User talk:Jeffq/2007

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Canvassing can annoy other editors, as has been said on your talk page, but I take no offense, and I understood that you probably got my username from some old edits. Ordinarily I would be happy to help out, but I'm afraid I'm not up to full involvement in this article at the moment. I will say this: I am not in favor of splitting off such information, because it is germane to the subject. I do, however, believe that it should be scrupulously referenced and kept to a minimum to keep from overwhelming the article. I would not support an article split that would merely encourage conspiracy theorists to add nonsense, however well-documented, to Wikipedia. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

SVG??

Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. Also, could you please resond on my talk page? Thanks. --Green-Dragon 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see at User talk:Green-Dragon#SVG?? that Shirahadasha gave you some good pointers on where to go for some answers — much better than I could have. I hope this works out for you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Serenity

Hey Jeff, I've replied at Talk:Serenity (Firefly vessel)#Mothership or not? - Hope this helps. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well-researched, cogently argued disagreements always help, whatever the outcome. Thanks for the note, and for explicitly raising the issue. (Perhaps I should have done this myself.) Now we can see what others think, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

MST3k episode articles.

Even though I know I've brought it up before, it's been quite awhile since so I was wondering if you were still interested concerning the whole sort-of-shindig? Always willing to contribute thereto if you're wondering. DrWho42 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you never answered my question about your specific intention at Talk:Mystery Science Theater 3000#Episodes/Experiments vs. Movies. Can I assume from your posting title that your intention is to create individual MST3K episode articles? I'm on record as believing this could be useful, but am not prepared at this time to do any significant work on it, as I'm stretched way too thin right now. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit!

The section used to be a neat little critism section until that user 74.116.181.153 added about a paragraph of rebuttals to it, i could'nt be bothered challenging it, so i just keep removing the POV and trimming it slightly, feel welcome to take the section back to the 8th of january if you want. You'll have my support anyway... Asopia321 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only been doing modest tweaking as I see it needed on that article. I'm not prepared right now to analyze its current state too much. I'm trusting that everyone else there will keep each other relatively honest. Thanks for the heads-up, though. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

My recent nomination for Good Article status for Youngstown, Ohio passed! I have requested a Peer Review of the article in hopes of nominating it for Featured status in the near future. If you would like to contribute to the Peer Review Process, please go here Wikipedia:Peer review/Youngstown, Ohio. Your assistance is appreciated! --Daysleeper47 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How to restore the content after vandal intrusion

Hi, Jeffq! I am about the page Dignity. Someone without name 207.233.122.189 erased most of content with an insulting comment. I tried to restore but apparently don't know how. Will you please teach me. Abuhar 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Jeffpw has already fixed your immediate problem, but I'll tell you how to do it in the future. At the top of each page, there is a "history" tab. Click on that to see the recent edit history of that page. You'll see a list of dates/times with usernames (or IP addresses) and edit summaries (wherever the users remembered to include a summary, which should always be done). To the left of each edit row, you'll see links for (cur), (last), and two buttons.

To look at an older version of the article, just click on the date/time link that represents that version. As I write this, your last edit is represented by the row with "02:03, 13 February 2007 Abuhar". If you display that page, then "edit" it and save it, it will "revert" all the changes since your edit. (Notice that when you edit it, you will see a red message at the top warning you it's an old version. You really don't want to edit an old version unless you are specifically trying to revert recent changes.) Before you save it, be sure to put something like "reverting to last version by Abuhar" in the edit summary, or else people may think you're trying to be sneaky about changing it back to the older version.

There's a lot you can do with the edit history. If you pick an older version by clicking on its left button and a newer one by clicking on its right button, then pressing the "Compare selected versions" button at the top or bottom of the list, you can see all the changes that were made between the two versions. For more neat tricks, read Help:Edit history.

I hope you find this useful. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It was very useful. Apparently I forgot about the "edit" button when I saw my old version. Thanks again! Abuhar 18:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot: dated templates inside references

Apparently there is a problem with SmackBot's "Date/fix maintenance tags" process, in which an undated {{fact}} tag is replaced with a dated one. Based on an 8 February 2007 bot-edit done to Satellite of Love (MST3K) ([1]), such a tag inside an HTML <ref> element does not get properly processed, leaving template parameters unsubstituted and the template usage itself mangled. (I've manually fixed the problem for that article.) I'm not sure how common this problem is, so I felt uncomfortable stopping the bot by leaving a note on its talk page. Please review this situation to see how it might be avoided. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a known mediawiki problem. Therefore I now replace the (date=)"subst:CURRENTMONTH" "subst:CURRENTYEAR" parameters before making the save. Unfortunately this means that "March 2007" is hardcoded into the regular expressions, albeit only in one place. I believe there are not many if any unfixed. Rich Farmbrough, 12:14 16 March 2007 (GMT).

Centreville, Virginia

Hi Jeff:

I'm from Centreville, and I'll keep a sharper lookout on the article to ensure it's factually correct. Thanks for the update. Zidel333 18:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oop

Oops], that's what I meant the target to be, thanks. Mak (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I've been there many times myself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title includes personal names AFD

Hi Jeff - I think you might be interested to see this - I don't understand the mania for deleting these types of things, and think this one is a valuable pop culture resource that represents over 3 years of work. Deleting it is just insulting dozens of editors' work. Anyway, if you weren't aware of the AFD, I thought you might be interested in commenting - however yoju see things these days. Nice to meet you Tvoz |talk 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

James Randi image

Hello - you removed Image:James Randi crop.jpg from James Randi, but I don't get why. You said in the summary there was "no assertion of ownership on image description page to validate claimed CC license". I was wondering what you meant by this - the image looks legit. Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the image description page and saw that "H2g2bob" (i.e., you) uploaded the image, but it is said to be "authored" by Flickr user "ensceptico". There is no stated connection between the two. Furthermore, ensceptico makes no assertion on his/her Flickr pages (that I saw, at least) that s/he owned the uploaded images. (I've often seen claims that someone has "created" an image when all they've done is taken an image they don't own and cropped or otherwise modified it.) I don't mean to cast aspersions on your effort. But given the widespread uploading of unowned images by folks who find the unapproved use of copyrighted material perfectly okay, despite its illegality, it is very important for uploaders to make their ownership of any images explicit if they are asserting a right to release it under CCL or GFDL. If you are the owner, and you are "ensceptico", you should state this clearly in the Wikimedia description page. (Actually, we don't really care if you are "ensceptico". If the Flickr user doesn't claim ownership, that's their problem. Wikipedia is only interested in whether our "H2g2bob" asserts ownership. It would be helpful, however, to say how you came to own this image, in case any questions come up. See my user image's description for how I did this.) This doesn't prevent folks from making false claims, but if we follow this basic requirement, we are at least doing due diligence to prevent copyright violations. Let me know if you have any questions about this, or about editing the description page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Response.

I am investigating some sockpuppetry claims on Wikiquote, so I would appreciate it if you could definitively respond yes or no that you are the same person behind q:User:Link, as that user page claims. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not that user. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have since blocked the Wikiquote user who claimed to be you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eureka Seven

Hello fellow Wikipedian. Can you please put a {{wikipedia}} on the external link sectoin on q:Eureka Seven, which is in n wikiquote? I would do it kindly, but i have to [censored]. Thank you very much. A Link to tha Past

PS -please do it, since i am [censored].

I see that you have gotten Poetic Decay to make this edit on this and at least one other Wikiquote article. I must ask why you do not do them yourself. Saying you are "[censored]" is not clear. The username "A Link to tha Past" does not appear to be blocked on Wikiquote, although we would be concerned with its similarity to Wikipedia's User:A Link to the Past, whom at least one Wikiquote user attempted to impersonate already. If you have been blocked under another username, tell me what it is and I will review the situation to see if there is cause to consider unblocking you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know why I was blocked on wikiquote. I misspelled my name on my username page. I meant to link to "See me at Wikipedia for any questions, comments and concerns". Accidentally, I put "the" not "tha", although I really wanted "the" for my username, but it didn't work. Well, I was trying to have another identity on wikiquote. So can you unblock me? PS, the censored meant that on this wiki i don't curse. On the other one however i do. A Link to tha Past

Does that mean yes? Will I be unblocked? Hey can you delete my userpage? A Link to tha Past

You didn't actually answer my specific question, but I deduce that you are q:User:Link on Wikiquote. I blocked that user because I asked both that name and Wikipedia's User:A Link to the Past to confirm or deny that they are the same user. When you said nothing and WP's user denied being you, I blocked you for impersonating him. Please bear in mind that slight spelling variations on very distinctive names are almost always used by vandals, and your "misspelling" made you look even more like an impersonator rather than the victim of a typo. Futhermore, you are one of the parties involved in a spate of sockpuppetry centered around anime articles on Wikiquote, so I am reluctant to unblock your WQ user until we get a result from the CheckUser request designed to filter out the sockpuppets from the rest. I therefore ask for your patience in this regard.

By the way, you should sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), which the wiki editor converts to your linked username and a timestamp that is very important for tracking the timing and flow of talk page discussions.

As for your userpage, which I accidentally posted a welcome message to, I cannot delete it (as I am not a WP administrator), but I have removed my post. My apologies for the error. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was taking a break and by the time I read the message i was blocked by then. on this wiki, where I have a different identity/personality and tend to use slang and writing errors, I sign with three of those thangs. I'm not the type to give a dam whether i'm banned or not, can you do me a favor though? please? A Link to tha Past

Answer the question please. A Link to tha Past

Please note that pestering editors for immediate responses and cursing about them is a sure way to get yourself ignored and ultimately blocked for trolling. Wikimedia does not censor, but it insists that be civil toward each other. You should not expect immediate responses from editors; Wikipedia is not an instant-message system, and editors — even administrators — are not standing by solely to talk with you. Futhermore, your statements and actions are self-contradicting, claiming you don't "give a dam" [sic] if you are banned, but then posting on 2 different projects in rapid succession to complain about being blocked.

I have blocked q:User:A Link to the Past on Wikiquote for 1 week while we sort out the sockpuppet problems I've already mentioned, but I suspect this WQ username will be permanently blocked or reassigned to the WP user under q:Wikiquote:Username policy because it causes confusion. Your rudeness, pestering, self-contradictions, and initial apparent attempt to impersonate a WP user in the middle of a 3-project sockpuppet battle is very strong evidence that your efforts are not sincere, even without the CheckUser results. I can pretty much assure you that no one is going to seriously consider your unblock requests unless you stop pestering folks and let us do our job in the investigation. Once we have some results, we can talk about remedies. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Iojima/Iōtō article: Thanks! :)

Likewise, thanks to you for so graciously fixing the Washington Post–USA Today error! Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're too kind. I feel foolish for having made the mistake in the first place. ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Green Iguana in captivity

Thank you for fixing the references in Green Iguana in captivity. I tried to fix the citation but blew it. Here is the source: Deborah L Wiggins, DVM, ZooBoise, www.zooboise.org, June,2002, Personal Interview during "Guido's Medical Exam." the copywrite would be hers on that date. Appreciate you fixing this one, also. Any other help would be appreciated also.--Adio11 06:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an actual URL (web address) for this interview? A website name doesn't provide the specific information we need to verify the statements, which is an essential part of Wikipedia writing. The zoo's website seems fairly rudimentary, with no site index, search, or other apparent mechanism to locate specific articles or any information other than basic material. I tried looking for "Guido's Medical Exam", "deborah l wiggins", "green iguana" and "separation anxiety", and other combinations in Google, but found only WP article copies and other pages not apparently providing a source for the statement about fatal separation anxiety.

By the way, the reason I made the references changes is that bare links within the "ref" tags don't tell the reader much about the actual information from the source. Most folks expect these are sufficient because one can just jump to the page to see what it says. But links break all the time. Much of my WP editing these days is fixing and replacing broken links, or replacing them with {{fact}} tags because there was too little information in the link to find a replacement when it broke. In addition to a specific URL, specific page title, author, date written, and date last accessed can really help identify the original information so we can find an alternative source for it if necessary. Thank you for understanding and welcoming these improvements. Let me know if you have any questions about using the templates for source information, or about any other topics. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

An Award

		The Original Barnstar
		I Dfrg.msc award you this Barnstar in commemoration of your excellent contributions and civility. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 06:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it was mainly for your work I noticed in the Ha-Ha (street artist) article, which I started. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Answer to your question @ WikiProject U.S. (census data)

x-posting this now or I will forget (again)

Sorry I hadn't noticed this earlier. The U.S. Census data "highlights" are available at http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html. Factfinder frustrates me to no end (and it beats the . . . out of searching census.gov), but it's a handy way to find some data by city/ town, county, or zip code.

Make sure you click on the 2000 tab after the "Fact Sheet" loads, because the 2005 American Community Survey is the default.

(Originally @ 04:22, 1 July 2007)

Happy fact-checking.

.s

X ile 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC) - Talk

Nice meeting you

It was nice meeting you Saturday. You asked me to remind you about the scanner, so that's the reason for this post. Whenever you can get it into a usable state, let me know. -- BRG 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:AWB Regex Problem

"...but the new beta version failed to make a basic, non-regexp pattern match to allow me to quickly change a bunch of redirects. Since 3.9.1.0 is no longer allowed to edit, I can no longer use AWB."

Can you please explain more as to what this bug is? Or file a Bug report

Reedy Boy 12:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I had fetched all pages that linked to Once Upon a Honeymoon and used the advanced "Find and replace" to change occurrences of "Once Upon a Honeymoon" to "Once upon a Honeymoon" (no regular expression, yes for case-sensitive). Each page AWB pulled gave me some kind of error that implied the text wasn't found (even though I knew it was and later fixed the occurrences manually). The error was something like "no changes made — 'Ignore' to continue", displayed immediately after the page was loaded, when I was expecting to see the diff page like the old version. It seemed like such a basic flaw that it suggested either that this beta was completely bollixed (which I seriously doubted), or some interplay between my system, my AWB settings, and the data and articles I was working on caused AWB to fail to do this simple task. I "guesstimated" that I had only a 1-in-4 chance of getting it resolved without taking much of my time, and zero chance of doing it faster than I could manually edit the pages.

I chose not to write down the specific conditions and results and report it as a bug because I simply don't have time to spend helping to debug the beta AWB that we are being forcing to use. I have over a half-year backlog of wiki work to do, most of which AWB can't help me with, so it's much more productive for me to abandon the AWB-driven work for a few months until you have something more solid. I know I could have done this particular mass-editing task more simply. I know I could have experimented with it more to find the problem(s). But I am more interested in reducing my backlog that adapting my practices to an unfinished software version.

I know that doesn't help the AWB programmers, and I'm sorry about that, but I'm sure there are plenty of editors who use AWB much more than I do and can therefore better justify the time investment in beta-testing. What irritates me is that this system of allowing only one version to work at a time, even if it's only a beta, forces all AWB users to be beta-testers. As a software developer myself, I would object to this on principle even if I didn't have more important things to do with my wiki time. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

A first point to be made, is there no system of allowing only one version to work at a time. We have 3.9.0.0 and 3.9.1.0 enabled before. The only difference between the 2 was a bug that messed up the AWB gui on 19" monitors. As it didnt affect everyone, we didnt force an upgrade.

This could have been released as a non beta version, but the bugs would still be there, but we wouldnt have users complaining about us forcing you to use beta software. The software has been tested, and we fixed the bugs we found. There are 2 bugs outstanding, that i would class as 'major', one being an exception being thrown by wikidiff for some unknown reason... And not for everyone - not easy to debug, and a bug realted to awb not displaying correctly on certain resolutions.

AWB is generally the same, so little adaption is really needed...

For you being unable to do the FAR - [2]. Done with the normal FAR function, and with the Advanced FAR [3]. So something must have been wrong at your end... Reedy Boy 13:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

For the last several versions (right up to now), I have received the following error message whenever I try to to use an older version (even once when I'd just installed it the previous week):

This version is not enabled, please download the newest version. If you have the newest version, check that Wikipedia is online.

I am still getting this message while trying to run 3.9.1.0, when the only newer version I'm aware of is 4.0.0.0 (which is a self-described beta, even though this is not stated in the SourceForge download page). This is what I called a "forced upgrade".

My most recent attemtpts have included in this message the addition information:

Please press "Yes" to run the AutoUpdater, "No" to load the download page and update manually, or "Cancel" to not update (but you will not be able to edit).

Since AutoUpdater ran automatically when I started 3.9.1.0, the first option seems pointless. (Nor did it ever finish whatever it was trying to do.) Both the second and third options result in a message in what I assume is the AWB status area, "Software disabled". It won't even let me log into Wikipedia, which is obviously online because I'm writing this message right now. I upgraded to 4.0.0.0, and had the problems I give above. I've already stated that I expect the problem is on my end (i.e., "some interplay between my system, my AWB settings, and the data and articles I was working on", all of which are in the user environment). That doesn't give a by to the software; it shouldn't be so shaky that expected settings break it.

If this software is so unstable that one must debug one's previously perfectly fine settings to get the new beta version to work, it's not worth the hassle to me. Someday in the future, I may return, completely wipe all my old settings, freshly install that latest (non-beta) version, and give it another try. But for now, I've got other things to do that are more important to me. Thank you for your time, and good luck on finishing the released version, as I'm sure there are many to whom this software is mission-critical. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Quotes

Thank you very much for your comment on my talk page. I must admit, I was not aware of the historical tag on the page I was using to justify my changes, and have hence stopped making my edits until a consensus can be reached, or until I can at least see how other people feel. I actually had to look something up on Wiki RE: Buffy, and I came across one of the episode articles which, I am sad to say, are in dire need of repair.

As the Buffy WikiProjects page seems mostly inactive, and I know that talk pages for a majority of the episodes are virtually dead, I took it upon myself to make the sprucing up of the pages, which need extensive rewrites. One of the major things that annoyed me was the quotes sections, with quite a few episodes having both a "Quotes" section, and a "Quotes and Trivia" section, along with a link to wikquotes. I asked a few friends of mine who edit wikipedia with much more frequency than I on what should be done, and I was told that WP:QUOTE was the rule by which to follow.

To make a long ramble short, I apologise for making the edits on a rule which is not actually a rule, although I do feel that the edits do need to be made, and I'm extremely interested in working with you to get WP:QUOTE reinstated, or, if the consensus chooses, deciding on new rules RE: quotes. ♥Zytch♥^talk 02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Georgia.CongressDistrict09.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Georgia.CongressDistrict09.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Tobogganoggin ^talk 02:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Pinchofhope

Thanks for the heads up on that. I was using twinkle to prod the page. When you prod a page with twinkle, you simply click on the "prod" tab, type your reasons in a pop up window, and click "submit". This automatically informs the user without opening their talk page, so I wasn't aware it deleted content. (I didn't remove the content manually, that's for sure!). Anyway, I see you have restored the deletion warnings on the page. Apologies for that slip up. I'll be more wary in the future. Spellcast 03:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk template replacement

While I appreciate your desire to implement the recent decision made at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 20#Template:Talk page, I take great exception to what seems to me to be a highly irregular "discussion", and the alterating of my carefully chosen notice to my communicants by replacing a help-style template for them with a template with a completely different purpose. (If I'd wanted that at the top of my user talk page, I would have chosen it instead or incorporated it into my talk page header.)

It looks like few of the template users participated in the discussion. I know I certainly had not noticed the TFD notice, given I had only one communication during the TfD period, and had jumped directly to the discussion rather than think to look at the (usually) unchanging text at the top of my talk page. If there were so few of us users, I think it would have been considerate to have posted a notice to each of us so we'd be sure to notice. If there were many of us, and perhaps even if not, the TfD can hardly be considered any reasonable consensus.

Can you give me a good reason why you felt it necessary to nominate this template, and why I shouldn't file a request for a review? Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the original template can easily be transcluded from your userspace if you wish to keep the old version (I'd be more than happy to help any user who would like this done). Nothing was being deleted here, it was simply a name standardization. It should be relatively easy to fix if you liked the old version. I wouldn't have deleted it with the level of consensus there was at the discussion page, but given that any user can use the template code to replace the template in his or her own userspace, I felt that the arguments for standardization were the strongest. Best, IronGargoyle 02:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely you aren't suggesting that all you have done is to standardize naming? You have effectively eliminated the friendly template by redirecting it to another one with a completely different purpose. If you really were looking for standardization, you should have recommended changing the template name so that it didn't interfere with your desired standardization. Instead, you have forced non-participating template users to accept your change of purpose or adopt the balkanized version of a hard-coded insertion of the old text and formatting for each of their pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be hard-coded... you can transclude it from your userspace (or mine... {{User:IronGargoyle/User talk}}). Best, IronGargoyle 02:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Again missing the point. Templates exist so lots of pages can take advantage of the same desirable formatted text and possibly optional features. Individual subpage transclusion is not a solution, just another balkanization (by which I mean that people who once were happy with using a single structure are now expected to create individual replacements). Why did you believe it was important to deprive users of this template of this ability? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Iwo Jima

I found 2 Japanese news paper articles issued in 1922, using Iwo To. Do you want to see them? I think the change of the pronunciation has nothing to do with politics. Oda Mari 08:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike Godwin

I think you'd have a better shot at contacting him through his user talk page rather than the his ARTICLE'S talk page. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

D'OH! Thanks for the tip. [sheepish grin] ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)