Talk:Jozef Raskin

message: I've begun an extensive revision of this article and have more to add, including the citing of the references I've collected that I'm too tired to do right now, but will (hopefully) work more on tomorrow. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . Yes, you are permitted to use your judgment and remove stub tags. To that end you can also update the class= parameter on the article's talk page to reflect any promotion (list, start, b, c, ga, fa, etc.). Do an edit-source to get to the WikiProject template on the article talk page to see the parameters that need promotion. You can also add stub tags to stub articles that are lacking them; try to be specific on a stub category if you can, or simply use the generic stub tag. Articles can live in more than one stub category too, so you can add more than one stub tag to articles that require it. Cheers!  {Talk} 04:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

text: Hi . Contact  in Quebec. I believe she can assist you with finding images and licensing them. Also, she can help you contact places to get other helpful things released. Cheers!  {Talk} 13:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive edits and revisions 

message: Hi  In following the information provided in Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names and Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization, the title of this article should be Joseph Raskin and not Father Raskin, or at the very least, Father Joseph Raskin.  Can you assist me with Wikipedia:Page name#Changing the displayed title if you agree?  Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . Read this: Wikipedia:Article titles, percolate on it, and get back to me. Cheers!  {Talk} 12:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  Well, I’ve percolated quite a bit about this and I can’t find any substantive issue that would mandate changing this articles name due to this highly notable persons relative obscurity.  Sometime in the future though, and should genuine hero’s like this come back into vogue, maybe a young scholar, or two, will have other thoughts.  Thanks too for your cleaning up of this article.  Picomtn (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name change 

message: I spotted that he sent messages by pigeon on 3 mm paper. That would be quite thick cardboard. Could you check and correct: ordinary printer paper is only about 0.15 mm - so I suspect this should have been 0.03 mm. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . Can you please address this from your source? I believe you originally had it at 3m which would be about a yard thick. 3 micrometers would only be 0.00011811 inches. Cheers!  {Talk} 08:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  I'm so glad someone picked this up...and it was a simple fix mistake as I had just had to transpose the 3mm to the tube where it belonged instead of the paper, which I've already fixed. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  PS. In my reviewing my notes about this I ran across a WWII videohttp://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675043868_United-States-soldiers_carrier-pigeons_ties-message-on-pigeons-foot I had saved about war pigeons and found to be very fascinating. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Paper thickness