User talk:N328KF
|
|
Hi there - looks like you're making some aircraft contributions. You might want to take a look at WikiProject Aircraft, which is where you can find links to naming conventions and templates for the data tables. You might even want to put your name down as a participant. Cheers --Rlandmann 01:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry. See Talk:supercarrier for proposal. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Strategic Bombing
Nice edit on Strategic bombing. Stargoat 21:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Maritime Geography
Hey, thanks for GulfMex_WaterTypes.png! Well done! --the Epopt 00:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Embraer E-Jets
Good job on consolidating and rewriting these articles. ElBenevolente 19:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg
Please go here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg and change your comment to whatever you want it to be... I just copied it from your other comment temporarily... — マイケル ₪ 17:47, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
I've explained what was missed in the fair use analysis for this image on VfD. You might find that and the case I've mentioned helpful - I particularly recommend reading the full decision in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation and ideally some other fair use decisions - it's tough to understand how to apply fair use until you've read some decisions which do. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music may alsobe of interest and if you're really keen on musical fair use you might visit Columbia Law Library's music copyright site (http://www.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/law/library/) Jamesday 11:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Date conventions
BTW, we've generally been following the DD-MM-YY convention for US articles on military subjects, since that's how the US military does things. Changing USS Constitution just makes an old oddball more consistent with the hundreds of others. Stan 17:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
EADS trainer
Hi. I think the name of the EADS HEAT trainer is "Mako", not "Meko" (see www.eads.net) . But I wanted to check that with you before moving the entire article. Do you agree ? --Iediteverything 12:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Clips
They're against policy because they're MP3s, see Wikipedia:Sound. I wasn't addressing whether they're against policy on fair use, sorry if that wasn't clear. --Michael Snow 21:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Battle of the Bulge
He he, I guess I’m inspired today. --GeneralPatton 21:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IBM logo
You added IBM's logo Image:IBM logo.jpg a little while back. That is a registered trademark of IBM. You should probably assert fair use and tag it like the Microsoft logo here Image:Microsoft.JPG. Autiger 22:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't mean to actually pull those in; unlinked. Autiger 02:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Action Directe
Why have you italicized Action Directe in the Action Directe (gang) article? --Edcolins 21:46, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. Is there some sort of Wikipedia convention or style guideline for this, or is it a general written convention even outside Wikipedia? I never italicize names of foreign origins... Maybe I should? --Edcolins 22:26, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Alright! Good to know that... --Edcolins 22:46, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Image tagging re: Image:Battleship row.jpg
I saw your note from June on Image:Battleship row.jpg that I created. I suggest you read the Copyright FAQ that James and I wrote. Basically, taking something and modifying it creatively creates a new copyright on it. And the in the future, *do not* tag images when you are unsure of their status. →Raul654 00:16, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Username
Hey Joseph, so there I am reading my issue of Flight International and the picture of SpaceShipOne seems to stand out, why does the registration seem so familiar to me? So that's the reason behind your username, am I the 1st to notice or just the person who took the longest to work it out? Mark 19:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lacrosse
When deciding whether to change a redirect to a disambiguation page, you must first determine whether the current page being redirected to is used in the majority of references. If it is, the suggested approach is to keep the redirect but add a link at the top of the page redirected to, pointing to a disambiguation page. In the case of Lacrosse, almost all of the current links to the page refer to the sport. Thus, I believe keeping the redirect to sports is the preferred solution. Also, if you decide to change a redirect to disambiguation, it is YOUR responsibility to fix all the links. If you are not up to this responsibility, then don't change the redirect to disambiguation. Add your concerns to the discussion page instead. RedWolf 02:35, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Skadden
Thanks for the addition and comment. Skadden is a LARGE firm (as I am sure you are aware), so it is definitely not a vanity page. Anyone in law or investment banking has heard of Skadden. All information in the article is factual and NPOV. I don't state anything like "prestigious", "respected" or "best". Overall, it looks like a lot of work is needed on law firms pages (see all the red links at List of law firms), not a task I desire to undertake. Take care. Nelson Ricardo 04:04, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Blohm & Voss
I know that the company now refers to itself as "Blohm + Voss", but note that this is a relatively new development in typography. Certainly, whilst the company was manufacturing aircraft it was "Blohm & Voss", as can be seen in the company logo of the time. I agree that the name used in the article on the company should reflect current usage (and if we could have + in the article title, it should be moved there), but I'm not sure it belongs on WWII-era articles... --Rlandmann 02:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I was wondering about that change too - my usual habit has been to favor the name used at the time of construction, while relying on link/redir to connect to current name. Otherwise you get articles on sailing ships that were constructed by "Nuclear Hydrofoils Inc", :-) reads a bit anachronistically. Stan 13:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- See my response at User talk:Rlandmann. -Joseph 14:26, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
featured tag
Hi there - {{featured}} only goes on the talk pages of featured articles. --mav 01:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Stop the script from switching to supercripts
Please for the love of gawd. :( It makes baby jesus cry. Superscripts should only be used when writing formulas. Each browser behaves differently with these and some of them fuck up the document's format. So please, if you can, stop running that in your script. —Joseph | Talk 04:28, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
N328KF wrote:
I sympathize with your plight, but superscript is HTML compliant. If I'm doing everything by per specification, doesn't that mean you should get a better browser. No offense, this is pure discussion.
Yeah, it is, the same way that <frame> and target=_blank are, and <blink> was.. but we don't use them, do we? ;-) You see, it really doesn't matter what browser you have, super and subscripts will always fuck up the rendering because of their natural behavior: they are, should, and will always be placed in the outside boundary of a text line. That is why it is recommended to use them on mathematical formulas only. The real questions is: are the sub/superscripts necessary for other type of texts? does the use of sub/superscripts in other cases (non-mathematical) justifies the rendering consequences? —Joseph | Talk 15:35, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
N328KF wrote:
Just what browser are you using? Gecko-based browsers and IE seem to be fine with it.
They seem fine cuz Wikipedia's Monobook Skin uses a bigger line-height, which prevents these problems for superscripts on the first level. Switch to the Classic skin which uses the standard line-height and check out if it renders it in the same way. At least Mozila doesn't. ;-) See [1] (http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/encyc/sup.html) for an example of what I'm trying to tell you about the sub/sub behavior. (I gotta go now, talk ta ya later) —Joseph | Talk 16:23, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Just so you guys know, if you're just doing squared & cubed, you can use ² or ³ and it doesn't screw up line heights like <sup> does. -eric 06:20, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Link?
Well, I took that from the existing phrasing "nearly as accurately". Could you please refer me to a link that "exactly" duplicates the memo using MS Word, taking into account that the bottoms of the letters are not level with the baseline? Thanks. Wolfman 04:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. But I don't see it right up top, and that's a lot of links to wade through. Would you mind just pointing me directly to the Word file someone has created that exactly duplicates the memo. Wolfman 04:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks my bad. I got distracted by looking at his list of links there, instead of the text itself. Will have a look. Wolfman 04:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, we'll have to leave it to the experts. Those certainly don't look the same to me. In particular, look at the baseline. For example, checkout the bottom of 'd' & 'b' in the word 'feedback'. Also, look at where the 'th' is in the memo, compared to the Word Doc. There are lots of things like that. But, whatever. I personally don't much care. Just trying to provide some balance to the article with minimal effort. Wolfman 04:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. I would be happy to let those who are both more knowledgable and neutral write the article. Based on the pre-existing writeup, I am forced to conclude that one of those attributes is missing. Wolfman 05:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Great additions to the Killian Memos doc!
Sdaconsulting 21:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
FYI
I am not a leftist, nor am I adding "leftist perspective" any more than you are adding "rightist perspective". Evidence is neither left nor right. Honestly, I don't give a hoot about this issue. It's just that the page was so blatantly unbalanced that it got under my skin. I am, in fact, a libertarian who is currently somewhat more annoyed with the elephants than with the donkeys. Wolfman 05:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Libertarian
I'm a libertarian too, and what gets under my skin is the media lying about this shit. Facts are not negotiable, and the 60 minutes story is based on a pitifully fraudulent document, as many, many leftists, rightests, libertarians and folks of every other stripe agree. I'm flabbergasted about the lack of reality testing that many people appear to have. Sdaconsulting 20:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Page moves
When moving a page, (like John J. Pershing) be sure to fix the links to direct to the new article location; especially make sure that there are no double redirects. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
C-17
I was considering removing this line from the C-17 page and similar references throughout RAF specific pages,
- "In RAF service, the C-17 is referred to as the Globemaster C1."
As far as I am aware this is not official and any such designation, C.1 or not, will only be used once the lease period is over. The RAF continues to refer to the aircraft as the "Boeing C-17". A Google search of Globemaster C1 turns up pages that are copies of the Wikipedia page and as such I think it would be important to correct this error. e.g. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/C-17_Globemaster_III. Any thoughts? Mark 20:35, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Space Race revertions
Please stop reverting the Space Race article to include the moon rock sentence without discussing it on Talk:Space Race. violet/riga (t) 18:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
redirects
you've been creating a few redirects about american ships (USS Chandler (DD-996), etc.), but they redirect to nonexistent pages. Are you planning on writing these pages? blank redirects like that can be confusing. Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- thanks. just want to make sure you weren't leaving these behind. those hydrofoil articles are real nice, btw. Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:20, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
GWB Military Service Controversy
Wow! Thanks for spotting that signature. What a bone-headed move by me. I have over 1500 article edits and that's the 1st time that happnened. Yikes! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Missing image
Happyjoe.jpg
Image:Happyjoe.jpg
]] 17:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rutan Long-EZ
Hi - just curious about why you moved this page to "Rutan Aircraft Factory Long-EZ"? We don't generally use the full names of manufacturers in titles, and Google shows that practically nobody else does either (700 hits for "Rutan Long-Ez" against 1 single hit for "Rutan Aircraft Factory Long-EZ"... --Rlandmann 22:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Scaled Composites Proteus
You added that the Proteus was developed into the Tier One's White Knight - I'm not sure this is true. Just take a look at the two side by side and you'll see that they're pretty substantially different. Proteus is tandem-wing, for starters, whlie the white knight has a single long wing with a pair of t-tails. The similarity seems to lie in the appearance of the cockpit pod and the fact the engines are sort of shoulder-mounted. Anyway, I'm not going to change it back because I could be wrong, but do let me know where you got your information. Thanks! -eric 19:21, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, definitely see where you're coming from now. The article is clearer as well. -eric 19:28, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Rutan Quickie
Why the addition of the model number? I've never seen it referred to with a model number, particularly as it was not solely Rutan's own design. It was also not an RAF design, marketed instead by the Quickie Aircraft Corporation. [2] (http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/rutan_quickie.htm) -eric 05:58, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Good point on the article title... I'm now not sure where it should go, actually. I just learned about the shared design responsibility & QAC today, looking up the model number for the Quickie. What resource are you using to find the Rutan / Scaled model numbers? -eric 06:30, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
Paratroopers/Fallschirmjäger
Sigh. Could you at least be bothered to take part in the discussion at Talk:Operation Weserübung#Descending (Wehrmacht) soldiers... before you revert my (well-founded, I honestly think) edits for the n'th time? I place no prestige whatsoever in this, I simply mean that referring to paratroopers is the correct way of doing it in this instance. Heck, I admire the pioneering German WWII Fallschirmjäger as much as any other well-informed WWII history nut. Nevertheless, in general English-language usage they are known as German paratroopers. Or? --Wernher 19:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Battle of Crete
To say "British" when one is referring to New Zealanders or Australians is not being "specific", it's simply wrong. Grant65 (Talk) 14:47, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Besides which you have just junked a lot of other changes which had nothing to do with that issue. Grant65 (Talk) 14:50, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting. Grant65 (Talk) 00:12, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
Changing Apollo program to Project Apollo
I noticed that you moved Apollo program to Project Apollo, but I couldn't find any explanation of this on the Talk:Apollo program page. AFAIK, "Apollo program" is the best known name of the topic, so unless you can provide some references as to why "Project Apollo" is a more correct name, I think the article should be titled "Apollo program". Please respond on the talk page. JesseW 01:53, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Aeroflot
I don't see anything on there.
And if you are wondering why I removed Amman from the destination list, I think we shall only list destinations that the airline flies to with their own planes. WhisperToMe 02:49, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Australian navy ship articles
Is there a particular reason why you are moving these from pages named after their year of commission, to pages based on their ID numbers? I had started to disambiguate like-named RAN ships by year, which is an easier way to identify them for non-expert lay people, who have no idea about navy ID numbers. Grant65 (Talk) 00:12, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
HIJMS
I see you gave in to the urge and started moving Japanese ships to "HIJMS". As has been discussed a number of times in various places, the available evidence is that this is a concept made up by some Western writers who apparently couldn't stand the idea of a nation not having ship prefixes; the real authorities, such as Morison, don't use it at all, while using USS etc freely. Putting HIJMS into article titles just gives the term a seemingly official status that simply doesn't exist. Stan 00:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm also very doubtful about "HIJMS". -- Arwel 01:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- We should assemble all the talk page discussion into an HIJMS article for the benefit of all and sundry. :-) Stan 15:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) says not to use made-up ship prefixes for navies that don't use them. You should have discussed this first say at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships). It is going to be very annoying to put all these articles back where they belong. Gdr 18:54, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
CFD's
I noticed that you listed a few articles as candidates for deletion (such as HMAS Anzac (F150), HMAS Arunta (F151) and others). When you have said that it has been replaced by another article, I redirected to that article. They seem to be different titles for the same thing, but if I'm wrong, please make a note on my talk page, and I'll probably delete the offending articles. Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 03:40, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II
If you are interested please cast a vote in the straw poll.
Re: Australian frigate article deletion
Since it's a mistake with the nomenclature, and articles do link to the incorrect versions, I don't see any harm with simply redirecting them unless they'll cause confusion. We do sometimes have redirects for very common typos. It doesn't look to me like it violates the criteria for deleting a redirect. In fact, it seems that it will make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, aid accidental linking, and possibly aid searches on certain terms (these are 3/5 reasons for not deleting a redirect). If I'm wrong, feel free to notify me on my talk page, or list it on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Thanks. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 11:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Missile defense
Given that we have articles on specific systems, like National Missile Defense, I don't see much value to this article. It's essentially a dicdef. If it had been created by an anon I would have listed it on VfD. Because you're a "real" person I figured I'd first ask you whether you can explain something I'm missing that justifies having the article. Thanks for any help you can give. JamesMLane 07:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I must admit I'm still dubious. Missile defense means defending against missiles. There might be little value to saying much more. For example, one of the links (via redirect) is from 1985 in Canada. Instead of saying that Mulroney and Reagan agreed on "cooperation on Missile Defence", it might be better to say they agreed on "cooperation on the Strategic Defense Initiative", assuming that to be true (i.e. that Mulroney was on board with the specific SDI plan). Still, given that there's someone who intends in good faith to expand the article at some point, I'll refrain from listing it, so that we can see what develops. JamesMLane 16:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
RINO/DINO
You're probably right; to me "RINO" is a term of praise. I don't have much use for the DINOs, but there isn't a lot of chance of anyone I like ending up on that list! Anyway, since it is a list of people who have been called these things, I would only remove an egregious entry; I don't think I've seen one yet. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Non-participant
What does it mean that you are a non-participant on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships? Just curious. Gdr 00:54, 2004 Nov 17 (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...
- ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
- ...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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk) 14:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Quoth: Why?
- Basically because I (and others) want to use Wikipedia's articles in projects such as WikiTravel, but that requires explicit permission from the editors of those articles in order to allow us to use those contributions under the license that those projects use. Simply: We can't use Wikipedia's articles with other projects that don't use our license without permission by people like you. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk) 15:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- If you have more questions, see the Multi-Licensing FAQ -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
Featured Articles
You forgot to sign in when editing Battle of Inchon FAC. Thought you might want to add your sig. [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 21:20, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Misty (satellite) or Misty (Classified program)
You did write an article about misty. My inquiry is, wouldn't it be more accurate to say misty is a program instead of a satellite? In fact, the Washington post article you have linked to use the word program instead of satellite. Quote "The satellite in question would be the third and final version in a series of spacecraft funded under a classified program once known as Misty" [3] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56171-2004Dec10?language=printer) If you don't agree with this, what would you call the combined 3 satellites? One last question, what do you mean by "and decayed on March 31, 1990"? I think STS 36 ended in March 4th and the satellite surely must have stayed longer than 30 days. Do you mind clarifying that please?
Requested moves
Please do not attempt to enforce your opinion of article names by removing requests at WP:RM and by attempting to block moves. violet/riga (t) 22:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- See your talk page for my response to your inaccurate accusation. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:32, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
AMST
Why can't an article about a US military transport research project go under the Category:U.S. military transport aircraft category? The category involves everything concerned with "U.S. military transport aircraft." It seems a research project on the subject should go there. If I were to make a subcategory in that category called Category:U.S. military transport aircraft research projects (which i don't plan to) would you still change it back? BrokenSegue 04:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Strategic bombing during World War II
You seem to have placed a comment on the talk page before the article was written! Please see Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#History -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Aegis combat system
The US Navy uses "Aegis" as much as AEGIS.[4] (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=aegis+combat+system&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=navy.mil&safe=images) Therefore we go with the standard English spelling. I'm willing to take this to adjudication if you want. Grant65 (Talk) 05:02, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Lockheed Martin also uses "Aegis".[5] (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=aegis&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=lockheedmartin.com&safe=images)Grant65 (Talk) 06:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Chicago
Because of your work with the Chicago article I'd like you to take a look at it if you have the time & desire. It is currently up for Peer Review (see Chicago Talk) and I would enjoy hearing your feedback to help us all guide the growth of this article. Jasenlee 01:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Jolly Rogers
Currently in process to do that. PPGMD 16:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your Contributions
Your contributions to aviation articles are pretty incredible. Well done. ✈ James C. 04:23, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)