User talk:Jeff Dahl/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jeff Dahl. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

You Opposed this articles nomination a while back due to it's prose. I wondered if you could give it another look when you can find the time. Would it be worth re-nominating. Buc (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the prose has improved and I don't see any major issues on a cursory glance. From that perspective I see no problem renominating, but I have absolutely no knowledge of football so I can't weigh in on that. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice jet engine pic! Can you bump the default size of it to something larger? Perhaps comparable to the orginal (about 1300 px wide) -Ravedave (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I had given the size some thought when I drew it, and I went with 1000px in order to balance the need to examine detail with the desire to have the image fit on people's computer screens. The discussion here guided my choice of size. Is 1000px too small to examine the detail? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

68.39.174.238 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Demantos (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your pics are excellent.Apepch7 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I echo the compliments on your work. I helped edit the Khepresh article and checked back on it and was pleasantly surprised to see your image there. Naisenu (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I'm making a game that is Egyptian-themed. I would like to know if it would be possible to use one or two of your vector images, naturally with your permission. Would it be possible if we could get in touch via email? I just registered an account on Wikipedia, and I'm not really used to it :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmreArbac (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's me again, just realised it didn't put my username there... my email is emrearbac@gmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmreArbac (talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You really ought to nominate this for FP on Commons also. Brilliant idea! Durova^Charge! 06:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider it done. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. :) Durova^Charge! 08:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your reply re the Vinland Map image. What I actually wrote was not simply "most scholars" but "most scholars and scientists who have studied the Vinland map". Apart from the original authentication team (all print specialists, ill-qualified for studying a manuscript, effectively barred from consulting real experts in the relevant disciplines, and lied to by the dealer who sold the map), the Cahill PIXE scientists (who were, to put it charitably, somewhat sparing in their public presentation of the results they obtained- I've seen extracts from the "private" report to Yale) and the media-friendly Mrs Olin (who has for decades pursued a classic "fraction of one percent possibility that the majority are wrong" argument about the ink composition without ever managing to manufacture anything close to a modern equivalent) most studies of the Vinland Map, nearly all of which were effectively ignored in the notorious second edition of Yale's official book about the map, really have come to the conclusion that it's a fake, for a wide variety of reasons. NPOV should reflect the overall state of academic studies (far too numerous to list in the Wikipedia article references), not the current state-of-play in public relations. David Trochos (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Jeff,

I'm afraid the "character assassination" bit is somewhat unavoidable in this case. The current "state of the art" in Vinland Map studies is probably Kirsten Seaver's book "Maps, Myths and Men" (Stanford U.P., 2004, ISBN 0804749639), which effectively takes the map's 20th century origin as a given, and explains in some detail the processes by which people were persuaded otherwise. Personally, I think Seaver went too far in attempting to identify the forger, but her analysis of the history of the map post-1956 is very illuminating. Your use of the Webexhibits site as an illustration of the state of academic study is doubly misleading- note in particular that on the Bibliography page, the section devoted to the Map itself is missing. The Webexhibits site concentrates almost exclusively on the "big science" approach to the map, ignoring the dozens of studies in other disciplines. For example, I don't think anybody except Seaver has paid much attention to the work of Prof. B.W. Langlands of Kampala, whose field of expertise is (or was, several decades ago) bookworm behaviour- he pointed out in 1974 that in a natural situation, multiple bookworms do not attack books the way they attacked the volume containing the Vinland Map. Palaeographers, linguists, historians of cartography, historians of exploration, historians of religion- experts in any discipline relevant to the Vinland Map have found it very questionable within the limits of their own expertise, but their observations tend to remain in isolation, in 40-year-old copies of the academic journals of their own specialisms.

As for the caption, I agree that "regrettably" and the precise dating go too far (although further study of the 1950s contamination will almost certainly reveal that the date is correct...); but the basic claim that "most scholars and scientists who have studied the map have concluded that it is a fake" really does reflect the current (and decades-past) situation. David Trochos (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I sincerely accept your apologies :)Chabacano (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Dahl,

I have been looking through your collection of Ancient Egyptian drawings and I have never been more impressed with a set of drawings made on a computer. So much so that I am writing to ask if I could possibly use two of your pictures as logos for a club of which I am a member, known as the Gentlemen’s Adventure Club of Leeds and London. It is very newly formed and so I almost guarantee you not have heard of it.

The images I wish to use are the one of Pharaoh, in which he is not wearing a double crown or a blue crown. However, he is wearing a blue and gold striped headdress. I think it is a fantastic image, and would be the main logo of the club. The other image I would like to use is the image of Hathor, the mistress of the West, which would be used on various documents.

I will only do this with your blessing and it is important to tell you that the picture of Pharaoh will be used on the club's polo shirts, should you let us use it.

Please forgive me for my ignorance of copyright, but I am only eighteen and cannot work out the GNU copyright system.

Please write back,

Yours truly,

Tom L —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'm glad you like them. I would be happy to let you use them as logos for your club and give permission for the purpose in addition to the GFDL and CC-BY-SA choices. If you would like a more "official" email with the specific permission for your use, use the "email this user" choice on the left side of the screen. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone on the talk page of the article (Ancient egyptian warfare) suggested the final title be "Military history of Ancient Egypt" because other articles about the history of warfare start with "Military history of...". What's your opinion? --θnce θn this island ^Speak! 17:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Minard.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." on Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages suggests the page probably should be deleted. I suggest using {{db-author}} on it (if you don't intend to use the page anymore), otherwise it could be sent to miscellany for deletion. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for having that subpage is clearly to work on the content, as you can see by that subpage's discussion page and the <!--comments--> on it etc. The purpose of the guideline you are citing is to prevent people from having a personal copy of their preferred version of an article in a content dispute and to prevent people from getting free web hosting for non-notable articles deleted from the mainspace. None of those criteria apply here because the subpage has comments related to content development. I did consider whether to have it deleted, but this subpage is linked to from the peer review as well, so deleting this subpage would sever these comments from the archived peer review. Requesting deletion of this subpage is a waste of time and, in the end, what would it accomplish? Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I put it in MFD, as it's pretty clear there is no one working on the subpage anymore. There is no reason it should sit inactive for a while. Wikipedia isn't your personal webhost and/or archive. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not using this as a webhost/personal archive. The subpage is clearly related to content development and has suggestions in-line and on the discussion page related to this article from other users. So what if it hasn't been worked on in a while? Most things on wikipedia sit inactive for long periods of time, this is nothing unusual. My contributions to this project have only been entirely within the spirit of positive development and I urge you to consider the effects this excessive policing. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved to its own subpage: User:Jeff Dahl/Scout Badge Images -- Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and I hope I've not given offense or asked too much. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all; it's just easier to manage on a sub-page. The hardest part is really just trying to read the text on many of the badges. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• The logo says وأعذوا. Regards Muhammad(talk) 11:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:DesertStormMap v2.svg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 08:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On 28 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tablet press, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to be placing a detailed review per each criterion of the GA criteria soon. It's a hefty article on an important topic, so I've been taking my time formulating the review. I'll then place the article on hold for any improvements necessary (not seriously extensive, mostly minor stuff and perhaps a few additional in-line cites), in which you'll have a week's time (I can close it as soon as we address the changes, but it can be no longer than that). Overall it looks very good, and I'll have a review up very soon. Thanks for your patience, VanTucky 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your effort. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, Image:Tablet press animation.gif, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 11:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You had peer reviewed this article in October, Wikipedia:Peer review/Matrikas/archive1. Can you please review the article again and leave a note on article talk, about improvements needed? Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes left on talk page. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will leave a note here when i am done with improvements suggested.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me name of a Hispanic American inventor and innovator? 96.229.179.106 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Try Hispanics in the United States. I'm sure you'll find something. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff,

Thank you for your feedback on my map. I made changes, please let me know if you have additional comments. Justinmorris (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

-for excellent support of the ScoutingWikiProject by providing use high quality graphics. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Glad I can help. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, your image looks really good. And in good detail. Though I would have liked a 3D version (something similar to the pic in Microbiology: A Human Perspective by Nestor, Anderson, Pearsall and Roberts), maybe it would complicate the image to a great extent. Anyway your version undoubtedly looks better than the one I uploaded and has greater detail, so let's use it. Thanks for your time and effort. - TwoOars 06:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I marked the request as done. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second TwoOars' thoughts. I think the new image you made looks very good. Thanks for your hard work in improving it. To help keep your WP:GL credit score high, I dropped another thank you note at WP:GL. Sorry for the late reply. - Neparis (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Let me know if anything else needs drawing work. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jeff. I really enjoyed reading Ancient Egypt. I'm not really an expert with prose (it seems vanTucky brought up some minor issues), but to me, it looked fine.

Some issues:

• The — dash is used for an interjection; – is used for dates. So, 380—343 BC should be replaced with 380–343 BC.
• Paragraph 2 of "Agriculture" is entirely unsourced.
• Some paragraphs don't contain any wikilinks (ex. first paragraph of "First Intermediate Period"); you might want to consider introducing some link.
• There shouldn't be any space between references and punctuation. See "New Kingdom" section.

That's all I can think of at the moment. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. I'll fix them. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff! Yes, I can help with the language section in the article. Unfortunately, I won't be able to get started on it for a few days because I have a busy 2 weeks, but this shouldn't be a problem for the article's promotion I surmise. Thanks for all your hard work. Cheers, — Zerida ☥ 02:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad to hear you can help. Working together I'm sure we can get this article finished. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA promotion. I just scanned the article again and am really happy to see it reach such a high-quality level of scholarship. BTW, I had a restored the bit about the golden ratio and left a note on the FA promotion page re. accessing sources. Just an FYI for the future. — Zerida ☥ 01:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and of course without your help the article wouldn't be where it is now. Thanks for finding that last source; I hadn't come across that specific fact before. This whole process sure gives me a new appreciation for collaboration and for getting the sources right. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 01:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of your tireless work improving the vital Ancient Egypt article. VanTucky 00:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I appreciate it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Has your 'tinkering' to the pharaoh infobox caused the information within it to be shifted from the left side of the box to the right? In the article for Ramesses II, the list of children, identities of the king's mother, father plus the pharaoh's year dates (very imp!) are all shifted much closer to the right hand side of the Pharaoh Infobox which makes the infobox data seem skewed/warped and the information here harder to reach. I don't know if this is a temporary phenomenon which will soon go away...but they were all placed starting from the left or middle section of the infobox before your adjustment I think. What do you think?

PS: What has happened to the alternate name for Ramesses II--ie. 'Ramesses the Great.' It is shown in the edit for this article but doesn't appear at the top of the current Pharaoh infobox--as it usually does. People expect to see a pharaoh's alternate name here. If not, they might wreck the entire infobox to make sure it displays this info. I'm just saying your adjustments may displease many people. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: in your edits, you removed important information by deleting some cited reference to Jürgen von Beckerath's book on Egyptian Chronology in Akhenaten. You follow Brittanica by placing Akhenaten's reign at 1353-1336 BC but in fact, the exact reign of Akhenaten is not certain. Even Brittanica is not perfect; Jimbo Wales could tell you this. We only know the approximate time-line of Akhenaten's reign. It could in fact be from 1351-1334 BC. Von Beckerath is as well respected by Egyptologists as the redoubted Kenneth Kitchen and his German book Chronology of the Egyptian Pharaohs is one of the standards of Egyptian Chronology. I just ask that you leave any referenced work by this author intact for an alternate date. If Egyptian chronology was fixed, Egyptologists would not be squabbling today over whether Ahmose came to power in 1550 BC or 1539 BC. Even Kitchen's supposed anchor date of 945-924 BC for the reign of Shoshenq I has now been shifted downwards by 2 years to 943 to 922 BC according to the latest research based on a lunar feast celebrated in Year 5 of his reign. This makes sense: in Kitchen's scenario, Shoshenq returned home after pillaging Judah/Israel in 945 BC as the Bible states) and had reliefs of his campaign carved at Karnak within 1 year before dying in 924 BC. If he could do this in 1 brief year, he would be a superman. But if he died in 922 BC, he would have had 3 full years to carve them--enough time to partly inscribe them on the temple walls of Karnak. The only firm anchor date in the New Kingdom is the reign of Ramesses II and Thutmose III and 1279-1213 and 1479-1425 BC respectively....until you arrive at Taharqa at 690-664 BC. Egyptian Chronology is not fixed in stone. Please be flexible here. Leoboudv (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See my reply on you talk page. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Dahl, I don't think you were intentionally 'wrecking' with the Pharaohinfo boxes--only that people expect to read the alternate names of Ramesses, Akhenaten, etc; if not they might radically alter the infobox. Personally, I don't care too much if the title of the info box for Rmss. II just said Ramesses II but most people don't see it this way. Thank you for your comments on Chronology. I didn't mean to criticise your good work updating the infobox--just to stress that Egyptian chronology for the New Kingdom and TIPE is fluid and not as 'fixed' as Kitchen and some scholars believe. They can't say Pharaoh X reigned from 1353 to 1336 or 1351 to 1334 BC--only that it lies within this time period c.+/- 5 or 10 yrs...which is reasonable for such an ancient people. I should add that Shoshenq I's accession date is now firmly placed in 943 BC--so his reign of 943-922 BC is the fourth fixed date of Egyptian Chronology for the TIPE/NK. Its incredible the amount of finds Egyptologists make each year. In 2005, a stela dated to Year 13 of Takelot III was found at Dakhla; previously his highest date was only Year 7. What next will Egyptologists find: perhaps an intact tomb in the V of K--KV63?

I think both of us are working to the same goal of improving Wikipedia. What really irks me is the large scale of Vandalism here. Here is one less obvious but still damaging example where the name of pharaoh Ahmose I was deliberately removed; I just noticed it today: [1] I wish Mr. Wales would just ban edits by anonymous IPers and make them register. This would cut vandalism down significantly. Thank You, Jeff Leoboudv (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jeff, Does your revisions now mean that the cartouches cannot appear in the Pharaoh infobox? I notice the ones for Ramesses II and Shoshenq I have disappeared. They have disappeared in all the Pharaoh info boxes, I believe. Normally one would hope to see a cartouche--at least a prenomen--but if it takes too much space or Kilobites, then I guess you have to junk it. I just hope other readers accept your decision. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I get it: you have to click on 'show' to see them. I hope other viewers catch on here; I was caught slightly offguard by the disappearance of the cartouches. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jeff, Can you do anything to align the data in the Pharaohinfo box more to the left? For instance, in these articles on Ramesses XI and Ramesses IV, the king's reign or timeline are actually split into 2 lines from say year XXXX-XXXX BC and the next line has the notation BC beacuse there isn't enough space at the end. People usually focus on year dates and think it is slightly unprofessional to see a date split in two. Prior to your revision, the data started from the left hand site of the info box--so it could cover more data. The same thing occurs to Ramesses III. PS: It is a good idea to show/hide the cartouches. Some were really long and just distracting. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I don't want to monopolize your time. I know you must be very busy--in real life. So, I'll just give you 2 clear examples of the issue which you triied to address with me: Khyan amd Ramesses IV. Both articles have an image in the Pharaohinfo box but in Khyan's case, the arrangement of the text is very 'logical'--as Mr. Spock would say. His reign and his 15th Dynasty are on 2 separate lines. In contrast, with Ramesses IV, his reign and dynasty are broken into two separate lines which is disruptive. I mean...why is it the comment "20th Dynasty" is broken into 2 lines (20th & Dynasty) when it should be placed in 1 separate line? I wanted to place sway </ br> before 20th Dynasty for R IV so that this text would be on the next line but the Edit text places 20th dynasty on one single line. It was on one single line before. Do you know why this happens? The arrangement of the text in the Pharaoh infobox is slightly abnormal now. If you can't resolve this seeming incongruity, pls let me know...and I won't take up more of your valuable time because I know you have to live your own life too. Thank You for everything, Leoboudv (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I wouldn't mind uploading a screen shot. I am not as technically proficient as you. Thanks for compacting the cartouche on Ramesses VI. It was the worst example of an overly long cartouche that dominated the entire article. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jeff, I have a 15" monitor; I tried my dad's newer 17" monitor yesterday and got the same unfortunate result where dates or a king's timeline are broken into 2 lines. Previously, the info in the databox began on the left hand site but now they look a bit squashed since in my browser (and my dad's) they start in the middle--so there is less space at the end. Can you align the text in the Pharaohinfo box--mentioning the king's reign, timeline, children, parents, etc, so that it begins from the left or is it set in stone? Maybe you should access the articles on Ramesses IV, Ramesses V or Ramesses IX on your local public library server or a friend's computer to see how they turn out. Previously, the name 20th dynasty was on a line by itself, I believe. If you cannot modify the new Ph.Info Box settings, just let me know. That is all I ask. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jeff, Thanks for your time...I wish other people on Wikipedia were as considerate as you. I suppose then that [2] is the method to adjust the settings? I am not very up to date on the technical aspects of computers.

As an Aside, I forward you my list of book reviews which I have posted on Amazon here: [3] Most, but not all, are on Ancient Egypt. Perhaps...you may find it interesting. Who knows? Regards, Fabian Leoboudv (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: It works! Many thanks. That was so simple, I can't believe it. I have been a fool. Well, I hope you enjoy reading my detailed Amazon reviews in your spare time. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Ancient Egypt map-en.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 7, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-04-07. howcheng {chat} 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:HonusWagnerCard.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 24, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-02-24. howcheng {chat} 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Edwin Smith Papyrus v2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 17, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-02-17. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Vinland Map HiRes.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 26, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-02-26. howcheng {chat} 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Mira the star-by Nasa alt crop.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 13, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-03-13. Thanks, - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeff. It is really nice of you to let me know about this. I believe the caption is fine.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jeff Dahl. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5