User talk:EddEdmondson

Hi. It appears we have a problem in common? Reddi keeps reverting my changes to HAARP to include some cut-n-paste from the Telsa page, and any attempt to get him to either remove it or edit it are met with outright reverts. It appears this is happening to the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect page as well, and I note he has reverted it again. Maury 13:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Reddi and I did have a bit of an editing battle, although I think it's died down and the major points that were wrong in the original article have stabilised. There are still points that I think might be wrong, and some external links he's added which I'd have said were on the borders of the subject, but I've decided to leave those for some other user to argue over. In fairness to Reddi he did build on some of the edits rather than directly reverting, which would have caused difficulties. EddEdmondson 14:39, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi there. Thanks a lot for the note, I didn't notice it was still there. Yeah, that's the second time recently that I've had a page not go away when I tried to delete it. Last time I asked another admin, and he couldn't get it to delete either. Far as I know, that page is still there. Weird. Happy editing, Isomorphic 00:48, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Re: Speedy Deletion 2 Thanks for support 3 Quadell's nomination 4 Page merging 5 Article Licensing

Re: Speedy Deletion

Thanks for the comments you left on my talk page! I'll remember the Speedy Deletion tag from now on. :) Vesta 02:52, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It happens. Don't worry about it :) Dysprosia 12:59, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for support

Many thanks for your recent support for me as sysop. I think that I'll take some time playing myself in before I go mad! Cutler 12:24, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

What Cutler said! Neutrality 20:42, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Quadell's nomination

At risk of increasing your Wikistress after your brain has had a bit of rest, I wanted to let you know that Jimbo Wales has given his opinion on the matter of the Khalid bin Mahfouz issues and Quadell's role in it. You may see this information at VfA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#User:Quadell_.2816.2F5.2F3.29_ends_17:20.2C_16_July_2004_.28UTC.29). I would be grateful if you would read the material and see if it changes your opinion on the nomination (yet again). Thanks, Cecropia | Talk 03:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done EddEdmondson 06:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Page merging

Thanks for your help on the lightsabre thing Ed, sorry I'm still pretty new and didn't realise this.

Phil S

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 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. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are 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 what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)