User talk:Sethile

As per my other suggestion, perhaps it would be better to completely remove the Marks/Logo page altogether and just have a link at the bottom of each Brand/Maker's page to the Pipephil website for that particular Brand or Maker? --Frank - 3/26/09

Sure, that would work fine too. The advantage of the Marks/Logo page, assuming it were to get flushed out eventually, is for situations where someone is trying to identify a pipe with some sort of logo without knowing the maker. Regardless, I think relevant off site links should be added at the bottom of each article directly. --sethile 15:41, 26 March 2009 (CDT)

Lacking a Name Stamp, being able to identify a pipe from it's Logo alone would be useful. Pipephil does have a means of searching with criteria such as a Star or an Anchor or a Dot, etc., but it is lacking a couple of such criteria to search by, last I checked.--Frank - 3/26/09

Scott, Earlier on I checked on that item in Cyrillic that you deleted. I found a translation, and it is pipe related..--Frank - 4/13/09

Thanks, Frank! I put it back. I wondered about that.. I was a little on the delete button ;) --sethile 21:18, 13 April 2009 (CDT)

Notice for you

This thing needs a bit of scouring just to make it palatable to educated folk! C'mon, this is just lazy. I say "c'mon" because this is the talk page. The entry itself ought to be perfectly written, not sounding like a letter to a dopey pal in Wisconsin!Thundersnow 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)--A direct quote off the Tobacco page. It really needs work, that.Thundersnow 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bridge Too Far?

QUOTE FROM ME: "Hello Eric, Thanks for your work on the Tobacco article. Yes, it does need a lot of work! Also, it would be great if you can help with the Savinellis article. In short, whatever you have time for would be most welcome in deed--I really appreciate your help! All the best, --sethile 01:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC) [....]

Uhm, I do not know any Eric except an old colleague. And I must say that it is just plain wrong to try to do that to a contributor who wished to remain known by username. And by the way, I am Rev. Antonio Hernandez.Thundersnow 03:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)"

Well, thanks a lot for this unwanted headache.Thundersnow 03:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the email address (EricBlair@disciples.com), which you publicly posted, gave the name as Eric Blair, it was an understandable mistake on Scott's part, as he could hardly be aware that you use someone elses email address. I believe he was only trying to be friendly on a first name basis. Accusing him of "outing" you in such a heartless manner is a mean thing to do, since he obviously did not do it to deliberately "expose" you.

As you obviously aren't aware of the tremendous scope of this website, let me enlighten you of the fact that the vast majority of the design, information and contributions have been due to Scott's hard work. Furthermore, he is always extremely appreciative of corrections and contributions to the website.

Considering that you don't even know one iota about Scott, I find your jumping to conclusions about him offensive in the extreme. I also find your tone and attitude particularly rude and belligerent, especially as you claim to be a man of the cloth. - Frank 07:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Frank, step back a bit, will ya? What, does every email that sounds like a name necessarily imply that is the name? It appears it was a careless and stupid thing to try and call anyone by any name in that way. And men of the cloth are HUMAN--like you. Rude and belligerent. Don't have to be a man of God to be forgiving and a little kind, eh?

Hey Frank, I jumped back in here because I've got a 'better one' for you:

Don't you think it was more than a little stupid as well as presumptuous for this Scott to attempt to use a first name basis situation? With someone who wanted to be known by username?

Do you think this person would have liked his email, genuine name or not, to be even partially displayed publicly? (I noticed Eric Blair...that was English writer George Orwell's real name.) Does this place do that, publicly show an email? I know I'm not going to join now.

Don't you think maybe an admonition as well as an apology would have served better? From what I see, isn't this a matter of you getting pissed because this Scott stepped out of line and then got called out of line for it?

One thing I can see: this place is going to turn quickly into a stink-swamp like Wikipedia. That place is worse than Viet Nam was.