
I started here on July 25, 2003. Because I'm such a nice guy, I was quickly elevated to admin status. I became a wikiholic almost immediately. I went through an early period of anger and frustration over "others" and their edits, but came out of it a pretty mellow guy with a changed philosophy on what a "commmunity" really means. This concept (Wikipedia) is one close to my own hopes for the WWW. I am an environmental consultant specializing in ecology, biology, and water quality. In my free time, I maintain numerous web pages for professional groups to which I belong and pages on general educational themes about the environment in the Hawaiian Islands where I live. Editing is one part of my real job (as a consultant) that I enjoy very much. I have been rewriting or revising Wikipedia articles on coral reefs and places in the Hawaiian Islands with which I am particularly familiar. My coral reef experience comes from extensive travels to Central Pacific atolls while working on a dissertation as a graduate student at the University of Hawaii. I still travel around the Pacific as part of my work, conducting environmental studies, although in the last decade or so I have shifted my interest from the marine environment to terrestrial plants (vegetation surveys), streams, and wetlands. Other areas of interest include water quality, geology (especially as relates to aquatic environments), wetlands, and botany. I also spend a lot of time at Wikibooks where I work on the Invert. Zoo., Botany, and German textbooks. ---- I've had to give up working on Wikipedia. It was taking way too much of my time, and quite frankly I was finding much of the process stressful and unfulfilling. People here can be rude and negative feedback is a regular occurrence. On the other hand, I've never been one to require any kind of feedback and I'm quite satisfied with my knowledge and skills at this point in life. I think it is really me, not the Wikipedia community, but it started to be obvious that if one takes any degree of ownership of one's contributions here, one will eventually end up in an argument with some dullwit. And I'm not sure that is wrong for Wikipedia, but may explain why many leave disappointed from what has to be one of the more fantastic experiments on the web. And the real problem that Wikipedia faces is becoming clearer: it is the problem of the "average". A regular encyclopedia or a published book is worked on by a group of experts and is put out there as an authoratative source of knowledge for others to learn from. Wikipedia, no matter who having what knowledge prepares what pages is always forced towards the common "wisdom". I do not mean this in a elitist way (although some rightly will say I am being elitist). I simply point out that Wikipedia will always have a problem being taken seriously because most people will come here not to learn, but to promote their own intelligence and ignorance. You see it time after time: information is changed not to fit some standard of excellence in a particular field, but because "most people" think or believe or use the information a certain way. And "most people" becomes the standard that is followed. Anyway, when I say I had to give it up, I do not mean I will not continue contributing. I just have to do it on terms I can live with. I won't be "monitoring" pages I've felt ownership for, because quite frankly, life is too short and Wikipedia is, hopefully, forever.
Pardon Marshie polluting your page (please delete me afterwards), the formula for being the unfrustrated Wikipedian is to use it and never contribute in the areas you are a real expert and you really care! Ignorance is widespread and it can kill you if you try to fight it. Seemingly, the project goes on and gets only better and all human frustrations on the way are of little significance. Keep contributing, but take it easy and do not let it steal your precious time. And if you happen to figure out the purple sand, I will be delighted to read your ideas (you cannot imagine how many people keep asking "where is it coming from?"). cheers, m.c. == Resources == *Wikipedia:Blank maps
---- Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to reflect your new status. --User:Ed Poor 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) :Thank you sir. I will be a credit to the organization %^) - User:Marshman ---- Hi, I dropped a reply in Talk:Kahoolawe. - User:Hephaestos 21:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) == Membrane related == I believe you deleted membrane processes? Some nitpicks... * Unless there's a good reason for deletion, please redirect rather than delete - see wikipedia:redirect and wikipedia talk:deletion policy/redirects for background. * You didn't check the backlinks, so you left Membrane Processe as a broken redirect, which was non-ideal. Where deletion is appropriate, it's best to delete all the redirects too. This is an easy thing to forget, I know: maybe there should be a warning, similar to the one you get for deleting a page with page history? * You didn't check talk pages - Talk:Membrane Processe, in this case. I just moved it to talk:membrane. Such talk pages show up on wikipedia:orphan talk pages, and someone has to come along and tidy them up later. Again, easy to forget. * You didn't leave it seven days, and the page wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion (wikipedia:deletion policy). It's no loss: it sounds like there was nothing worth keeping in the page history, and I could create a redirect easily enough, but maybe worth bearing in mind for next time? Sorry to come over all critical and such - just caught my eye... :) User:MyRedDice 23:17, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) (insane in the membrane) No problem Martin. In my defense I did explain my reasoning for not waiting 7 days (my earlier inclination). I did consider Redirect and should have gone that route, at least initially. I did check links and saw Membrane Processe (a misspelled word?) and intended to delete that as well, but -- well forgot. The Talk page went right by me (I'm new at this). Otherwise (that is, forgiving my errors which were errors) I do think it was a candidate for speedy deletion just because it was generated automatically some 18 months ago, had one erroneous edit which caused confusion, and the entire brief contents fit perfectly into an article elsewhere. The history was just this: 1) Automatic Conversion, 2) added "cell" to membrane causing confusion, 3) my initial changes (marking for deletion). I'll continue to learn - User:Marshman 23:38, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) : The "automatic conversion" was a conversion between two software versions of Wikipedia - See User:Ryguasu/conversion script AI and Wikipedia:Usemod article histories for more. So it's not really correct to say that it was generated automatically - it was all written by hand. User:MyRedDice 08:52, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::The two lists generated at the site I destroyed and the one I moved stuff to were similar but not identical which indicates hand typing rather than automated machine. Question (you seem to be pretty wise about these things) -I looked for answers but have been unable to locate anything written down: 1) what does the "block" mean after "Talk" (Talk|block) in ''Recent changes'' by Wikipedes not logged in? 2) Is there a magic way to revert a page if it is found vandalized or erased (also form of vandalism) or is that done by going back to an older version and cutting/pasting into the edit plate? - User:Marshman # This is your magic IP-blocking ability. You can also access it via the "special pages" link. See wikipedia:dealing with vandalism and wikipedia:vandalism in progress. # I think the answer is at wikipedia:revert (or it should be) User:MyRedDice 09:33, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- In re Maui Dollar, I will add more. I believe it is of interest. They have been issued since at least 1975. Most visitors to the island are familiar with them. See: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3046265428&category=3455 and other examples by searching. ---- Well, I think I misread the article Plantae then. I also have a misunderstanding then algae can't be bacteria and bacteria can't be algae! Luckily I have an excuse of poor high school education for biology :P -User:Wshun 23:23, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC) Hey, Marshman, Highway 50 IS a US highway, but 99 is a state highway. User:RickK 03:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC) Boy, you could be right, but that would be a surprise to me. I lived and traveled that highway for many years between Stockton and Sacramento (and as a kid between Sacramento and LA). It is in sequence with (east of) US 101 at the coast. I just checked my atlas and it does have it as a State Route. My suspicion is (and I'm not a Transportation expert) that US 99 was removed from federal authority sometime after Interstate 5 was built and given to CalTrans. We shoud have someone who knows the history weigh in. But I'll concede, it is now State route 99. - User:Marshman 04:10, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC) Indeed, when I look, I see the same thing happened in Oregon - User:Marshman ---- == Re: Hawaii and the UN in 1999. == You mentioned on User_talk:Xamian: :That is a wierd factoid; What is UN Article 73? - Marshman 04:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) Yeah ... I thought it was interesting too ... it was mentioned a few places on the Internet: * http://www.hawaii-nation.org/art73.html * http://www.alohaquest.com/archive/archive.htm * http://www.hawaiischoolreports.com/history/statehood.htm and a few others. I thought it should be mentioned in the article ... I never knew myself. User:Xamian 05:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) ----- Re: Groin/Groyne - I believe it's wikipedia policy to name pages in international English, not American English. -- User:Steinsky 12:30, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::Not correct. The policy is to be liberal (easy going) where British and American English differ and not push one or the other (International English? No such animal). - User:Marshman 17:04, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC) == Marsh photo == Dear Marshman, yes, the :Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-vs.jpg photo is mine. I took it on July 17, 2003. Actually it is part of a much larger photo (the actual photo is over 5,000 pixels wide). I made the larger version because of the amount of detail. I use a high resolution screen and it pops up fine on mine. I am not quite sure if you are having a problem with the smaller image or the the larger image, :Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-s.jpg. I tried to make the smaller version something like 800 pixels large which is within the standard limit but I guess it is still too large for some browsers. If you want to reduce that one, maybe that is the one to go ahead and reduce and leave the detailed one so someone can study the details of the image? That was my intention in uploading such a large image. User:Alex756 02:09, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) Thanks for doing that reformating of the marsh photo. The smaller version works for me, but User:Stan Shebs is still having problems with the size of the image. I have a hi-res 1024 screen so any version looks great to me, I defer to those who use 800x600 browser windows to determine compatability. You should see the 3000x1000 px image that I got printed on a 8 x 22 epson six ink photo printer. I can almost hear the frogs in that photo! User:Alex756 03:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC) :I bet! Amazing how far that technology has come. I reduced it to still a little large, so it could go down if making problems on low-res browsers. It is 600 wide and max recommended is 400. - User:Marshman 05:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- I took the formatting off on purpose. See the talk page. User:Angela 17:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) :Actually, now I'm confused. Did you try and put the subheaders back in? When I looked at the diff, that is what it looked like, but I just checked and now I can't tell what you did. User:Angela 17:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::I changed the formatting to be consistent with the way it has been on that page. It was (before I made changes) subheaders for each article listed for deletion. I'll go check the discussion (missed that?). Anyway, thought I was helping out; I've no stake in how it should be laid out on that page, and will help put it back how you want. - User:Marshman 17:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) There was an edit conflict when I did my changes, so we may have both been doing the same correction. I still casn't get up eaerly enough to stay ahead of youu 8^). :Sorry, I got confused. Seems like we were actually tying to do the same thing. Thanks for helping. User:Angela 18:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) : So the great debate upon the Lib. of T.B. is now archived. Seems to have been considered as having some vague relevance, best not to identify too personally with the fate of a single page . Abandon hope all ye who contribute here should be inscribed on front page of wiki perhaps. . You are quite right of course, just no use whatsoever ranting when in the long scheme of things ALL will be erased. Just intellectual pride, but thanks for your concern over my blood pressure. Sir T.B.'s particular interest in botany appears to have been fungus and the microscopic in nature. He made many sharp-eyed botanical notes which were last reprinted in 1905. User:Norwikian 10:19, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC) ::Not like I have not been there more than once myself, and defending is certainly called for in many instances. It just looked like you were making it a do or die proposition — not a stand (at that point) worth taking. Best to look for work arounds. Otherwise the change you defended to the death just gets made against your wishes next yerar or next decade. Have fun is more important 8^). A botanist? I should have been on TB's side (actually, I think I was)! - Marshman ---- My comment "AKFD" on VfD refers to the ongoing "AIDS kills fags dead" controversy. Your comment that the title "stupid multiplex" was inherently problematic, even before we start on the article, struck me as yet another reason why we shouldn't have 4 or 5 redirects to the article Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. User:Onebyone 16:43, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) ::I was able to figure that out after I did some searches. I'm still unsure if you are agreeing or disagreeing that starting an article with the word "stuped", in most cases, indicates it is POV (my point), in that calling something stupid usually really means: "in my opinion that is pretty dumb" Anyway, no bigee either way. Thanks for explaining AKFD; sounds like we agree - User:Marshman 16:54, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) ==Image format== Nice tweak on island, can you do islet too please? --User:Ed Poor 19:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) :I went straight there! - User:Marshman 20:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- Just a minor query re Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. My ''Birder's Guide to Florida'', purchased for a trip to Nova Scotia and southern Florida last autumn gives the area as 10,720 acres, don't know which is correct. User:jimfbleak :My numbers come off the booklet sold at the sanctuary, but could be dated (acreage may have been added). I'll see if the web site gives more correct numbers. I have ''Florida's Birds'' but it gives the location w/o details - User:Marshman 16:47, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC) I emailed the director and he responded: 11,000 acres - User:Marshman 18:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- == Photo replacement == It was a good choice to replace the photo at Mushroom with one with a more common morphology. I for one have never seen any fungus that remotely look like that fan-shaped one. And I even used to go out of my way in forests to look for fungi (no...not for psychedelic experience or even for any ingestion). Photos that are representative are better than, admittedly, very beautiful and exotic ones. Btw, another great photo from you!? Stop already! (No... please don't stop!) --User:Menchi (User talk:Menchi)ü 19:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) :Thanks for the encouraging words. My thoughts exactly. I really liked that photo of the cacao infecting fungus fruiiting body. It just was too odd for the article. I've got a number more to illustrate different types of fungi, so I'm not done contributing yet %^) - User:Marshman 17:30, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Are you a mycologist?== I see your beautiful bracket fungus photos and wonder if you are into mycology? I have MANY mushroom photos, many of them very beautiful. I cannot identify them, and right now I'm kind of swamped; learning about them is not my first priority. I've taken the photos simply because they were there, and unique and beautiful, thinking to use them later when I have more time to study them. They are all from eastern USA and Canada. But I'd be glad to put them up now, if you or someone knowledgeable would like to identify them and do the write-ups. User:Pollinator 03:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I'm afraid my pictures were similary obtained. But I have a good local guide that allows me to identify many of the species. I'd suggest we set up a mushroom photographs page, and as you upload the images (with whatever location information you can provide) we can have them out there for someone to identify — at which point we can move them into appropriate articles. Start with some of your favorites that you want to release and put them here: Mushroom album. I can help with page formatting if needed - User:Marshman 04:00, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) ---- You are quite right about List of introduced species. I've half a mind to list it for deletion, but someone would only create it again. Cheers, User:Tannin 21:35, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) == earthworms == :"becomes a pest in the new location, threatening the local biodiversity." I work on earthworms. There are large stretches of the world where introduced species (in the temperate zone mostly Lumbricidae) are eliminating the local species. One of the notable native earthworms of Oregon (''Driloleirus macelfreshi'') is probably extinct due to competition. Lumbricids have fundamentally changed the soil characteristics in areas they invade. If this does not fit the definition of "invasive", then perhaps we are speaking different languages. User:WormRunner 03:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Yes we are. Because virtually any introduced species, if naturalized, will likely result in some kind of eciological change in the place where it is introduced, the term "invasive" has really little meaning (cannot be defined as different from introduced species), and for this reason tends not to be used by ecologists. However, there is a government definition (read the article) that states invasive species cause economic harm, and indeed there are (USDA, for example) web sites that list "officially declared" invasive species. If the earthworm you speak of is listed as having caused economic damage, then it is an invasive species, otherwise it is an introduced species. This whole subject was discussed on the talk pages at invasive species and introduced species. Unfortunately this is a subject that most biologists will tell you "well I know what an invasive species is" only to run headlong into other biologists declaring they are wrong. The reason, IMHO, is that few biologists have actually tried to define "invasive" in any precise way. For example, you state: "...where introduced species (in the temperate zone mostly Lumbricidae) are eliminating the local species" I can assure that that is the situation for virtually every naturalized species on earth -- they replace native species -- with perhaps the rare exceptions of species introductioon to a place where their niche was completely absent. What you have, I believe is an intyroduced species and not an invasive species by the definitions (taken from the literature) presented on the Wiukipedia pages covereing those subjects - User:Marshman 00:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Well, I did read the article, beforehand, and think that what the lumbricids do qualifies as environmental harm (in the definitions given). Now that you have changed the page to state that economics is the only real test, they may not qualify since that has never been quantified AFAIK. User:WormRunner 01:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::I'm not out to eliminate the worms from the list. I AM on your side. I fight introduced stuff all the time here in Hawaii, probably more than anyone at Wikipedia since I'm involved in actually destroying invasives and replacing them with natives (plants) on my weekends. But think about the definition: You know what is happening with the lumbricid fauna, but you are biased, because you have interest and knowledge. And that would be true for any biologist seeing their speciality over-run by introduced species. So if it is always true ecologically, then "invasive" and "introduced" are basically describing the same thing. But when that point was raised a month or so ago, there was an outcry (to wit: "I and every other biologist know what invasive is, and it is not the same as introduced"). Environmentalists use "invasive" because it has greater emotional appeal than "introduced". But when it comes down to actually defining the difference, the only thing I could find that made much sense is the "economic" issue. If USDA (or some other gov't entity) says the introduced species is causing great harm (usually measured in dollars somehow) then it is invasive species; otherwise it is introduced species. - User:Marshman 19:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- Hi Marshman. Could you look at my flag entry on Talk:Hawaii. I would fix it but I don't have veriafiable info. User:Moriori 20:08, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC) ---- == Origin of Algae == Josh – Your recent changes to Alga have removed the idea that eukaryotic algae had their origin(s) in endosymbiotic event(s). You have not replaced that "theory", just eliminated it. Was that your intention? Can you cite some sources? - User:Marshman 17:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) Sorry! I was changing the note about the possibility of origin in several ''separate'' endosymbiotic events, because newer research makes it unlikely. I'll try to add some references later, but there's a good bit of the Protista that needs changing. I didn't mean to take out the bit about endosymbiosis altogether, and have replaced it. Thanks for keeping watch. - user:Josh Grosse == fire department alert == We're having trouble tonight with a vandal, see Wikipedia:Block log. Some suspect it is the same user as User:Bird....if you have any way to help us stop this individual, it would be much appreciated. We are in IRC. User:Kingturtle 08:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Sorry I was out of town and just got back. Unable to do much until later today - User:Marshman 17:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Flowering plants== Thanks for re-bolding and tidying this, looks a lot better now! - I for one am much happer to see the formal scientific names emphasized, I don't understand what JG had against it. I certainly find all this invalid pseudo-Latin stuff like euro-sids one and two is confusing and unhelpful User:MPF 23:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Thanks. I could see a bit of controversy developing there, but tried to just tidy up things as I saw it. The bolding IS justified because the terms fit (I think) a reasonable definition of technical terms in that paragraph. I also think the idea that "common terms are better" was quite well-meaning when it was established by early Wikipedians, but is a poor way to present technical information that can only get worse with time. For example, clicking on Magnoliopsida right now brings up Dicotyledon, a term that is becoming archaic to those knowledgeable about plant taxonomy. What the term means is a valid topic, perhaps even deserving of its own article; but most people persuing information here would be better served by going straight to Magnoliopsida. Of course scientific terminology changes all the time; that is the beauty of this encyclopedia that the paper ones cannot handle: our terms can follow the changes. To stand by old terms because they are "well known" among the average non-scientific user becomes a disservice to both the project and the user. I learned my plant taxonomy when it was Dicotyledones; should I insist we stick to that article name when the rest of the botany has moved on? I don't think so. I say dump the common names when they cease to really mean what the article intends to cover. Have a short article on why the term has passed out of fashion, then link to the modern equivalents for those seeking an education here. - User:Marshman 23:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) == New pages == Marshman: I don't "follow editors around," but I do often keep a close eye on Special:Newpages. It's been my experience that most (>95%) of new articles are not edited soon after their creation, so I have no qualms about editing brand-new articles. Besides, you can always replace my edits if yours are better... it's a Wiki, after all! ;) -- User:Seth Ilys 04:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Like I said no problem really. I had just created that article, made the first save and went on to flesh it out a bit and ran into an editing conflict. It was more the shock of it than anything else! I have never visited Special:Newpages, so I'm not sure what it presents. Anyway, I think the article can still be considered a stub, even with my further work on it. - User:Marshman 04:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- I'm editing out the links because the articles no longer exist. They're all redirects to scientific classification, except for genus and species. User:Jaknouse 01:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Good enough reason for me. And nice to know. I suppose I would have noticed at some point - User:Marshman 01:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- Dear Marshman, I have started adding to the Botany book you created at wikibooks, and wrote you a message on your talk page there. Please have a look, best wishes, User:Alettaka 21:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) :I noticed! But did not see the message. I'll check it out and respond over there. And Welcome! - User:Marshman 01:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Supposed Redundancies re HI == I was about to just put back all of the portion of the following: :Hawaii's distinctions among U.S. states include being * the one with the southernmost point, * the only one with any part in the tropics, * one of two outside the continental United States, * the only one with no territory on the mainland of any continent, * the one most recently admitted to statehood, and * the one whose territory was most recently annexed by the U.S. :It also has all of its permanently inhabited area both in the tropics, and (thus) south of all other states. that's been removed, when i realized that you almost certainly have all the relevant facts at hand, and were not simply editing out of ignorance. So let's talk abt this. I think you will find that the appearance of redundancy merely reflects imprecise reading. For instance, "the tropics", tho it has a precise meaning presumably given by the article, also has another common meaning (suggested by the description of Florida as having a "semi-tropical climate") that is imprecise. One reference to the "tropic zone" rather than just "the tropics" is needed to draw attention to the fact that the statement is far from being a matter of mere opinion abt the difference between FL's & HI's climates being enough to call that a distinction. "Southernmost" is also imprecise, with at least 3 meanings: *having the southernmost point * being entirely south of all the others (''not'' the case w/ HI, as i assume you know) * having its centroid farthest south (In this sense, NV is farther north than CA, even tho their northermost points are equally far north.) (Note that the first sense has the surprising consequence that there is no logical contradiction in the possibility of the same state being both northernmost and southernmost; in fact, in this sense, MI is both more northerly and more southerly than WI (a thought which leaves me queasy, even though i am clear about why my intuitive expectation is wrong).) Finally, i'm sure you're aware that HI is not in the tropics, but rather part of it is and part is in the N temperate zone; i can't imagine why you would accept that (since i see that someone else made the change). Perhaps my language counted too much on readers' careful attention; do you think the kind of precision i see as required is more acceptable if points like these are made explicitly in the next 'graph? --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 05:04, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC) :Again, you make my head spin. Agreed, I accepted the two statements, southernmost point to be inclusive with southernmost state; but I see first that the Florida Keys are as far south as some parts of Hawai'i; so southernmost point can be the only real distinction. Yes, our climate is actually subtropical, although we technically overlap the "Tropic". Tropical zone is better, although I thought it a bit stilted. I vote for restoration to they way it was before—except, I'd drop the last free sentence as causing some confusion in people's minds (because of the need to otherwise get more precise about defining these things). - User:Marshman 17:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Thanks, M, i'm afraid i'm a precision junkie. (I apologized to the guy at the register this evening, who thot i'd given him exact change, for "quibbling over a nickel", and really i was quibbling over his ability to add 75 +20 + 1 and get 91.) So i'd love to keep the "free sentence" but add enough to make its precision clear. But i realize that's a weakness on my part. So let's just both watch for anyone who's confused, and i spot the confusion, i'll propose a fix to you rather than add another paragraph and a half that i fantasize will make it perfectly clear. [smile]. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 23:55, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC) :Sounds good to me. I abhor misinformation, so in that sense I'm like you - User:Marshman 02:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- Hi again. Did a ''big'' edit on Hawai'i, which i imagine you'll notice. It felt like it went on forever, so i would bet it was riddled with typos when i got to the end and quit without serious proofreading (along with whatever mainlander misconceptions i injected in the course of moderating the PoV). But the real reason i wanted to drop you a note is Kingdom of Hawaii, which i looked at only long enough to see that it is full of "Hawaii" where i think we would agree "Hawai'i" is called for. I don't think i could look at another HI article for weeks, so i didn't seriously considering working on it. Hawaiian monarchy is a redir to it; i'm not sure whether it is a merge (that may deserve attention to whether enough got reflected in the merge) or a cut-and-paste move (which should be repaired; i trust you know how), but i didn't look hard enough to know which. I put this on my list, but if it seems to be calling you, i won't be doing anything with it soon.
Be well! --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 05:05, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC) ---- Marshman, thanks for your letter. I have written something for you and Heidimo about the article on traditional Chinese medicine; the comments are on User:Heidimo's page. User:RK 14:31, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC) ---- ==hey== I do agree with you both sides in the user:RK, User:Mr-Natural-Health both violated the 3 revert rule i just want to keep the peace here i think a cease-fire form both sides is a start. User:plato ==Vocabulary Project== Hi there! I saw you contributed to the german wikibook, so I thought you might be interested in this. I have written a [http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h0444e1w/vokeng.htm program for learning vocabulary]. It is based on the belief that it is best to learn foreign words by learning typical sentences. The program can also be used for learning other stuff that works with the question/answer scheme, e.g. the theory for the driving licence or anatomy. Unfortunately I wrote it in qbasic, which can be downloaded [http://www.microsoft.com/windows/download/olddos.exe here]. It also uses images and sound files for alternation and in order to work on the pronunciation. Let me know what you think about it. I currently have files in English, French (with sound), and Spanish. Catalan and Portuguese are in the planning. Corrections or additions are very welcome. The easiest thing to start with for improvements would be adding new vocabulary, sound files or images. A guide to the program will follow soon, although I think it is rather self-explanatory. In the long run the program should be rewritten in a better language like Visual Basic. Afterwards it should be possible to switch languages within the program. Up to now there is a different version of the program for each language. User:Get-back-world-respect 23:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Endemic Species in Hawaii== Hi Mr. M! I noticed Bulbaboy's recent edit on the Hawaii article regarding the ''po'ouli'' and it came to me that, with all the verbiage we've written about Hawaii, there's not one word about how we've got so many endemic species here. I've started a stub article on endemic species of the Hawaiian Islands and added pointers to it from the Hawaii and Hawaiian Islands articles (I figure there's probably enough info and studies on them to justify its own article, if only for the probably humongous list). With your expertise on biology, I think you'd probably be the best person to add to it. What do you think? User:KeithH 01:19, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I missed this Keith; I was off-island (and away from the wiki) for a couple of weeks. Let me check out what you are talking about and get back to you. But I like the idea! A friend of mine has recently completed a book on the subject, and I'm reviewing it for the publisher. - User:Marshman 20:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC) == Header/formatting == Marshman: Yes, I'm aware of that bug in MediaWiki. When we move over to 1.3 in the near future, I believe that problem will be resolved entirely. It's a fairly widespread problem, but it's also an extremely minor problem as well; in many articles, the first paragraph is similarly indented. I'm not terribly concerned about it. :) -- User:Seth Ilys 18:17, 11 May 2004 (UTC) == Good replacement photos == Thanks for replacing those Horsetail] photos with ones containg specimen in wild. My indoor lighting was just absolutely horrid. It's like the documentary photos some sort of torture chamber-morgue for dying plants! :-O I had no idea it looks so dreadful until I replaced my LCD a few weeks ago. Thanks for the ''lively'' improvement! Keep it up! --User:Menchi 19:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC) :Although I had some problems with the upload function (I always have problems that seem to relate to delays in the way the Wiki handles such things), I was able to resurrect your photo that was labeled after putting it through PhotoShop. - User:Marshman 20:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC) == Camera == Marshman, are you close to wanting to get rid of that camera of yours? I am moving out of the country shortly and if I was going to buy it off you should do so now. Thanks sir! - User:Karlwick ==Friends of the ‘Okina== Hawai‘i-born friends of ‘okina unite! ^^ - User:Gilgamesh 03:32, 27 June 2004 (UTC) :So far so good 8^) - User:Marshman None of my ‘okina have been yet reverted! I think they're permanent! I'm so happy! ^______________________^ - User:Gilgamesh 22:18, 30 June 2004 (UTC) :::I think there is always hope in having proponents. The mor4e of us that agree, the harder it is for the "English-only" crew to justify badgering us. - User:Marshman 01:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) I don't understand the English-only camp anyway... Bilingual people are smarter. ^_^ Belligerant voluntary monolinguals are book-burners. :P Or something. - User:Gilgamesh 03:14, 3 July 2004 (UTC) :Well, this is an English encyclopedia, so that is where it comes from. But my belief (and yours) is that English-only does not preclude broadening one's horizons as far as other (non-English) cultures are concerned; and that usual requires some adaptations in language. I do not speak Hawaiian, but I love using the Hawaiian language as much as I can as part of my understanding of Hawai'i-nei. Makes more sense than using names given to things and features for which there has always been (in human terms) a perfectly good Hawaiian name/term. Not the same as making the Wikipedia multi-lingual; just multi-cultural. - User:Marshman 03:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) ==Clashes with another user - you're an admin and can review, right?== I'm not asking anything drastic or anything, but recently User:Mustafaa and I have clashed with another user who has been editing quite a few articles to assert theology as fact, and even tried to revert some of the reverts. I don't quite know the procedure when it comes to users talking to admins, so I'm asking you about it. (Maybe you can also give me points too.) The user is User:IZAK, and the articles (with edit wars just a few hours ago) are Hebrew language, Canaanite languages, Biblical Hebrew language, Ammonite language, Moabite language, Edomite language, and the categories "Category:Hebrew language" and "Category:Canaanite languages" (which he tried to eliminate). Does this constitute disciplinable abuse? - User:Gilgamesh 07:49, 7 July 2004 (UTC) : The procedure: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --User:Menchi 08:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Thank you, that looks very useful. Marshman, Menchi, sorry for the trouble. ^_^; - User:Gilgamesh 08:14, 7 July 2004 (UTC) :I see the dispute has moved on to Talk:Hebrew language where others can participate and clarify the arguments. It appears to be a case of some honest (on both sides) differences in opinion - User:Marshman 17:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) The procedure seems to be going well now. :) However, this time I do need an administrator for non-dispute-related assistance. :P We have been preparing to move Hebrew language (as a family) to Hebrew languages, and to restore Modern Hebrew language to Hebrew language. The first move went without incident, but the second move failed because I need an administrator. :) I'll pour over links myself to make sure everything points to where it's supposed to. - User:Gilgamesh 17:42, 7 July 2004 (UTC) :OK. You may need one of the old pages deleted before you can complete the move. Let me know - User:Marshman 17:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) I noted that you had already moved the Talk page, so I deleted the redirect at Hebrew language so you can make the final move. Do not forget to go through the "What links here" for both new pages and make appropriate corrections - User:Marshman 18:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) I don't know what to do anymore. There has been lots more input, and the other user's not respecting any of us in the least bit. And then...he slurred me. I couldn't believe that me that by pure association, I should not be allowed to coexist in his part of the Wikipedia universe. The sheer totality of the phrase... I felt ill. I still feel ill. This ''can't'' be correct conduct by any stretch of the imagination. I've never seen my associations referenced in such a soiled fashion... Marshman, I humbly request more council, more advice, more options, whatever can end this Talk:Hebrew languages. Reading the most recent history and difference pages might help. - User:Gilgamesh 05:27, 8 July 2004 (UTC) :I thought things were being worked out with the name changes? I'll check the page histories when I get a moment, but I will council you on this: Wikipedia is a community, and reflection on even the smallest community you have had previous experience with should teach that any collection of people is not like your friends—it is as collection of all types. Some come here and throw their weight around, some are so far out there you really have to wonder, and others are helpful, annoying, respectful, difficult, you name it. But despite any individuals (the best, the worst), the project moves forward. Each of us is just a small contributing cog; and if things seem tough in one area, just move on. Come back to the difficult stuff after staying away for awhile. Going somewhere else in Wikipedia to work is NOT conceding or giving up. Nothing we do or say here is really ALL THAT IMPORTANT. It is just something we do, and someone else could change it all next year or next decade. When I get angry I try to sleep on it before getting too far into the dispute. After a day or two, most problems seems nowhere near as big as at first. And remember too, that anytime we communicate by email or by typing stuff back and forth, the most important social clues to successful communication without hard feelings are visual ones—and these are completely lacking. It is real easy to insult someone without meaning to or realizing it. So I take everything with a big grain of salt. If your knowledge or POV is the correct one, that will eventually win out because others will see the articles and question the questionable points. Just like the ‘okina! - User:Marshman 06:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Yeah, I know that's logically right. In fact, IZAK has only encountered resounding disagreement. And then it was only a matter of unending flames and consumption of energy. But sometimes, someone says or does something that demonstrates so much contempt and bigotry that it cuts... It's hard to explain. He...said a terrible thing, almost felt like a death threat, like the denial of my existence. "Mormon" is a strange word; in many cases used amongst an inside social group, it has almost no meaning. But in certain other uses, often just using simple grammatical affixes, it's like a quick and instant sword through the gut, utterly decisive in its immediate carnage, leaving permanent and uncomfortable scar tissue laced with poison that never completely heals. I'm not sure if any of that made sense, and it seems almost impossible to describe in terms of a NPOV article. - User:Gilgamesh 06:18, 8 July 2004 (UTC) ::Well, I do understand that the problem with non-visual communication such as we have here is that words are said only to the depth of understanding possessed by the sayer, but are received or taken with all the baggage that the receiver possesses. So as a receiver, you have to separate those deep wounds from the interpretation because you really have little idea what the sender's knowledge is. Of course he could be just a fat bigot, which by definition is a person with deficient social skills; but in face to face, you could show clear signs of hurt or aggression that might quickly change his tact. Here, if you attack verbally (and I see in the Talk: pages that you did a little bit ;^), he can just attack further, leading to an esculating road rage between two people that might in a social setting get along pretty well. Further, all the words just hang there, and are not forgotten after further conversation. My two cents - User:Marshman 06:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) :::Well, alright. - User:Gilgamesh 06:47, 8 July 2004 (UTC) == Kiritimati == It is (also) the oldest atoll in the world. If you need some more info.--User:Enzino 16:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Interesting. I'd not heard that. Yes, I think the evidence for that would make a good addition to the article. I lived there many years ago. - User:Marshman 17:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Photos == Youve uploaded some great photo's "taken by Eric Guinther and donated to Wikipedia under GNU". Which Gnu licnece are they under? Wikipedia would prefer GFDL, ideally tagged . There's an attempt to get all immages "tagged" so that we know what can be copied, which is how I came across it. Rgds User:Rich Farmbrough 15:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Since I write I have found many GFDL'd photo's as well, wchich I have been "tagging", the question still stands thou. RF.
:Hey thanks for the complement. I now put the GFDL tag on all my photos, but that is only since the creation of the special tag. Before that I nearly always just copied the language from near the bottom of the page (e.g., "Photographed by Eric Guinther and released under the GNU Free Documentation License"). These could be reworded to include the special GFDL tag. I've been slowly going back to "my" old ones and doing that, but I can "pick up the pace" if it would be helpful. - User:Marshman 17:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
==Legume taxonomy==
Hi, since you seem to be someone that likes correct taxonomy, do you think that the entry for the Fabaceace should be changed to the Leguminosae, and the sub-famalies to the Caesalpinioideae, Mimosoideae and Papilionoideae, since this is the taxonomy currrently accepted world-wide (consistent with the International Legume Database and Information Service at least)? --User:Petaholmes 06:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Off hand (I'll check further for you) I would say no. Fabaceae is the modern name and pretty much accepted everywhere I am familiar with. I'm surprised anyone still uses Leguminosae, as it was invalidated as not representing the name of a type genus a decade or more ago. The subfamilies are good, except Papilionoideae is now Faboideae. Some name changes die hard with some botanists. The "International Legume Database and Information Service" could just be some guy in his den somewhere. Would have no official standing, and may not be representative of anything but one person's opinion. - User:Marshman 08:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:: The ILDIS is an international group of legume specilaists. As far as I can tell Fabaceace is still used in some circles because of presedence. Mabye we could include something explaining the taxonomic confusion :) --User:Petaholmes 10:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::That would be good. But it is Leguminosae that is used because of precedence (it is the older name). Looking in my taxonomic books older than about 1985, both names are given, with Leguminosae preferred. After that, the situation flips, with Fabaceae preferred. Of course there remains the related problem that ''Faba'' is now ''Vicia'' I believe. Guess we need to research this further. I'm going to move our discussion to the Fabaceae talk page to get more input - User:Marshman 16:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==Authentic traditional Hawaiian names?==
Marshman, I'm in a bind. I can't believe how difficult it is to find a web resource for authentic traditional Hawaiian names. Every page is either "convert English name to Hawaiian", or a shallow list of names without ‘okina or kāhako, which are completely adequate for cultural research. I propose we start two articles: Hawaiian name and List of Hawaiian names, similar to what already exists on Wikipedia for naming traditions of other languages. I cite Hebrew name and List of Hebrew names as precedents. - User:Gilgamesh 07:19, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Do you mean "names" like what one would name a child? I think that would be a great idea. A number of Hawaiian names are currently popular outside and inside Hawai‘i, so having a page that gives the meaning in English AND the proper spellng would benefit parents thinking of giving their child a Hawaiian first or middle name. - User:Marshman 17:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::It would be fanfreakingtastic. :) Let's start! :P Unfortunately, most of the people I ever knew in Hawai‘i were either Japanese, Chinese, white, or non-Hawaiian ethnic Polynesian, and few of them had authentic Hawaiian names. I only knew ''more'' native Hawaiians with authentic Hawaiian names when I moved to Utah Valley, where they are abundant. So, I don't think I know enough to personally start a Hawaiian name article. But I could help with list of Hawaiian names. :) - User:Gilgamesh 22:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Does it need to be two articles? Although I can understand what a "list" is, why not start out with both list and explanations and see how that develops? It can be split up later as the need arises - User:Marshman 22:58, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::Great. I'll start an article with list only. You can fill in the top with more detailed info. :) Come to Hawaiian name and we'll work it out together. - User:Gilgamesh 23:35, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Marshman, RickK almost immediately put vfd on Hawaiian name, because "Wikipedia is not a list of names". Please help. :( - User:Gilgamesh 00:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Looks like there is lots of support to retain. I'll add mine - User:Marshman 17:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Great. ^_^ Now... Can you help me expand it a lot? :P I'm out of resources...Hawaiian names on the Internet suck, bad. Real bad. No ‘okina, no kāhako. And the primary interest seems to be converting English names to Hawaiian for fashionable middle names or animal names on the mainland. Check Google for proof of this sorry state of affairs. :P But since you live in Kāne‘ohe (correct?), you may be much closer to library resources (etc.) than I. I will add whatever I can come across, but the pickings are slim. - User:Gilgamesh 09:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::I'll start getting stuff to add to the effort. We should start by just listing and defining (and correctly spelling) the most popular boys and girls names. Do you agree the page name might better be Hawaiian proper names ? - User:Marshman 17:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==Horsetail pic==
Hi Marshman - you might want to know, your pic :Image:Equisetum arvense stem.jpg is ''Equisetum telmateia'', not ''E. arvense'' - User:MPF 18:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:Thanks. I took that picture in Portland, Oregon and my ref. material back here in Hawaii for that area is dated. I'll defer to whatever you believe it to be. If it helps your ID, the picture at :Image:Equisetum arvense strob.jpg is of the same plant - User:Marshman 03:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Thanks; yes, definite ''E. telmataea''; like most northern hemisphere horsetails this has a holarctic distribution, and I'm very familiar with it as a wild plant here too - User:MPF 23:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Flowering plant==
Hi Marshman - User:Punarbhava has added a whole lot to Flowering plant from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. I don't feel competent to decide as to whether this should be kept or not, and if kept, how much updating it needs (probably a lot; I did only a tiny bit). Could you check it over please? (note also left with Josh Grosse) - thanks, User:MPF 23:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Caps or not; dashes==
Hi Marshman - I'm not certain that's correct, I don't see it generally so written in the books and journals I read. Just as I'm in favour of caps for species names (e.g. Red Pine) because it is what I find in the majority of books, I'm also in favour of not using caps for family, genus, etc, as I don't see 'the Family Pinaceae' in books, I see 'the family Pinaceae'. On another one, can dashes be avoided please? They're a confounded nuisance when editing, as when mouse-highlighting text, computers treat "legume—that" as "legume& mdash ;that". So when editing, the dash code disintegrates, leaving little bits behind stuck to other words, which then have to be removed individually later. If you try to highlight the whole of a dash including those fragments, then the computer also sucks in the surrounding words too, so they risk being changed accidentally. If they must be used, leave spaces either side of them to prevent this happening: "legume — that" (which also looks a lot better as text, too). And anyway, 99 times out of 100, a comma or semi-colon suffices just as well :-) - User:MPF 10:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Boy, I've never seen taxa without caps where the words are all part of one proper (double) noun (except at Wikipedia). Seems like that is a rule in English as well as one that is standard for biology. It does occur to me, that some might arrive at using lower case via this argument: "These trees are in the genus, ''Pinus''" and, with the tendency in modern English to not use commas, becomes "These trees are in the genus (pause only) ''Pinus''." In many case, just adding a comma "absolves" the need for making the taxon indicator a proper noun.
:As to the — (m-dash), I've not experienced the problems you describe and prefer the m-dash to commas in some situations, although you are right either will usually work. Again I believe it is standard English to NOT put spaces as you suggest, but it might be that we want to alter that rule or emphasize that spaces should be used to avoid the problems you cite. There is an ongoing debate about that at Wikipedia, and your suggestion might swing things to the "always use spaces" camp. Personally, I think text with m-dases is easier to read with the spaces present, but I have been following standard rules (this is case where you see it both ways all of the time in printed matter, but the fact that others are sloppy or unaware should not be considered reason to follow suit). I'll move to including spaces. - User:Marshman 17:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Underwater ==
Thanks! I found it by idly poking around on the [http://search.creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons search engine]. Sometimes you just get lucky. :) User:Quadell – User:Quadell (User_talk:Quadell) (User:Quadell/Request for assistance)I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
:I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:
:
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Marshman:
Marshman
Marshman
Marshman_Warren_Taylor
Marshman
I started here on July 25, 2003. Because I'm such a nice guy, I was quickly elevated to admin status. I became a wikiholic almost immediately. I went through an early period of anger and frustration over "others" and their edits, but came out of it a pretty mellow guy with a changed philosophy on what a "commmunity" really means. This concept (Wikipedia) is one close to my own hopes for the WWW. I am an environmental consultant specializing in ecology, biology, and water quality. In my free time, I maintain numerous web pages for professional groups to which I belong and pages on general educational themes about the environment in the Hawaiian Islands where I live. Editing is one part of my real job (as a consultant) that I enjoy very much. I have been rewriting or revising Wikipedia articles on coral reefs and places in the Hawaiian Islands with which I am particularly familiar. My coral reef experience comes from extensive travels to Central Pacific atolls while working on a dissertation as a graduate student at the University of Hawaii. I still travel around the Pacific as part of my work, conducting environmental studies, although in the last decade or so I have shifted my interest from the marine environment to terrestrial plants (vegetation surveys), streams, and wetlands. Other areas of interest include water quality, geology (especially as relates to aquatic environments), wetlands, and botany. I also spend a lot of time at Wikibooks where I work on the Invert. Zoo., Botany, and German textbooks. ---- I've had to give up working on Wikipedia. It was taking way too much of my time, and quite frankly I was finding much of the process stressful and unfulfilling. People here can be rude and negative feedback is a regular occurrence. On the other hand, I've never been one to require any kind of feedback and I'm quite satisfied with my knowledge and skills at this point in life. I think it is really me, not the Wikipedia community, but it started to be obvious that if one takes any degree of ownership of one's contributions here, one will eventually end up in an argument with some dullwit. And I'm not sure that is wrong for Wikipedia, but may explain why many leave disappointed from what has to be one of the more fantastic experiments on the web. And the real problem that Wikipedia faces is becoming clearer: it is the problem of the "average". A regular encyclopedia or a published book is worked on by a group of experts and is put out there as an authoratative source of knowledge for others to learn from. Wikipedia, no matter who having what knowledge prepares what pages is always forced towards the common "wisdom". I do not mean this in a elitist way (although some rightly will say I am being elitist). I simply point out that Wikipedia will always have a problem being taken seriously because most people will come here not to learn, but to promote their own intelligence and ignorance. You see it time after time: information is changed not to fit some standard of excellence in a particular field, but because "most people" think or believe or use the information a certain way. And "most people" becomes the standard that is followed. Anyway, when I say I had to give it up, I do not mean I will not continue contributing. I just have to do it on terms I can live with. I won't be "monitoring" pages I've felt ownership for, because quite frankly, life is too short and Wikipedia is, hopefully, forever.
Pardon Marshie polluting your page (please delete me afterwards), the formula for being the unfrustrated Wikipedian is to use it and never contribute in the areas you are a real expert and you really care! Ignorance is widespread and it can kill you if you try to fight it. Seemingly, the project goes on and gets only better and all human frustrations on the way are of little significance. Keep contributing, but take it easy and do not let it steal your precious time. And if you happen to figure out the purple sand, I will be delighted to read your ideas (you cannot imagine how many people keep asking "where is it coming from?"). cheers, m.c. == Resources == *Wikipedia:Blank maps
Marshman
---- Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to reflect your new status. --User:Ed Poor 19:16, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) :Thank you sir. I will be a credit to the organization %^) - User:Marshman ---- Hi, I dropped a reply in Talk:Kahoolawe. - User:Hephaestos 21:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC) == Membrane related == I believe you deleted membrane processes? Some nitpicks... * Unless there's a good reason for deletion, please redirect rather than delete - see wikipedia:redirect and wikipedia talk:deletion policy/redirects for background. * You didn't check the backlinks, so you left Membrane Processe as a broken redirect, which was non-ideal. Where deletion is appropriate, it's best to delete all the redirects too. This is an easy thing to forget, I know: maybe there should be a warning, similar to the one you get for deleting a page with page history? * You didn't check talk pages - Talk:Membrane Processe, in this case. I just moved it to talk:membrane. Such talk pages show up on wikipedia:orphan talk pages, and someone has to come along and tidy them up later. Again, easy to forget. * You didn't leave it seven days, and the page wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion (wikipedia:deletion policy). It's no loss: it sounds like there was nothing worth keeping in the page history, and I could create a redirect easily enough, but maybe worth bearing in mind for next time? Sorry to come over all critical and such - just caught my eye... :) User:MyRedDice 23:17, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) (insane in the membrane) No problem Martin. In my defense I did explain my reasoning for not waiting 7 days (my earlier inclination). I did consider Redirect and should have gone that route, at least initially. I did check links and saw Membrane Processe (a misspelled word?) and intended to delete that as well, but -- well forgot. The Talk page went right by me (I'm new at this). Otherwise (that is, forgiving my errors which were errors) I do think it was a candidate for speedy deletion just because it was generated automatically some 18 months ago, had one erroneous edit which caused confusion, and the entire brief contents fit perfectly into an article elsewhere. The history was just this: 1) Automatic Conversion, 2) added "cell" to membrane causing confusion, 3) my initial changes (marking for deletion). I'll continue to learn - User:Marshman 23:38, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) : The "automatic conversion" was a conversion between two software versions of Wikipedia - See User:Ryguasu/conversion script AI and Wikipedia:Usemod article histories for more. So it's not really correct to say that it was generated automatically - it was all written by hand. User:MyRedDice 08:52, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::The two lists generated at the site I destroyed and the one I moved stuff to were similar but not identical which indicates hand typing rather than automated machine. Question (you seem to be pretty wise about these things) -I looked for answers but have been unable to locate anything written down: 1) what does the "block" mean after "Talk" (Talk|block) in ''Recent changes'' by Wikipedes not logged in? 2) Is there a magic way to revert a page if it is found vandalized or erased (also form of vandalism) or is that done by going back to an older version and cutting/pasting into the edit plate? - User:Marshman # This is your magic IP-blocking ability. You can also access it via the "special pages" link. See wikipedia:dealing with vandalism and wikipedia:vandalism in progress. # I think the answer is at wikipedia:revert (or it should be) User:MyRedDice 09:33, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- In re Maui Dollar, I will add more. I believe it is of interest. They have been issued since at least 1975. Most visitors to the island are familiar with them. See: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3046265428&category=3455 and other examples by searching. ---- Well, I think I misread the article Plantae then. I also have a misunderstanding then algae can't be bacteria and bacteria can't be algae! Luckily I have an excuse of poor high school education for biology :P -User:Wshun 23:23, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC) Hey, Marshman, Highway 50 IS a US highway, but 99 is a state highway. User:RickK 03:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC) Boy, you could be right, but that would be a surprise to me. I lived and traveled that highway for many years between Stockton and Sacramento (and as a kid between Sacramento and LA). It is in sequence with (east of) US 101 at the coast. I just checked my atlas and it does have it as a State Route. My suspicion is (and I'm not a Transportation expert) that US 99 was removed from federal authority sometime after Interstate 5 was built and given to CalTrans. We shoud have someone who knows the history weigh in. But I'll concede, it is now State route 99. - User:Marshman 04:10, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC) Indeed, when I look, I see the same thing happened in Oregon - User:Marshman ---- == Re: Hawaii and the UN in 1999. == You mentioned on User_talk:Xamian: :That is a wierd factoid; What is UN Article 73? - Marshman 04:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) Yeah ... I thought it was interesting too ... it was mentioned a few places on the Internet: * http://www.hawaii-nation.org/art73.html * http://www.alohaquest.com/archive/archive.htm * http://www.hawaiischoolreports.com/history/statehood.htm and a few others. I thought it should be mentioned in the article ... I never knew myself. User:Xamian 05:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) ----- Re: Groin/Groyne - I believe it's wikipedia policy to name pages in international English, not American English. -- User:Steinsky 12:30, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::Not correct. The policy is to be liberal (easy going) where British and American English differ and not push one or the other (International English? No such animal). - User:Marshman 17:04, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC) == Marsh photo == Dear Marshman, yes, the :Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-vs.jpg photo is mine. I took it on July 17, 2003. Actually it is part of a much larger photo (the actual photo is over 5,000 pixels wide). I made the larger version because of the amount of detail. I use a high resolution screen and it pops up fine on mine. I am not quite sure if you are having a problem with the smaller image or the the larger image, :Image:Bride-Brook-Salt-Marsh-s.jpg. I tried to make the smaller version something like 800 pixels large which is within the standard limit but I guess it is still too large for some browsers. If you want to reduce that one, maybe that is the one to go ahead and reduce and leave the detailed one so someone can study the details of the image? That was my intention in uploading such a large image. User:Alex756 02:09, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) Thanks for doing that reformating of the marsh photo. The smaller version works for me, but User:Stan Shebs is still having problems with the size of the image. I have a hi-res 1024 screen so any version looks great to me, I defer to those who use 800x600 browser windows to determine compatability. You should see the 3000x1000 px image that I got printed on a 8 x 22 epson six ink photo printer. I can almost hear the frogs in that photo! User:Alex756 03:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC) :I bet! Amazing how far that technology has come. I reduced it to still a little large, so it could go down if making problems on low-res browsers. It is 600 wide and max recommended is 400. - User:Marshman 05:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC) ---- I took the formatting off on purpose. See the talk page. User:Angela 17:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) :Actually, now I'm confused. Did you try and put the subheaders back in? When I looked at the diff, that is what it looked like, but I just checked and now I can't tell what you did. User:Angela 17:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) ::I changed the formatting to be consistent with the way it has been on that page. It was (before I made changes) subheaders for each article listed for deletion. I'll go check the discussion (missed that?). Anyway, thought I was helping out; I've no stake in how it should be laid out on that page, and will help put it back how you want. - User:Marshman 17:56, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) There was an edit conflict when I did my changes, so we may have both been doing the same correction. I still casn't get up eaerly enough to stay ahead of youu 8^). :Sorry, I got confused. Seems like we were actually tying to do the same thing. Thanks for helping. User:Angela 18:13, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC) : So the great debate upon the Lib. of T.B. is now archived. Seems to have been considered as having some vague relevance, best not to identify too personally with the fate of a single page . Abandon hope all ye who contribute here should be inscribed on front page of wiki perhaps. . You are quite right of course, just no use whatsoever ranting when in the long scheme of things ALL will be erased. Just intellectual pride, but thanks for your concern over my blood pressure. Sir T.B.'s particular interest in botany appears to have been fungus and the microscopic in nature. He made many sharp-eyed botanical notes which were last reprinted in 1905. User:Norwikian 10:19, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC) ::Not like I have not been there more than once myself, and defending is certainly called for in many instances. It just looked like you were making it a do or die proposition — not a stand (at that point) worth taking. Best to look for work arounds. Otherwise the change you defended to the death just gets made against your wishes next yerar or next decade. Have fun is more important 8^). A botanist? I should have been on TB's side (actually, I think I was)! - Marshman ---- My comment "AKFD" on VfD refers to the ongoing "AIDS kills fags dead" controversy. Your comment that the title "stupid multiplex" was inherently problematic, even before we start on the article, struck me as yet another reason why we shouldn't have 4 or 5 redirects to the article Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead'. User:Onebyone 16:43, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) ::I was able to figure that out after I did some searches. I'm still unsure if you are agreeing or disagreeing that starting an article with the word "stuped", in most cases, indicates it is POV (my point), in that calling something stupid usually really means: "in my opinion that is pretty dumb" Anyway, no bigee either way. Thanks for explaining AKFD; sounds like we agree - User:Marshman 16:54, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) ==Image format== Nice tweak on island, can you do islet too please? --User:Ed Poor 19:49, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) :I went straight there! - User:Marshman 20:05, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- Just a minor query re Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. My ''Birder's Guide to Florida'', purchased for a trip to Nova Scotia and southern Florida last autumn gives the area as 10,720 acres, don't know which is correct. User:jimfbleak :My numbers come off the booklet sold at the sanctuary, but could be dated (acreage may have been added). I'll see if the web site gives more correct numbers. I have ''Florida's Birds'' but it gives the location w/o details - User:Marshman 16:47, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC) I emailed the director and he responded: 11,000 acres - User:Marshman 18:17, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC) ---- == Photo replacement == It was a good choice to replace the photo at Mushroom with one with a more common morphology. I for one have never seen any fungus that remotely look like that fan-shaped one. And I even used to go out of my way in forests to look for fungi (no...not for psychedelic experience or even for any ingestion). Photos that are representative are better than, admittedly, very beautiful and exotic ones. Btw, another great photo from you!? Stop already! (No... please don't stop!) --User:Menchi (User talk:Menchi)ü 19:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) :Thanks for the encouraging words. My thoughts exactly. I really liked that photo of the cacao infecting fungus fruiiting body. It just was too odd for the article. I've got a number more to illustrate different types of fungi, so I'm not done contributing yet %^) - User:Marshman 17:30, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) ==Are you a mycologist?== I see your beautiful bracket fungus photos and wonder if you are into mycology? I have MANY mushroom photos, many of them very beautiful. I cannot identify them, and right now I'm kind of swamped; learning about them is not my first priority. I've taken the photos simply because they were there, and unique and beautiful, thinking to use them later when I have more time to study them. They are all from eastern USA and Canada. But I'd be glad to put them up now, if you or someone knowledgeable would like to identify them and do the write-ups. User:Pollinator 03:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) :I'm afraid my pictures were similary obtained. But I have a good local guide that allows me to identify many of the species. I'd suggest we set up a mushroom photographs page, and as you upload the images (with whatever location information you can provide) we can have them out there for someone to identify — at which point we can move them into appropriate articles. Start with some of your favorites that you want to release and put them here: Mushroom album. I can help with page formatting if needed - User:Marshman 04:00, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) ---- You are quite right about List of introduced species. I've half a mind to list it for deletion, but someone would only create it again. Cheers, User:Tannin 21:35, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) == earthworms == :"becomes a pest in the new location, threatening the local biodiversity." I work on earthworms. There are large stretches of the world where introduced species (in the temperate zone mostly Lumbricidae) are eliminating the local species. One of the notable native earthworms of Oregon (''Driloleirus macelfreshi'') is probably extinct due to competition. Lumbricids have fundamentally changed the soil characteristics in areas they invade. If this does not fit the definition of "invasive", then perhaps we are speaking different languages. User:WormRunner 03:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) :Yes we are. Because virtually any introduced species, if naturalized, will likely result in some kind of eciological change in the place where it is introduced, the term "invasive" has really little meaning (cannot be defined as different from introduced species), and for this reason tends not to be used by ecologists. However, there is a government definition (read the article) that states invasive species cause economic harm, and indeed there are (USDA, for example) web sites that list "officially declared" invasive species. If the earthworm you speak of is listed as having caused economic damage, then it is an invasive species, otherwise it is an introduced species. This whole subject was discussed on the talk pages at invasive species and introduced species. Unfortunately this is a subject that most biologists will tell you "well I know what an invasive species is" only to run headlong into other biologists declaring they are wrong. The reason, IMHO, is that few biologists have actually tried to define "invasive" in any precise way. For example, you state: "...where introduced species (in the temperate zone mostly Lumbricidae) are eliminating the local species" I can assure that that is the situation for virtually every naturalized species on earth -- they replace native species -- with perhaps the rare exceptions of species introductioon to a place where their niche was completely absent. What you have, I believe is an intyroduced species and not an invasive species by the definitions (taken from the literature) presented on the Wiukipedia pages covereing those subjects - User:Marshman 00:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) ::Well, I did read the article, beforehand, and think that what the lumbricids do qualifies as environmental harm (in the definitions given). Now that you have changed the page to state that economics is the only real test, they may not qualify since that has never been quantified AFAIK. User:WormRunner 01:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) :::I'm not out to eliminate the worms from the list. I AM on your side. I fight introduced stuff all the time here in Hawaii, probably more than anyone at Wikipedia since I'm involved in actually destroying invasives and replacing them with natives (plants) on my weekends. But think about the definition: You know what is happening with the lumbricid fauna, but you are biased, because you have interest and knowledge. And that would be true for any biologist seeing their speciality over-run by introduced species. So if it is always true ecologically, then "invasive" and "introduced" are basically describing the same thing. But when that point was raised a month or so ago, there was an outcry (to wit: "I and every other biologist know what invasive is, and it is not the same as introduced"). Environmentalists use "invasive" because it has greater emotional appeal than "introduced". But when it comes down to actually defining the difference, the only thing I could find that made much sense is the "economic" issue. If USDA (or some other gov't entity) says the introduced species is causing great harm (usually measured in dollars somehow) then it is invasive species; otherwise it is introduced species. - User:Marshman 19:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC) ---- Hi Marshman. Could you look at my flag entry on Talk:Hawaii. I would fix it but I don't have veriafiable info. User:Moriori 20:08, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC) ---- == Origin of Algae == Josh – Your recent changes to Alga have removed the idea that eukaryotic algae had their origin(s) in endosymbiotic event(s). You have not replaced that "theory", just eliminated it. Was that your intention? Can you cite some sources? - User:Marshman 17:53, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) Sorry! I was changing the note about the possibility of origin in several ''separate'' endosymbiotic events, because newer research makes it unlikely. I'll try to add some references later, but there's a good bit of the Protista that needs changing. I didn't mean to take out the bit about endosymbiosis altogether, and have replaced it. Thanks for keeping watch. - user:Josh Grosse == fire department alert == We're having trouble tonight with a vandal, see Wikipedia:Block log. Some suspect it is the same user as User:Bird....if you have any way to help us stop this individual, it would be much appreciated. We are in IRC. User:Kingturtle 08:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Sorry I was out of town and just got back. Unable to do much until later today - User:Marshman 17:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) ==Flowering plants== Thanks for re-bolding and tidying this, looks a lot better now! - I for one am much happer to see the formal scientific names emphasized, I don't understand what JG had against it. I certainly find all this invalid pseudo-Latin stuff like euro-sids one and two is confusing and unhelpful User:MPF 23:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Thanks. I could see a bit of controversy developing there, but tried to just tidy up things as I saw it. The bolding IS justified because the terms fit (I think) a reasonable definition of technical terms in that paragraph. I also think the idea that "common terms are better" was quite well-meaning when it was established by early Wikipedians, but is a poor way to present technical information that can only get worse with time. For example, clicking on Magnoliopsida right now brings up Dicotyledon, a term that is becoming archaic to those knowledgeable about plant taxonomy. What the term means is a valid topic, perhaps even deserving of its own article; but most people persuing information here would be better served by going straight to Magnoliopsida. Of course scientific terminology changes all the time; that is the beauty of this encyclopedia that the paper ones cannot handle: our terms can follow the changes. To stand by old terms because they are "well known" among the average non-scientific user becomes a disservice to both the project and the user. I learned my plant taxonomy when it was Dicotyledones; should I insist we stick to that article name when the rest of the botany has moved on? I don't think so. I say dump the common names when they cease to really mean what the article intends to cover. Have a short article on why the term has passed out of fashion, then link to the modern equivalents for those seeking an education here. - User:Marshman 23:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) == New pages == Marshman: I don't "follow editors around," but I do often keep a close eye on Special:Newpages. It's been my experience that most (>95%) of new articles are not edited soon after their creation, so I have no qualms about editing brand-new articles. Besides, you can always replace my edits if yours are better... it's a Wiki, after all! ;) -- User:Seth Ilys 04:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Like I said no problem really. I had just created that article, made the first save and went on to flesh it out a bit and ran into an editing conflict. It was more the shock of it than anything else! I have never visited Special:Newpages, so I'm not sure what it presents. Anyway, I think the article can still be considered a stub, even with my further work on it. - User:Marshman 04:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- I'm editing out the links because the articles no longer exist. They're all redirects to scientific classification, except for genus and species. User:Jaknouse 01:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Good enough reason for me. And nice to know. I suppose I would have noticed at some point - User:Marshman 01:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- Dear Marshman, I have started adding to the Botany book you created at wikibooks, and wrote you a message on your talk page there. Please have a look, best wishes, User:Alettaka 21:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) :I noticed! But did not see the message. I'll check it out and respond over there. And Welcome! - User:Marshman 01:44, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Supposed Redundancies re HI == I was about to just put back all of the portion of the following: :Hawaii's distinctions among U.S. states include being * the one with the southernmost point, * the only one with any part in the tropics, * one of two outside the continental United States, * the only one with no territory on the mainland of any continent, * the one most recently admitted to statehood, and * the one whose territory was most recently annexed by the U.S. :It also has all of its permanently inhabited area both in the tropics, and (thus) south of all other states. that's been removed, when i realized that you almost certainly have all the relevant facts at hand, and were not simply editing out of ignorance. So let's talk abt this. I think you will find that the appearance of redundancy merely reflects imprecise reading. For instance, "the tropics", tho it has a precise meaning presumably given by the article, also has another common meaning (suggested by the description of Florida as having a "semi-tropical climate") that is imprecise. One reference to the "tropic zone" rather than just "the tropics" is needed to draw attention to the fact that the statement is far from being a matter of mere opinion abt the difference between FL's & HI's climates being enough to call that a distinction. "Southernmost" is also imprecise, with at least 3 meanings: *having the southernmost point * being entirely south of all the others (''not'' the case w/ HI, as i assume you know) * having its centroid farthest south (In this sense, NV is farther north than CA, even tho their northermost points are equally far north.) (Note that the first sense has the surprising consequence that there is no logical contradiction in the possibility of the same state being both northernmost and southernmost; in fact, in this sense, MI is both more northerly and more southerly than WI (a thought which leaves me queasy, even though i am clear about why my intuitive expectation is wrong).) Finally, i'm sure you're aware that HI is not in the tropics, but rather part of it is and part is in the N temperate zone; i can't imagine why you would accept that (since i see that someone else made the change). Perhaps my language counted too much on readers' careful attention; do you think the kind of precision i see as required is more acceptable if points like these are made explicitly in the next 'graph? --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 05:04, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC) :Again, you make my head spin. Agreed, I accepted the two statements, southernmost point to be inclusive with southernmost state; but I see first that the Florida Keys are as far south as some parts of Hawai'i; so southernmost point can be the only real distinction. Yes, our climate is actually subtropical, although we technically overlap the "Tropic". Tropical zone is better, although I thought it a bit stilted. I vote for restoration to they way it was before—except, I'd drop the last free sentence as causing some confusion in people's minds (because of the need to otherwise get more precise about defining these things). - User:Marshman 17:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC) Thanks, M, i'm afraid i'm a precision junkie. (I apologized to the guy at the register this evening, who thot i'd given him exact change, for "quibbling over a nickel", and really i was quibbling over his ability to add 75 +20 + 1 and get 91.) So i'd love to keep the "free sentence" but add enough to make its precision clear. But i realize that's a weakness on my part. So let's just both watch for anyone who's confused, and i spot the confusion, i'll propose a fix to you rather than add another paragraph and a half that i fantasize will make it perfectly clear. [smile]. --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 23:55, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC) :Sounds good to me. I abhor misinformation, so in that sense I'm like you - User:Marshman 02:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- Hi again. Did a ''big'' edit on Hawai'i, which i imagine you'll notice. It felt like it went on forever, so i would bet it was riddled with typos when i got to the end and quit without serious proofreading (along with whatever mainlander misconceptions i injected in the course of moderating the PoV). But the real reason i wanted to drop you a note is Kingdom of Hawaii, which i looked at only long enough to see that it is full of "Hawaii" where i think we would agree "Hawai'i" is called for. I don't think i could look at another HI article for weeks, so i didn't seriously considering working on it. Hawaiian monarchy is a redir to it; i'm not sure whether it is a merge (that may deserve attention to whether enough got reflected in the merge) or a cut-and-paste move (which should be repaired; i trust you know how), but i didn't look hard enough to know which. I put this on my list, but if it seems to be calling you, i won't be doing anything with it soon.
Be well! --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 05:05, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC) ---- Marshman, thanks for your letter. I have written something for you and Heidimo about the article on traditional Chinese medicine; the comments are on User:Heidimo's page. User:RK 14:31, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC) ---- ==hey== I do agree with you both sides in the user:RK, User:Mr-Natural-Health both violated the 3 revert rule i just want to keep the peace here i think a cease-fire form both sides is a start. User:plato ==Vocabulary Project== Hi there! I saw you contributed to the german wikibook, so I thought you might be interested in this. I have written a [http://amor.rz.hu-berlin.de/~h0444e1w/vokeng.htm program for learning vocabulary]. It is based on the belief that it is best to learn foreign words by learning typical sentences. The program can also be used for learning other stuff that works with the question/answer scheme, e.g. the theory for the driving licence or anatomy. Unfortunately I wrote it in qbasic, which can be downloaded [http://www.microsoft.com/windows/download/olddos.exe here]. It also uses images and sound files for alternation and in order to work on the pronunciation. Let me know what you think about it. I currently have files in English, French (with sound), and Spanish. Catalan and Portuguese are in the planning. Corrections or additions are very welcome. The easiest thing to start with for improvements would be adding new vocabulary, sound files or images. A guide to the program will follow soon, although I think it is rather self-explanatory. In the long run the program should be rewritten in a better language like Visual Basic. Afterwards it should be possible to switch languages within the program. Up to now there is a different version of the program for each language. User:Get-back-world-respect 23:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Endemic Species in Hawaii== Hi Mr. M! I noticed Bulbaboy's recent edit on the Hawaii article regarding the ''po'ouli'' and it came to me that, with all the verbiage we've written about Hawaii, there's not one word about how we've got so many endemic species here. I've started a stub article on endemic species of the Hawaiian Islands and added pointers to it from the Hawaii and Hawaiian Islands articles (I figure there's probably enough info and studies on them to justify its own article, if only for the probably humongous list). With your expertise on biology, I think you'd probably be the best person to add to it. What do you think? User:KeithH 01:19, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) :I missed this Keith; I was off-island (and away from the wiki) for a couple of weeks. Let me check out what you are talking about and get back to you. But I like the idea! A friend of mine has recently completed a book on the subject, and I'm reviewing it for the publisher. - User:Marshman 20:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC) == Header/formatting == Marshman: Yes, I'm aware of that bug in MediaWiki. When we move over to 1.3 in the near future, I believe that problem will be resolved entirely. It's a fairly widespread problem, but it's also an extremely minor problem as well; in many articles, the first paragraph is similarly indented. I'm not terribly concerned about it. :) -- User:Seth Ilys 18:17, 11 May 2004 (UTC) == Good replacement photos == Thanks for replacing those Horsetail] photos with ones containg specimen in wild. My indoor lighting was just absolutely horrid. It's like the documentary photos some sort of torture chamber-morgue for dying plants! :-O I had no idea it looks so dreadful until I replaced my LCD a few weeks ago. Thanks for the ''lively'' improvement! Keep it up! --User:Menchi 19:40, 13 May 2004 (UTC) :Although I had some problems with the upload function (I always have problems that seem to relate to delays in the way the Wiki handles such things), I was able to resurrect your photo that was labeled after putting it through PhotoShop. - User:Marshman 20:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC) == Camera == Marshman, are you close to wanting to get rid of that camera of yours? I am moving out of the country shortly and if I was going to buy it off you should do so now. Thanks sir! - User:Karlwick ==Friends of the ‘Okina== Hawai‘i-born friends of ‘okina unite! ^^ - User:Gilgamesh 03:32, 27 June 2004 (UTC) :So far so good 8^) - User:Marshman None of my ‘okina have been yet reverted! I think they're permanent! I'm so happy! ^______________________^ - User:Gilgamesh 22:18, 30 June 2004 (UTC) :::I think there is always hope in having proponents. The mor4e of us that agree, the harder it is for the "English-only" crew to justify badgering us. - User:Marshman 01:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) I don't understand the English-only camp anyway... Bilingual people are smarter. ^_^ Belligerant voluntary monolinguals are book-burners. :P Or something. - User:Gilgamesh 03:14, 3 July 2004 (UTC) :Well, this is an English encyclopedia, so that is where it comes from. But my belief (and yours) is that English-only does not preclude broadening one's horizons as far as other (non-English) cultures are concerned; and that usual requires some adaptations in language. I do not speak Hawaiian, but I love using the Hawaiian language as much as I can as part of my understanding of Hawai'i-nei. Makes more sense than using names given to things and features for which there has always been (in human terms) a perfectly good Hawaiian name/term. Not the same as making the Wikipedia multi-lingual; just multi-cultural. - User:Marshman 03:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) ==Clashes with another user - you're an admin and can review, right?== I'm not asking anything drastic or anything, but recently User:Mustafaa and I have clashed with another user who has been editing quite a few articles to assert theology as fact, and even tried to revert some of the reverts. I don't quite know the procedure when it comes to users talking to admins, so I'm asking you about it. (Maybe you can also give me points too.) The user is User:IZAK, and the articles (with edit wars just a few hours ago) are Hebrew language, Canaanite languages, Biblical Hebrew language, Ammonite language, Moabite language, Edomite language, and the categories "Category:Hebrew language" and "Category:Canaanite languages" (which he tried to eliminate). Does this constitute disciplinable abuse? - User:Gilgamesh 07:49, 7 July 2004 (UTC) : The procedure: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. --User:Menchi 08:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Thank you, that looks very useful. Marshman, Menchi, sorry for the trouble. ^_^; - User:Gilgamesh 08:14, 7 July 2004 (UTC) :I see the dispute has moved on to Talk:Hebrew language where others can participate and clarify the arguments. It appears to be a case of some honest (on both sides) differences in opinion - User:Marshman 17:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) The procedure seems to be going well now. :) However, this time I do need an administrator for non-dispute-related assistance. :P We have been preparing to move Hebrew language (as a family) to Hebrew languages, and to restore Modern Hebrew language to Hebrew language. The first move went without incident, but the second move failed because I need an administrator. :) I'll pour over links myself to make sure everything points to where it's supposed to. - User:Gilgamesh 17:42, 7 July 2004 (UTC) :OK. You may need one of the old pages deleted before you can complete the move. Let me know - User:Marshman 17:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) I noted that you had already moved the Talk page, so I deleted the redirect at Hebrew language so you can make the final move. Do not forget to go through the "What links here" for both new pages and make appropriate corrections - User:Marshman 18:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) I don't know what to do anymore. There has been lots more input, and the other user's not respecting any of us in the least bit. And then...he slurred me. I couldn't believe that me that by pure association, I should not be allowed to coexist in his part of the Wikipedia universe. The sheer totality of the phrase... I felt ill. I still feel ill. This ''can't'' be correct conduct by any stretch of the imagination. I've never seen my associations referenced in such a soiled fashion... Marshman, I humbly request more council, more advice, more options, whatever can end this Talk:Hebrew languages. Reading the most recent history and difference pages might help. - User:Gilgamesh 05:27, 8 July 2004 (UTC) :I thought things were being worked out with the name changes? I'll check the page histories when I get a moment, but I will council you on this: Wikipedia is a community, and reflection on even the smallest community you have had previous experience with should teach that any collection of people is not like your friends—it is as collection of all types. Some come here and throw their weight around, some are so far out there you really have to wonder, and others are helpful, annoying, respectful, difficult, you name it. But despite any individuals (the best, the worst), the project moves forward. Each of us is just a small contributing cog; and if things seem tough in one area, just move on. Come back to the difficult stuff after staying away for awhile. Going somewhere else in Wikipedia to work is NOT conceding or giving up. Nothing we do or say here is really ALL THAT IMPORTANT. It is just something we do, and someone else could change it all next year or next decade. When I get angry I try to sleep on it before getting too far into the dispute. After a day or two, most problems seems nowhere near as big as at first. And remember too, that anytime we communicate by email or by typing stuff back and forth, the most important social clues to successful communication without hard feelings are visual ones—and these are completely lacking. It is real easy to insult someone without meaning to or realizing it. So I take everything with a big grain of salt. If your knowledge or POV is the correct one, that will eventually win out because others will see the articles and question the questionable points. Just like the ‘okina! - User:Marshman 06:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) ::Yeah, I know that's logically right. In fact, IZAK has only encountered resounding disagreement. And then it was only a matter of unending flames and consumption of energy. But sometimes, someone says or does something that demonstrates so much contempt and bigotry that it cuts... It's hard to explain. He...said a terrible thing, almost felt like a death threat, like the denial of my existence. "Mormon" is a strange word; in many cases used amongst an inside social group, it has almost no meaning. But in certain other uses, often just using simple grammatical affixes, it's like a quick and instant sword through the gut, utterly decisive in its immediate carnage, leaving permanent and uncomfortable scar tissue laced with poison that never completely heals. I'm not sure if any of that made sense, and it seems almost impossible to describe in terms of a NPOV article. - User:Gilgamesh 06:18, 8 July 2004 (UTC) ::Well, I do understand that the problem with non-visual communication such as we have here is that words are said only to the depth of understanding possessed by the sayer, but are received or taken with all the baggage that the receiver possesses. So as a receiver, you have to separate those deep wounds from the interpretation because you really have little idea what the sender's knowledge is. Of course he could be just a fat bigot, which by definition is a person with deficient social skills; but in face to face, you could show clear signs of hurt or aggression that might quickly change his tact. Here, if you attack verbally (and I see in the Talk: pages that you did a little bit ;^), he can just attack further, leading to an esculating road rage between two people that might in a social setting get along pretty well. Further, all the words just hang there, and are not forgotten after further conversation. My two cents - User:Marshman 06:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) :::Well, alright. - User:Gilgamesh 06:47, 8 July 2004 (UTC) == Kiritimati == It is (also) the oldest atoll in the world. If you need some more info.--User:Enzino 16:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) :Interesting. I'd not heard that. Yes, I think the evidence for that would make a good addition to the article. I lived there many years ago. - User:Marshman 17:01, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Photos == Youve uploaded some great photo's "taken by Eric Guinther and donated to Wikipedia under GNU". Which Gnu licnece are they under? Wikipedia would prefer GFDL, ideally tagged
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Marshman:
Marshman
Marshman
Marshman_Warren_Taylor
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
