it up. I won't revet it again. DJ Clayworth 01:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a little carried away. 128.187.232.196 01:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Plural redirects

Hi, and thank you for your feedback. I think it's OK to add redirects from plurals to singulars (please see the Wikipedia naming convention on this). The case for adding redirects is also made much stronger due to the search in the Wikipedia not being too crash hot - let me give you an example: "poisons", which has a suggested redirect of "poison". Searching on "poisons" lists 61 results, of which the correct one is buried at number 47. If "poison" was number 1, then I'd be the first to agree with you - but the reality is that it's nowhere near number 1. I (personally) feel a redirect here would help. I also feel that rather than expecting the user to learn the hard way, we should try and help them to find what they were looking for, particularly in the most common situations (the project only addresses the most frequent suggestions, not every possible plural). By the way, to quantify this, the exact number of proposed redirects is 16739, of which between roughly 80 and 90% are accepted, so it'll probably be 14300 redirects added all up. Also, although "Hilbert Spaces" might seem obscure, the articles in the Wikipedia indicate otherwise, with the suggestion that "Hilbert Spaces" be a redirect to "Hilbert Space" occurring on 44 pages, namely:

mysql> select dest, label, found_on_page from redirect_candidate where dest = "Hilbert space";
+---------------+----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| dest          | label          | found_on_page                                 |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Complex number                                |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Color                                         |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | David Hilbert                                 |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Harmonic analysis                             |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Inner product space                           |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Identical particles                           |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Basis (linear algebra)                        |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Quantum entanglement                          |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Symplectic manifold                           |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Topological space                             |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Tensor product                                |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Topological group                             |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Trace (matrix)                                |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Topological vector space                      |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Mathematical analysis                         |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Baire category theorem                        |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Eigenvector                                   |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Direct sum                                    |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Spectral theorem                              |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Parallelogram                                 |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Normal matrix                                 |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Complex conjugate                             |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Self-adjoint operator                         |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Reflexive space                               |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Linear functional                             |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Differential operator                         |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Cokernel                                      |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Fredholm operator                             |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Paul Halmos                                   |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Digital physics                               |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Shift operator                                |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Simply connected space                        |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Positive-definite function                    |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Reproducing kernel Hilbert space              |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Hermitian adjoint                             |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Juliusz Schauder                              |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Min-max theorem                               |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Stone-von Neumann theorem                     |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Concentration of measure                      |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Tikhonov regularization                       |
| Hilbert space | Hilbertian     | Multiplier (Fourier analysis)                 |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Orthogonal complement                         |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Moment problem                                |
| Hilbert space | Hilbert spaces | Direct integral                               |
+---------------+----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
45 rows in set (0.00 sec)

All the best, -- Nickj 04:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, don't let me stop you. DJ Clayworth 05:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree 13th centuries is very very marginal. When I read it I too went "huh, but there can ever only be one" ... I had a quick look at the ways in which it's used (33 times in total), and they're always things like "...in the 12th and 13th centuries" (and the "12th" and "13th centuries" are links) (some examples articles are Academic degree, Scythe, Habsburg), and I thought "hmmmmm ... I guess precisely because there's only one that it's always going to be mean 13th century, and it'll save people having to do this [[13th centuries|13th century]], and they can just do this [[13th centuries]] if they want ... hmmmm ... well, I don't think it's going to hurt or cause confusion ... OK, I guess add it". I definitely agree it's marginal though, and if you think it should be speedy deleted then I completely support that, and I promise I won't be in the least bit offended. Also, if I see any other "Xth centuries --> Xth century" type things, then I'll delete them from the lists. All the best, -- Nickj 06:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstanding

Don't want you to think I was using expletives... I had noticed it while working on Clinton, and actually deleated it... please note, I did not add it in the first place. My short descriptions on pages are simply for creating pages that I can come work on in the future. Thanks, JTilly

Sorry, not me

I added "{{db|newbie test}}" to Mihir. It existed when I started, I wasn't notified of any edit conflict when I saved. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes my apologies, I think I was deleting the article while you were editing it. That doesn't bring up a conflict, but it does mean that I delete the article, and you then effectively add a new one without you realising that it was deleted. You're the second person I've wrongly accused today. Please forgive me. DJ Clayworth 06:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I can understand how that can happen. Hmmmmm... I wonder if the software could be changed so that it warns you if the page was deleted between the time you started the edit and the time you saved? It doesn't seem like it would provide any assistance to vandals, but it would help vandal-fighters from accidentally recreating the exact page they were trying to slate for deletion... -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About Gamini Kularatne's article

Yes yes yes, Gamini Kularatne was composed by myself, and that was MY BLOGSOPT!!!!! AND PICTURE TOO

I just told you once

That was my article(Gamini Kularatne) DJ Clayworth, please remove that tag yourself.

My name is Leigh Podgorski and I am writing regarding my article about DR. KATHERINE SIVA SAUBLE, entitled WHO IS DR. KATHERINE SIVA SAUBLE, CAHUILLA ELDER?. DR. SAUBLE IS AN INDUCTEE INTO THE NATIONAL WOMEN'S HALL OF FAME. Dr. Katherine Siva Saubel is acknowledged nationally and internationally as one of California’s most respected Native American leaders. Dr. Saubel has received a Ph.D in Philosophy from Los Sierra University, Riverside, California. In 2002, she was awarded the Chancellor’s Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the University of California at the University of California, Riverside. Some of her greatest achievements as both a scholar and tribal leader can be seen in her efforts to preserve the language of the Cahuilla people. Mrs. Saubel”s research has appeared nationally and internationally in a variety of government, academic and museum publications. She was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame in the 1990s. Her knowledge of the Cahuilla ethnobotany and tribal affairs has prompted State and Federal legislative committees to seek out her testimony. The depth of Mrs. Saubel’s expertise in Cahuilla culture can be demonstrated in the second major focus of her scholarship: Native ethnobotany, the study of the plant lore of a specific ethnic group. Mrs. Saubel is acknowledged as the founder of the Malki Museum and the Malki Museum Press. The museum is the first nonprofit museum on Native American Reservation. Past and current governors of California have honored Chairperson Saubel. She has been appointed to a variety of Commissions and agencies, where she has led the fight to preserve scared locations throughout California while serving on the California Native American Heritage Commission.

BOOKS and WRITING  Temalpakh: Cahuillan Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants  Cahuilla Ethnobotanical Notes; Oak, with Lowell Bean  Cahuilla Ethnobotanical Notes: Mesquite and Screwbean with Dr. Bean  I’Isniyatam, (Designs, a children’s book)  Chem’ivillu’ (Let’s speak Cahuilla) with Pamela Munro  Editorials published in the Journal of California Anthropology and Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology.

ACHIEVEMENTS AND AWARDS

 President of the Malki Museum  Member of the Riverside County Historical Commission  Member of the Los Coyotes Tribal Council.  Member of the Governor’s California Native Heritage Commission  County Historian of the Year 1986  First Native American inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame.  Recipient of the Young Women’s Christian Association Achievement Award  Recipient of the Desert Protective Council Award  Recipient of the National Museum of the American Indian of the Smithsonian Institution first Art and Cultural Achievement Award

 Mounted Cahuilla Voices: We are still here. Art exhibit shown at the Grace Hudson Museum in Ukiah, California, The Reese Bullen Gallery at Humboldt State University, The Southwest Museum in Los Angeles, and Palm Springs Desert Museum, Palm Springs, California. I certainly believe all her accomplishments deem her notable -- you can also find her listed in the Britanica --

Dr. Saubel considers me her biographer since I took her oral history and wrote the play WE ARE STILL HERE on her life that performed throughout SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, premiering at the Autry Museum. Subsequent performances include the Sherman Indian School in Riverside, CA, UCLA, the International NoHo Theatre and Arts Festival, the Indian Cultural Awareness Conference at Cal State San Bernardino, and the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino, the Native American Culture and Arts Conference at Idyllwild Arts, the California Indian Conference at Chaffey College and Palomar College, and at the University of California, Riverside, in honor of Mrs. Saubel’s Chancellor’s Award. In 2006 I completed the documentary film WE ARE STILL HERE which has been screened at ANZA BORREGO DESERT NATURAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION, and the 32nd annual AMERICAN INDIAN FILM FESTIVAL.