Archives
2H2004 1H2005

Welcome to WP, hitherto "quiet" one!! My page has a link to the page that tells you how to get your anonymous edits attributed to you.

When you tell us a bit more about yourself, there may be lots of us happy to show you where to exercise your particular interests and skills. But a daily skim through "Recent changes" is likely to show up something of interest. Best wishes! Robin Patterson 00:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tables How to use tables ISS Expedition 10 Mission Insignia Re: your contribution to Wikipedia:How to use tables#Possible problems - I can't quite picture what you're describing. The only time I've seen text go too close to a table border, it was due to the use of pre or some other non-breaking text block. Think you could post a screenshot of what you have in mind? At any rate, I wouldn't give too much attention to that page anymore, since it's much easier (IMHO) to use the wiki markup for HTML tables. Though, those tips may still apply. -- Wapcaplet 15:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) You can use Upload file link to post an image. Usually PNG or Jpeg is the best format for actual use, so convert it if you know how, but for this temporary purpose it's fine to leave it as bitmap. Check out Wikipedia:Uploading images for more details. Or you can just email it to me so I can check it out (see my user page for my address). -- Wapcaplet 19:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) Table image centering Your use of a table within a table does work, but I have also found that using a "center within a center" also works (at least in mozilla-based browsers). Use a "center" tag in the image link and align=center in the cell properties. The code below produces the box shown at upper right. {| border=1 cellpadding=2 width=350 cellspacing=0 align=right style=margin-left:0.5em; |+<font size=+1>''' ISS Expedition 10 '''</font> |- !colspan=2 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2 bgcolor=#FFDEAD|Mission Insignia |- |colspan=2 align=center| [[Image:ISS Expedition 10 Patch.svg|thumb|200px|center|Expedition 10 insignia]] |- |} —Mike 04:06, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC) That's weird: I see your version as left-justified under Netscape 7.1 (Mozilla 5.0), but it works ok under MIE 6.0 (NCSA Mosaic), which is contrary to what you said. What version of Mozilla do you have? Noisy | Talk 11:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) HoR table Ya know, you tamper with my baby, you don't expect me to get mad?!@# ... bah, who am I kidding, the change is good. Perhaps a little heavy on the horizontal, but 16 districts seems to be the max that my 1600x1200 setup can handle - let alone most people's smaller resolution. So widening them to make them readable and not scrunch up certain congresses seems to be a Very Good Idea. Just wish I had thought of it myself. :) Thanks! I'll pop that in to the others. PS: I think the reason I didn't do that before was because I never (well, anymore) set specific widths on tables, simply for that reason, because everyone's resolution is different, but in these cases, exceptions could be made. Maybe every table above 10 districts? I'll look with my work computer (1024x768) and see which get bunched up. Thanks for the idea. :) --Golbez 14:22, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) Bingo You, sir, are a legend. Muchos kudos on the table help! I dub thee master of the tables. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) Just to let you know that I actually did something useful with your help on tables. See Strathfield#Religion. Cheers! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) OK, try this code for getting rid of those dratted spaces between the lines (see User:Ta bu shi da yu/Sandbox): Summary Indicators 2001 Census % of population 1996 Census Change 1996-2001 % change Population 27,956 100 25,856 2,100 8.1 9 lines 9 lines is really smooth. Thanks -- I really appreciate it. Where would a good place on the tables tutorial to post this? Lots of other articles looking at verbal tenses would benefit from tables like this.Zantastik 04:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Tables Hi, I noticed your note about table syntax on your user page. You mentioned that style coding could not be found in the HTML spec. This is because it is not in the HTML syntax! Not meaning to be facetious, but there it is... In fact, styles are defined under the CSS spec. CSS works alongside but separately from HTML to create a webpage. Smoddy (t) (e) (c) 20:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) Templates Space Navigation Bars Noisy, the idea behind templates and navigation bars was to standardize articles on manned space missions and try to make them uniform. All of the other missions from Vostok 1 and Mercury 3 through STS-107 and Soyuz TMA-4 are laid out according to the WikiProject_Space_Missions project recommendations. On all of them the Navigation Bar is at the bottom, the Template is on the upper right, and the Crew and Mission Parameters are on the upper left. Rusty 14:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Infobox Biography What exactly is wrong with it - its style is set by id="toc", i.e. it uses the same skinning as image boxes and table of contents boxes. If you have a problem with the infobox you have have a problem with your monobook.css :). ed g2s • talk 18:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Noisy, would you please "vote" on the Charles Darwin talk page? Netoholic is giving me a hard time because I made the mistake of calling it a vote when I was really tracking opinions. (If I misrepresented you as opposed to the infobox, I apologize BTW.) Cheers, Vincent 02:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) Template:Infobox Biography What, exactly, do you dislike about the template? It's not perfect, I admit, but then I didn't create it, just had a pain to make it usable. The formatting is Wikipedia house style ("id=toc"), so if that's what you dislike, I'm most certainly the wrong person to talk to: see Mediawiki talk:Monobook.css for that. James F. (talk) 18:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) You keep removing the infobox from Winston Chruchill, last time with the comment (removed infobox until it has been fixed). What exactly is broken with the infobox? The current version works fine - is stable, and has even been protected. ed g2s • talk 00:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'm sorry to hear this situation has caused you much stress, but you have still failed to explain what exactly is broken in the infobox, despite numerous queries. If you can't explain what isn't working - I can't see the point of you reverts. ed g2s • talk 00:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) templates standartization Hello Noisy. I am very proud that you and some other wikipedians liked my featured article star. Of course I may provide you with support for that image. What do you mean by re-uploading a smaller version. You may, or may not (i bet you are) be aware that all images are fully scalable by wiki code. So what exactly do you ask of me? Thanks. --Alexandre Van de Sande 15:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Wiki syntax, template standardisation Please see the edit I made at 2:08, Apr 25, 2005 UTC to Wikipedia:Template standardisation (diff). My correction of your indenting makes it look better, plus the numbering is maintained throughout the list. r3m0t talk 21:15, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) Yes, increase the space between the picture and the text. r3m0t talk 13:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Template standardisation Well done with your Wikipedia:Template standardisation submission, coming second to the excellent Coffee Roll. I see you voted for it yourself so I hope you are happy with the winning choice. Thanks for your submission, and it was great to see you responding to, and working on, comments and suggestions about your design. violet/riga (t) 22:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] Vote on WP:TS Seeing as there seems to be some contention about it, I've gone through and tallied all the votes properly (using the correct method of calculating approval voting). It's at Wikipedia talk:Template_standardisation#Results. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] Dealing with vandalism Revert Not a problem :) Do you know how to report those bastards to RC Patrol or similar? It's the first time I see someone THAT pointlessly aggressive.--Ëzhiki 19:03, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC) Thanks For reverting the vandalism. What a weird thing. So someone vandalized my page (not in sonnet form) as user:G14. Now, the only contributions from that user were the vandalisms. The vandalism was all about Wikipedia policy. I.e. this is a regular user who logged out, created a new account (!) and then did the vandalism. Well, so much for the quality of our colleagues. Thanks for the reversion. Geogre 01:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) Reverts In answer to your question, all you do is go to the page history, click on the unvandalised edition, then save page. Administrators have a super-fast version though.... wish I was an admin. Matthew Platts 18:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) With interwiki redirects it can be hard to get into the page history though. Add ?action=history at the end of the page's URL to get around that. Goplat 18:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) Thanks for restoring decency to my talk page I think newbie Nev must have forgotten what was on his clipboard. He admits to some residual WP-procedure imperfections, as do most of us. All seems fine now. Robin Patterson 22:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply] Admins My nomination for adminship Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:07, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC) Admin nomination G'day mate, thanks for supporting my nomination for admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) Thank you! Just a quick "thank you" for voting me for admin. Now all I've got to do is find out how to use these worrying new powers... Grutness|hello? 05:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Thank you Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) My adminship: thanks! Hi Noisy. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Industrial Revolution Faulty sources Thanks for your comment. I think you are referring to my remark on the Samuel Smiles page about not accepting his work as the final word. Too many writers on the history of technology have uncritically adopted his line. Its much worse now several of his writings are on the Web and can be cut and pasted into documents. The problem with Smiles is that he left out a number of worthy engineers, and in consequence later writers have not bothered to investigate them. We have got to the stage where Isambard Kingdom Brunel's laundry lists are thought worthy of investigation but Sir Samuel Bentham, arguably the father of mass production still awaits a proper biography. There is a mass of material on his brother Jeremy, and an extraordiary amount on the Panopticon, which seems to interest social and penal historians. Have a look at the website of Making of the Modern World at the National Musuem of Science and Industry, London (Science Musuem) which has quite a lot of useful stuff, including animations [1] I don't know where you are based, but in the UK the history of technology is not an academic subject, its the domain of independent workers. Apwoolrich 18:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) British Industrial Revolution Template Sorry, I just don't buy it. There was far more going on; far more people, places, things ... one box will never cover it. Categorisation works much better for me. I cannot support you one this one - the box is too big asn has too much missing. (btw, there is now a structure on talk:public limited company --Tagishsimon Hi, you might care to add Portsmouth Block Mills to your table Apwoolrich 07:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) Done - thanks for the pointer. Cheers, Noisy | Talk 09:01, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC) Mumbles and Swansea Railway Thanks Noisy. Nice edit and good luck with your project. --Emdec 20:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) Puddling / pudding The Google poll says: "puddling furnace" 2080 "pudding furnace" 462, the first few of which are Wiki clones The OED says, under puddling, vbl. n. 3. a. The process of decarbonizing cast iron by stirring and turning it over continuously in a furnace, so as to render it malleable. and does not have anything related to ferrous metallurgy under pudding. Though I can easily see how puddling could be corrupted to pudding, since puddled iron has about the consistency of pudding. Shimmin 23:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC) Yes, it's puddling Although there seem to be many valid uses of Pudding as well. User:Maury Markowitz Industrial Revolution Hi, Thanks for the advice. I had not realised I had not watchlisted it it, hence by lack of input. Quite a lot to think about. The first one being to try and chnge the image of the porttable engine, which in fact dates from the later C19. My first reaction is the whole piece is too full of unsubatantiated generalisations. Lots to do! Apwoolrich 21:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Hi, If you have time I would welcome some feedback about how this is now looking. At the bottom of the discussion is a suggestion that we ought to have a 'British Industrial Revolution' page, and by inference another one for everything else. I disagree. I am adding chunks about new topics, and trying to find articles within Wikipedia to act as main references, but not always with success, since they have not been written. Kind regards Apwoolrich 08:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Charles Darwin I have just asked for arbitration. From you I have asked the committee to request you stop removing the fact from the article. Vincent 04:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vfp15 and Charles Darwin/Evidence gK ¿? 03:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Rejection by the arbitration committee means they won't hear the case, not that they found against me. I limited myself to naming the still active worst offenders. I pursue this as matter of principle. I only need two claims to back me up: 1) it's factual and 2) it passes the Wikipedia:Google test. That's enough to justify inclusion somewhere in the article. Vincent 03:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Arbitration I'm requesting for an arbitration against you (see WP:RfAr) for the Dawrin/Lincoln problem as Vincent's advocate. Actually, I don't know why I must send this message (ArbCom's requirements) --Neigel von Teighen 22:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) Arbitration Committee case opening You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:32, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

• the +/+, +/-, -/-, -/+ refer to the presence or absence of mtDNA variants at specific locations in the mtDNA sequence [2]
• Alu I and Dde I are the polymorphic enzymes [3] at the two locations.

So If I understood properly, this is a code meaning that in the four location mentioned, there is a presence/absence of the Alu and Dde enzymes. Do you happen to know if this information have any relevance for non-geneticists, if the presence or absence of this enzyme should be on a wikipedia diagram? If we decide it should not be there then I will also take out the A* letter as it´s also just a mention of a enzyme (Rza I ). It´s funny because what I am understanding is that they have more relation with the continent (they are color-coded in the original) than with the group. Notice how suddenly the humans migrating to australia and north america gained enzymes that asians didn´t have. I have the map with letters and some new changes done, i will just search for a nicer resolution image.

thanks for the help!--201.5.74.46 15:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found a higher resolution version and uploaded, ith the haplogorups on. Just to let you know.--Alexandre Van de Sande 19:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

some policy on infobox standardisation. ed g2s • talk 01:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have voted for the suggestive title Infobox standardisation on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation even though your comment indicates that you are actually against standardization creep or at least do not support it unconditionally. VfD for these cases offers the option to vote move to NPOV title. Comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation if you want the page to be moved, for instance to Wikipedia:Should we have instructions to standardize infoboxes?. --Fenice 08:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the site you've been deleting from "Joan of Arc": I can usually access the pages with both IE and Netscape, so part of the problem seems to be on your end. Some of the site's pages seem to be undergoing a temporary technical problem right now, but they were previously coming up just fine. Rather than deleting every site with temporary or machine-specific problems, please leave the link for access by those who can access it.

You continue to remove this site - now merely because some of the pages (rather than "all") aren't coming up for you. They do come up for me. Your repeated removal of this site has no basis in Wikipedia policy, so it's clear that you have some sort of bias against this site. 205.188.117.65 10:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you return this to a double redirect? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed your revert of Macclesfield. Your reason for reverting was unattributed speculation, but I have since rewritten 81.136.90.215's contribution and included a reference. Oldelpaso 10:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noisy. Just for your information: I suspect a certain user (User:AWilliamson) of those edits you mentioned. The site www.joan-of-arc.info is owned by Allen Williamson. He currently doesn't use his account to make these changes. He now uses several IP numbers, among them 66.216.226.34 (a static IP registered in the same city - St. Cloud - as the www.joan-of-arc.info site) and several others (I guess AOL accounts). You're absolutely right about deleting promotional links. However, in the past I've had many edit-wars with this Allen Williamson and I know he's hard to convince. Though claiming to protect the Joan of Arc page from vandalism, he (Williamson) tries to obstruct other edits by placing commas (instead of dots) and spaces in URL's, and inproper endtags of comments (-> instead of -->) before sections he wants to hide. I can't prove this was all done by mr. Williamson, but he's the one to profit from the promotional link. Switisweti 10:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that mr. Williamson has also put a reference to his site under "Books and Other Publications": Journal of Joan of Arc Studies. Switisweti 11:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain that Center-for-Medieval-Studies is another sockpuppet of mr. Williamson. Just look at the one edit on the Joan of Arc page: promoting a site of mr. Williamson that doesn't even exist yet! Mr. Williamson claims he's a specialist on the Hundred Years War. All edits of Center-for-Medieval-Studies relate to that. This is the second time mr. Williamson claims he's a "center of studies", all by himself. Switisweti 13:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were just to quick. Have another look. No apolagies needed. Switisweti 14:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind not reverting my edits and calling them tests. My edits are well considered and justified . Please reverse your revert! --Light current 07:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the Benevolent Dictator for Life category wasn't a vandalism. Theo de Raadt's position in the development of OpenBSD is Benevolent Dictator for Life. While it's not really a needed category for&the wikipedia, it is the truth about him.Janizary 19:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your encouragement. I know much less about Wikipedia than about Joan of Arc. Durova 22:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read that once Israel canceled the deal with China the US allowed Israel to come back to its previous level of involvment, I think the US was just trying to scare Israel into pulling out of the China deal.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 18:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Nevermind, who were right.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 18:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct when you point out [4] that those who want to eliminate the word "minor" have no source to back up their deletion. Please see Talk:John Kerry, I have gone over this in great detail there. Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 07:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noisy, I see that you removed some external links for the site: http:// www.JournalReview.org

Did you review the site before reverting the page? You reverted the page because you believe it to be 'advertising'... did you visit the site?

Here is my question: Does the site provide a valuable resource?

I strongly believe it does. It is free. The site is non-profit. The site has no advertisements. No spam. It is a valuable resource for communication between physicians on medical literature.

Please re-consider your position.

This from 24.185.216.101 (talk · contribs).

Please stop removing "References" headings from articles, the 1911 tag is a reference and looks terribly messy just floating around. Martin 20:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like the edit summary says, it is "standardising", hence, a lot of articles already put the 1911 tag under a "References" heading, it clearly can't go under external links because there is no external link (please see Wikipedia:External links). If you want to create a new heading "References that aren't primary sources" then good luck. Wikipedia:Cite sources makes no mention of primary or secondary sources. Martin 09:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly and unambiguously shows that you are wrong and a concensus has been demonstrated, stop reverting the correct format. Martin 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I've added in the missing quote. Peregrine981 13:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the community decides to change the standard then so be it, I only care about making sure all articles follow the standard, what ever that may be. thanks Martin 13:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On november 20th you vote to delete an article called "Timeline of Motorized bicycle history." Your comment can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_Motorized_bicycle_history

I was wondering what you bassed your opinion on. There is a lot of information that can be added to this article. There is even links on the page that show potential for expansion. Thank you for you answer. 16:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

(Unsigned comment by 72.57.8.215 (talk · contribs) - User:CyclePat?)

• Above comment was by me CyclePat. I sometimes forget to log in as you may have seen clearly stated on the user page for the IP. --CyclePat 00:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? It a Nintendo DS. Click on the link. Gerard Foley 21:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't click on the link, but I did notice the target: Citroën DS. I don't think it's a very funny joke, sorry. Better luck next time!! :) Gerard Foley 23:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sledgehammer bit is to do with the time I smashed up my Sega Saturn with one. Most of my user page was written by a friend, who though it would be funny to add. Gerard Foley 23:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is over 40k, and therefore too long for some browsers.

Hi, I was clearing up a vandalized article John Kay (spinning frame) and searched for John Kay to make sure it wasn't a vandal duplicate. Long story short, I saw that you had re-added John Kay (spinning frame) to the John Kay disambig page. Are you sure there were two John Kays at that time period both working on textile stuff? --Syrthiss 19:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I was checking up this morning and saw that you had edited it. I've done a few edits to related topics, and I agree that it may not get expanded much beyond what is there. Thanks anyhow for clearing that up. Apparently my mistake is a common one, since both men were in the same field and from the same part of England around the same time roughly. :/ Thanks again! --Syrthiss 14:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a much-needed scythe to this article. No doubt Pat will now accuse you of POV, demand verifiable sources for its exclusion and so on :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell are you reverting my template subst:'ing? Why don't you look at the page linked to in the edit summary Wikipedia:Template substitution, it clearly states these templates should be subst:'d. Having a template has absolutely no advantage. If you carry on I will take further action. Martin 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? 1) I am not deleting the template, and have never intended to 2) The community has clearly decided the template should be subst:'d, it is up to you to change that consensus. Martin 21:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are now being disruptive, if you continue I will temporarily block you. Martin 21:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for one hour for being disruptive and reverting en mass consensus edits after being warned, I urge you to read the relevent material in this time. Martin 21:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• BlueMoose wasn't removing the template. He was using subst: to spare the servers, which is common practice. Also, whether you keep the template or subst: it, makes no difference for the text that appears. I'm happy to unblock, but please don't revert these edits. If you think there's a downside to it, I'm sure BlueMoose would like to hear about it (I do too). - Mgm|^(talk) 21:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments on MacGyverMagic's talk page, I don't know how many times I need to explain to you; 1) I am not going to delete the template and have never planned to or indicated in any way that thats what I wanted to do 2) subst:ing is a good thing. 3) Community consensus has clearly been established to do the subst:ing. Please now answer these points directly. I have already mentioned it at the admin noticeboard. Martin 23:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No you are completely wrong, please read Wikipedia:Template substitution, some templates should be subst:'ed and some shouldn't, that page also clearly gives the mandate to do what I, and others, have been doing (which is far from "unilateral"). And once again I have no plans to delete any template. Martin 00:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly demonstrated that you are wrong, this isn't a matter of opinion, I really don't know how it could be explained any easier for you. Martin 00:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that on Template talk:Lifetime it actually says to subst: it! Martin 00:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Noisy, BlueMoose has promised he will not try to get the template, deleted and he found the page says it should be subst:'ed. Perhaps, you could agree to seek sanction against BlueMoose if he does try to delete the template after having it subst:'ed and otherwise not? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have changed the "how to use" Template talk:Lifetime, I don't really care about the change because virtually everyone subst:d it anyway, but could you just tell me one thing; did you have community consensus to change it or did you act unilaterally as you falsly accuse me of doing?

And could you remove that thinly veiled personal attack on me from your user page. Martin 20:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss this please, before you go ahead and move a page because of an unsigned comment that is (in my opinion, anyway) simply WRONG? See Talk:Medline. Hugh2414 09:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal, don't edit/revert it again. You ARE breaking it and it's probably because of your personal configuration. -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great... so that's how it has to be then? I have explained that your edits are breaking that template. That template has worked perfectly ever since January and it still worked fine today. I'm having trouble assuming good faith here, so help me out. What more do I need to do to convince you that you are the only person seeing any problem? -- Netoholic @ 11:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neto please stay the hell out of this :P

Noisy, your template is broken.

BOTH OF YOU: every change you make to this template causes changes on over 1000 other pages, this causes major server load. As such DISCUSS ALL CHANGES ON THE TALK PAGE. Consider yourselves informed. This template is now protected to prevent additional changes.  ALKIVAR™ 12:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If my punctuation was wrong, then you should correct the text, instead, because it looks like a mess. I'm also not sure, but is this right?

"Graduating from Sandhurst, Churchill joined the army at 21 as" - http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_dangmod.html

I wasn't sure, so I rewrote it as "After graduating from Sandhurst..."

And this one:

"Churchill also devoted his time to educating himself from books which he had sent out."

I had changed "to" to "in", so that it would read, ""Churchill also devoted his time in educating himself".

It would help me a lot if you could point out where I misused the commas. Thanks. --Anittas 12:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the website that I posted clarified about the dangling modifiers, and that's why I think that it might be wrong to start the sentence with the word "Graduating". I think that if you want to use the "to" in the sentence about Churchill reading books, it should read like this:

'Churchill also devoted his time to educate himself from books which he had sent out', instead of as we have now, "Churchill also devoted his time to educating himself from books which he had sent out". Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

I also disagree with you removing these commas:

While in the Sudan[,] Churchill participated in the battle of Omdurman[,] the last British cavalry charge in battle.

By October 1898[,] he had returned to Britain and begun work on the 2 volume The River War[,] published in 1899.

I think those commas should be restored, as well as the rest of the commas that were used after a date. Perhaps we should ask someone more qualified, such as an English professor. --Anittas 13:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is difficult, because I never learnt all the different names for the parts of English grammar when I was in school: only how to use them.

Taking the commas first, strictly speaking you are possibly correct in that they could – or even should – be used in the places that you indicate. However, stylistically it is very bad to split sentences up into very small bits unless absolutely necessary, and it is much better to have a flowing sentence than to implement punctuation that makes the prose harder to read.

With the "Churchill devoted his time to educating himself" sentence, another way of putting it is to say that he allocated all of his free time to educating himself: if you used 'educate' it would indicate a future goal, not an on-going condition—there wasn't a point at which his education would be complete. From the website you supplied, I think this page might help at 'Using Other Tenses in Conjunction with Simple Tenses'.

Hope this helps. On the other hand, I know that sometimes I make things more complicated than they actually are. User:Noisy | Talk 17:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about the educating part, but I still say I'm right about the commas. It's true that sometimes one should avoid too much punctuation usage, for better consistency - especially if you quote someone who is angry and doesn't pause in his speech; however, those commas don't interfere with the consistency of the text. I mean, not all commas represent a pause in the speech. They also are used to distinguish an idea from another idea; or just to seperate a name, or a date, or a different statement in-between.

Wiki Manual of Style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Use_of_punctuation_in_presence_of_brackets.2Fparentheses

And if you take a look at the current Featured Article, you will see that the commas are used in those places that I have also used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Friends_in_the_North

Example: "By the early 1970s, Barrett's business has been cracked down on by the police, but not before Geordie has been set up by his employer - and sent to prison for three years - in retaliation for an affair Geordie has with Barrett's lover. Nicky's anarchist cell is raided and he returns to Newcastle, as eventually does Geordie. By 1979, Nicky has returned to more mainstream politics and stands as a Member of Parliament in the general election for the Labour Party, but is defeated by the Conservative Party candidate after a smear campaign. Geordie leaves again shortly before the election, not to be seen in the series again until 1987."

--Anittas 17:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does come down to a matter of style. I find that first sentence ("By the early 1970s, ...") very hard to read, because it has got four breaks in a single sentence. I am terrible when I am proofreading documents at work, because I cannot review the contents until I have corrected all the grammar and punctuation errors. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. User:Noisy | Talk 18:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, just a note, it looks like you put this message in the wrong section, that's the bit about Megaman

I thought of moving it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Other_stuff myself but realised I should probably just tell you instead --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have moved it now. User:Noisy | Talk 23:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:

• A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
• A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image and its copyvio status is actually still in dispute. I suggested removing the tag as I believe our use may fall under fair-use, however some editors disagree. If you'd like to comment further on its status, the image is still listed on the copyvio page at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_January_26 and I believe the discussion on its talk page is active. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you feel that the image is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer and there are people who disagree about the copyvio status. I didn't relist the image, it was on the page multiple times and the discussion is ongoing on the talk page. I'll see if I can't point it out to a few of the legal gurus around here and get the issue closed one way or the other. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I checked out some Norwegian websites and, yes, Anne Stine Ingstad's maiden name was indeed Moe, so your source was right! --Grumpy444grumpy 15:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert (which, for now, I'm leaving alone): apparently we're working from different definitions of "archaeology". While I'd certainly agree that the Iron Bridge is an exteremely important historical site, the fact that it's still standing (in pretty good condition) and has a well documented history leads me to question its labeling as archaeological. Is there a reason for including it as a specifically archaeological site rather than just a historical one? v/r, Ryan McDaniel 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree about the historical significance of the bridge---as the first of its size/kind, it's definitely significant. I was just nitpicking about the use of the word "archaeological", and the article's inclusion on the Category:Archaeological sites in England page---tossed in with medieval, Roman, and prehistoric sites, the Iron Bridge seems a little out of place. Would you be okay if I delisted it? Is it enough to be listed on Category:World Heritage Sites in England (which does play up its significance)? Ryan McDaniel 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, you win! :-) Not to continue the debate, but just for my own edification, then, when a Brit says "archaeology", what's the scope of that word? Here in America it usually implies the recovery of 'lost history'–finding things that were lost, reconstructing things that were broken, or explaining things that people had forgotten. That usually excludes things that have survived more-or-less intact and with a continuous history. By way of example, the excavation of the (long abandoned) first settlements in North America would be classified as archaeology. On the other hand, the preservation of the (roughly contemporaneous) old buildings in places like Boston or Philadelphia would not be archaeology–it'd just be history. So, as an American, I'd have been inclined to put the Iron Bridge in the second category, rather than the first. In the UK, do you not make that distinction? Thanks, Ryan McDaniel 14:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I didn't realize that the Iron Bridge really was archaeological. Fascinating that they tried to re-invent the construction style for the experiment. (As an engineer, that would have been a cool project!) Well, you've persuaded me. Thanks for the tip about the Tracks book, too. Ryan McDaniel 06:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You used to be active on the article and gave some advice when I started editing. I'm pleased to say it's a good article now and it's a candidate for featured status. Would you like to take a look and maybe join the FAC discussion? Regards, Durova 19:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you come across Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science yet? Your work dovetails with it so I'm guessing yes, but just in case... :-) JackyR 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry don't know what rollback means? thanks.Mackinaw 19:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I know of no policy or even guideline that limits the use of rollback.
2. Rollback provides an edit summary that is much fuller than most summaries (including those referring to the use of popups, used by many editors).
3. I use it when an editor is making vandalising or disruptive edits, when I've already made clear my reasons for doing so. It's not clear to me what the sin is in this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps add that calling a couple of reverts an edit war is somewhat over the top. Also, I fail to see how a five-volume encyclopædia published by a major academic publisher could be other than notable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying (again) to get The George Washington University moved to George Washington University. Since you weighed in on this when it came up last year, I thought you might like to weigh in again. john k 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am now an Admin on Wikisource, and have started the Samuel Smiles Project there. So far I have added the text of Men of invention and Industry, and am about to add Industrial Biography This has involved getting the raw texts from Project Gutenberg and then coding them so the reference and note links work properly. These can also be Wikified by links with pages on WP and vice-versa. The thought occurs that you might wish to make links to these on your Industrial Revolution tables, and maybe like to take part in the project your self, if you are not too busy. There are a number of other engineering biographies (Not written by Smiles) available on the Web, and it would be nice over time to get all these on WS for linking to WP, so enhancing the worth of pages there. For some reaason only parts of Lives of the Engineers have ever been digitised. Kind regards Apwoolrich 08:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noisy. Re tilt/trip hammers, they are the same. There is a variation to this called a belly helve, where the hammer shaft is pivoted at the end, and the cams run under the middle. These hammers tended to be much heavier and used for masssive forge jobs like anchor-making. I do not know about contunually running hammers, though at places like Abbeydale making edge tools, I would, have thought they would have been ketp running during a shift.

There was a variation to the design in hammers used for making brass battery. The structure was generally lighter, and they ran faster - 100-150 blows per minute. The increased speed gave an impetus to the hammer shaft from the cams, which drove the hammer-shaft end d own onto a metal striking plate on the hammer frame, and the rebound from this gave a heavier stoke. The hammers were almost bird's beak-like in shape for getting down inside the brass bowls. For making brass sheet the hammers had a flat end. The brass need to be annealed to make it workable, and as the hammering progressed it work-hardened, so the operative knew when it was time to re-anneal by a change in the musical note the metal gave off as it was struck. Needless to say chronic deafness was usual among brass workers of that era. Rolling mills were in use then for narrow sheets, but the battery hammers were needed for the big sheets for brass battery.

I can let you have references for this if you need it.

Re Babbage, it was 26 December 1791 at the family home at Walworth, Surrey. Anthony Haymen, Charles Babbage, OUP 1984, p5. His reference is the baptismal register of Saint Mary Newington, 6, Jan 1792

Kind regards

Hi! Thank you for your suggestions. You are absolutly right with the THE. I rearranged the names in the Siemens-Category because I added articels on former CEOs of the Siemens AG. I thought it wouöld be confusing if their family names and the first names of the Siemens family were mixed up. Mabe you have a better solution. Thanks! mamut 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC) User talk:Mamut

It's the first I've heard any problems. I just tested and it came through very fast. Perhaps you've got a typo in your email address in simple:Special:Preferences? -- Netoholic @ 20:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, should have noticed that myself - Skysmith 13:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed User:Mike Dillon/Sandbox to comment out the Persondata template. There is no reason to care about non-standard uses of {{Persondata}} outside of the main namespace since Wikipedia:Persondata is only ever possibly valid in that namespace and no processor should be looking at it in other namespaces. Please don't touch my sandbox. Mike Dillon 15:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing material with misleading (indeed, downright false) edit summaries. If you continue, you may be blocked for disruptive editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways of doing it, one simple but not effective for all uses, and one not so simple but that can be used on any web page.

If the page in question is larger than 32kb in size, a message will appear above the editing window when you are editing the page to tell you this. Your talk page, for example, is currently 53kb long, suggesting a need to archive more often so that users with lower bandwidths can communicate with you *removes elbow from ribs*. However if the page is lower than 32kb this message does not appear, so you have to use a website analyser. These are freely available on the Internet and you will find this link permanently on my user page as "Website Analyser". When you click it, you are asked to enter a URL to analyse. Enter the full website address of the page (so for my user page I enter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Francs2000) and then click "Submit Query". It takes a while to analyse the page and then the statistic you are interested in is the HTML under "Object Size Totals". So my user page is 12.9kb in size. It's not as accurate because it takes into account the HTML rather than the wiki but it's a rough estimate of size. Hope this helps. -- Francs2000 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi noisy, i've removed the link from James Watt that you previously restored. I really think it's best not to have these worldofbiography links here at wikipedia- please see AIV and, for an example of the links, see the bottom of Talk:Socrates#Why i removed certain parts. He's spammed about 71 talk pages, and it really isn't a very good source of information, certainly nothing that should be here under WP:EL. drop me a note if you want to chat further about this . . . cheers --He:ah? 20:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, which model?

--ric_man 02:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you deleted the link to traditional rug hooking, which I would guess based on your comments your believe is a duplicate. It's true that the rug articles are poorly organized and that the category as a whole needs to be cleaned up. However I think that traditional rug hooking is on a more specific topic (hooking as opposed to any kind of rug) and is a more substantial article than rug making so I wouldn't characterize it as a duplicate. Alison Chaiken 02:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah, I posted a message about this template on User talk:Ashibaka but you beat me to it. :P Green Giant 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be quick off the mark in this game! Noisy | Talk 16:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed linkspam from this page before. It is being targeted again by somebody putting in laudatory comments about (presumably, his) company. If it's removed by more than one person, he/she might pay more attention! - DavidWBrooks 01:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm trying to move the disambig page for warp to Warp (disambiguation) so that the primary article for warp can be moved into location, and you keep stepping in and moving it the other way. I'm not an admin, so can you move the disambig page to the disambig location, and then move Warp (weaving) into Warp, please. I'll then go round and undo the incorrect redirects that were done earlier today by bot. Thanks. Noisy | Talk 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I presumed you were trying to move Warp (disambiguation) to Warp to avoid the redirect the other way. I can't fully see your reasoning behind moving Warp (weaving) to Warp and maintaining a separate disambiguation page. It doesn't seem like Warp (weaving) is a particularly developed article, nor seem obvious that the majority of people who enter Warp in Wikipedia would expect to see that article over anything else. Have you gained any consensus for such a move? _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the 'What links here' for Warp (weaving). It is a primary concept within weaving, and no other usage is 'warp' on its own, without capitalisation or other modification. The album and comic have four and twelve links, and are plainly not in the same class. As it stands, the disambig page needs to be refactored to emphasise this. Noisy | Talk 15:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but it's even in discussion for that article to be merged with Weaving. To my mind, it's best left as is with a disambiguation page at Warp. It's clear the links are (largely) correct, since as you say, the "What links here" for Warp (weaving) is quite large. I can see why you want to move the pages, but clearly at least one other user wants the disambiguation at Warp since User:Ewlyahoocom moved it there previously. Why not suggest a move on the talk page (or list on Wikipedia:Requested moves) and gauge consensus for doing so? _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Noisy,

The talkpages I blanked were at least a month — sometimes as many as six — out of date. We've recently been deleting talkpages with really old warnings, so that new users of the IP address will not be bothered by strange warnings that don't apply to them. I've merely been blanking, because I think the history should still be available to non-admins in cases like these.

Some of the reverts you've made have been to pages where I've been the only editor to leave warnings. Surely, if nothing else, I can blank my own warnings? Please, mate, I do know what I'm doing here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. Initially someone added to the speedy deletion criteria, but this was changed to simply recommending blanking. I didn't actually realise that blanking was a sanctioned option, and was only doing it (instead of outright deletion) per Ignore All Rules :P. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. As for the removal of fruit from the see also section of vegetable, could you please point me to any guidelines about it? Many other articles have links repeated in the see also section (e.g. mirror).

There seem to be two conflicting interpretations of the purpose of see also sections. Some think that it's a collection of references to articles that are vaguely relevant (see Agriculture in futures contract) but were not relevant enough to have a reference in the body of the article. Others seem to think that it's a list of most relevant topics for further reading, and whether or not they have already appeared in the article is not important. PizzaMargherita 10:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is some guidance at Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also, where it says:Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid.

There was no specific guidance in the Wikipedia:Tutorial and most of the other places I looked, but here the Wikipedia:Annotated article states: "See also" is the standard heading for related Wikipedia articles not already linked elsewhere in the article.

That said, if you feel I was being overly pedantic, then I have no objection to you adding the link back in, although with a mention in the second paragraph of the article, I think that 'fruit' has a pretty prominent position already. (I think the link to agriculture in the futures contract article seems strange, but then 'pork bellies' are probably the first second thing I think of when futures markets are mentioned.) Noisy | Talk 11:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No that's fine, no worries. But maybe I'll bring it up in the MoS talk page. PizzaMargherita 17:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it's really not attractive to see you looking down on admins because they don't spend all of their time editing articles. Guess what, there's lots of other work that needs to be done for Wikipedia to keep functioning. And you're not going to find much sympathy with that kind of argument. --Cyde Weys 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that the content of the John Smeaton article is wrong. Christine Richardson's biography of James Brindley (of which I have a copy) does mention anything about Brindley being a pupil of Smeaton, as opposed to a colleague with a less distinguished backgound. This is a well-researched biography based on primarly and good quality secondary sources. I am making appropriate amendments. Peterkingiron 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm spamming people who posted on this talk page... a vote notice

I'd like to ask you to place a vote on the proper article names issue in this. There are several parallel names issues (e.g. ebook device), but the date driven category deletion process begun May 1st is begging this ebook article page title (eBook vs ebook) be stabilized as well, and apparently the article is off most watchlists. (see (currently partial note-while I 'spam') User_talk:Fabartus#For_Closing_Admin:eBooks as that vote is apparently deadlocked.) I'd just like to get back to content! Thanks FrankB 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! See reply User_talk:Fabartus#discussion_on_eMail.2C_eBooks.2C_and_naming, thanks FrankB 19:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is regarding National Territory of Delhi. I redirected that page to Delhi about four months back after consensus was reached on Talk:National Territory of Delhi on merging the articles on NCT and Delhi. But I was on a long wikibreak for the past couple of months during which my redirecting was reverted. Also, I did not see any discussion on the concerned issue. Please see Talk:Delhi and you will realize that NCT is nothing but Delhi. Cheers--Incman|वार्ता 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that we have a separate article on New Delhi and National Capital Region (India). Perhaps you mixed up Delhi with New Delhi. --Incman|वार्ता 23:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The National Capital Territory of Delhi is actually about the state, and not the city. You will need to take your concerns to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian states if you wish to make any changes. Noisy | Talk 08:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, NCT is not a state. Second, the metropolis of Delhi lies entirely in NCT. What lies outside NCT are known as satellite towns. Please see the difference between a metropolis and agglomeration. Third, according to the Economic survey of Delhi, 90% of NCT's population is urban (i.e. 90% of the population lives in the city of Delhi). Fourth, the 69th ammendment to the Indian constituion says that Delhi's official name now is National Capital Territory of Delhi. So Delhi is nothing but the NCT (same as the case with Washington D.C. and District of Columbia). Nevertheless, I will take up the matter with WikiProject Indian states. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are approximately 80 articles that link directly to the article page, so if this page is to be made into a redirect, then all those eighty articles will have to be changed as well. -- I don't get your point. When somebody clicks on the NCT article, the redirect code will directly take him/her to the Delhi article. So why should someone make changes to those 80 or so articles as well? Beats me --Incman|वार्ता 18:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning resited from top of page.

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Baronwatch 12:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has removed cited material from the article in question. I have added yet another cite to support my research. Noisy | Talk 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did with the picture formatting. You seem to know the industrial revolution. I know cotton. Plus you are a way more experienced editor than I am. Would you like to get together for a project on the picker? Let me know on my discussion page, or something.68.55.206.184 17:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I wasn't signed in... Verdad 18:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). --SPUI (T - C) 20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any different than the White House? --SPUI (T - C) 20:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why not "Iron Bridge path" for a path that leads to the bridge? --SPUI (T - C) 20:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have a binding vote where one of the options is invalid. Any move away from a formal name is moving Wikipedia towards becoming a populist website, and away from being an authoritative encyclopaedia

Is it your opinion that our article Black pepper is misnamed and should be at Piper nigrum? Virginia at Commonwealth of Virginia or The Commonwealth of Virginia? Those are valid choices, but I don't think everyone would agree that the current page names are "invalid options", would they? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want to work on the main Copa America page on FAID. You can vote for it hereKingjeff 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've added a comment to the discussion here about Wiki-linking from quotes. As someone who has posted to this discussion, I'd appreciate any comments you might have. Thanks. Carcharoth 19:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to include the legal company identifier in the article title, unless the title would be ambiguous without it. So we have the Nike sportswear company at Nike, Inc., because Nike is a disambiguation page, but there are no other meanings of Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries, so "PLC" isn't required for disambiguation. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) for more on this standard. — sjorford++ 13:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned it to the way it has been for ages, in accordance with most of the references, and made sure that the few remaining links conform. Please do not change this long-standing page. Thanks. Noisy | Talk 13:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that the full legal name of the company is "Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries PLC". But in titling Wikipedia articles we don't include "PLC", "Ltd", "Inc" at the end unless required for disambiguation. The fact that the article was wrongly titled for so long doesn't stop it from being wrong. Anyway, I've added this to WP:RM so we can stop fighting over it. — sjorford++ 15:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please raise items regarding beer for discussion before blindly doing nerges. I've reversed your merge of Burton upon Trent brewing. Noisy | Talk 09:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! I'm pleased you have an interest in getting involved in doing beer articles. But please do not revert in future without making contact with me - there is a reason for my actions, and if you can't immediately see the reason then we can talk about it. This is less hostile than a blunt revert which can result in a degree of bad feeling. The article in question was a copy of material already found in the Burton upon Trent. That material remains there, as it does reflect a significant portion of that town's history. The other appropriate place for the material is in a general history of the development of beer history in England, which is where I placed it. Having the same material in three places is perhaps too much, don't you think? I await your response. SilkTork 10:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know. I've again redirected the sub-article to the main article. I have given explanations in the edit summaries. But to make it clear: The English beer article is the main article on the history and development of beer and brewing in England. As such a section on the brewing in Burton upon Trent is appropriate. Other sections on the history and development of beer in England can and will be added to that article. A section on the brewing industry in Burton is appropriate in the general article on Burton, so the current section stays there. Both those articles will need further editing and developing. A slightly different focus will emerge from the two articles. In the Burton article the focus will be on the impact of brewing on the town, in the Beer article the focus will be on the impact of Burton on beer. I hope this is clear. Any questions let me know. SilkTork 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noisy. I am concerned at what people are saying, and I do wish to get to the heart of the problem. Clearly there must be an aspect or aspects of my editing and/or attitude that is annoying and frustrating people like yourself. The incidents that are mentioned are small in themselves, and - to my eye - are part of the collaborative editing of Wikipedia, moving it forward. I make very many beer edits, much of which is stub sorting which either entails a merge, a redirect, or an expansion of the article. It is not, to my understanding, in the nature of Wiki that consensus is sought for what are essentially everyday edits. But I can feel from your frustration, that there must be a pattern in my editing that you are uncomfortable with. I totally apologise for any aspect of my behaviour in the past that has annoyed you, and promise to do better in the future. I am hoping that with your help I can learn from this experience and move forward. Please talk to me and let me know your underlying concerns which the recent edits have highlighted. SilkTork 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very warmed by your response. I've been feeling very isolated and somewhat hounded by events of the past week or so. I've been looking back through past conflicts and analysing what has been happening. The initial communications I had were hostile ones which gave me little in the way of guidance, though plenty in the way of grief. Looking at the talk pages of those and related editors I noted that conflict and hostility appeared to be the norm. While I am, as you say, a grown man, with some experience of the internet and working within groups - I have been an Admin on RateBeer for over three years - so am able to find my own way round, I did, in retrospect, suffer from not being given appropriate guidance, and from being treated with misunderstanding and hostility. Your words make perfect sense, and I wish we had talked earlier so you could have taken me under your wing, as it were, and shown me the ropes. I am normally able to treat calmly torrents of emotion. While not thinking of that person as a tosser (I have met in real life over a hundred people I first encountered on the internet, so I'm always aware there is a real person on the other side of the screen), and recognising that internet communication tends to be terse by convention, I do recognise what you are saying. There is a sense in which someone who pokes you in the back and screams at you: "You twat, you've done that wrong!" doesn't quite deserve respect. I have, however, always responded to those who have complained to me. I have always explained my actions. Though, during the past week or so, my comments have tended to be snappier and less pleasant than I would like. In my current rather tender emotional state I am absurdly grateful to you for taking the time to write to me, and the kind and helpful tone you have used. There is much in what you say and the way that you say it that leads me to think we'd enjoy a pint together. You've won a friend here, whether you like that or not, and I hope to be able to lend you some assistance at some point. SilkTork 09:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what is an RV test (as you've done at Landewednack? Mammal4 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'm not actually sure it is vandalism - I think its just content dispute. There has been a rash of England/Uk back and forth rvs across UK pages from rotating anonomous IPs this last week (see talk here. Take care Mammal4 13:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it - this has been going on for several years, but has livened up in the last week or so. I've been talking with another editor about what to do here. Some people think that UK geography pages should be best described using England, and others think that UK is the best designation (England being within the UK, and not actually independent anyway). This has an added dimension in Cornwall which because of its ambiguous constitutional status - many Cornish don't like being referred to as English, only British. Like you say its tiresome but there are enough dickheads on both sides to fuel an rv war. Happy to talk about this more if you want. Take care Mammal4 17:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring over England / English vs United Kingdom / British

Hi, a large number of Cornish people do not identify as English or see themselves as from Cornwall, 'England' for reasons (stated) relating to the ongoing debate about the past, present and future constitutional status of Cornwall, together with many people's sense of a distinct Cornish cultural identity - see Constitutional status of Cornwall and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Anons revert warring over England vs United Kingdom. Since 2001 the Cornish have had their own unique ethnic UK Census code '06' similar to the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English, 2001 Ethnic Codes, and on many official forms it is now possible to register as Cornish as opposed to English. 217.134.75.62 09:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint will be welcome at the discussion page that is identified. Unfortunately, we do not arrive at decisions based upon what particular groups of people hold as their viewpoint, but rather through a discussion process through which we try to arrive at consensus. Please note, however, that greater weight is given to the views of contributors who register a user id. Accordingly, your edits have been reverted pending the outcome of the discussion. Noisy | Talk 23:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi noisy,

Besides just stopping, please tell me what I need to do to revert, so that I can do it more correctly? --Ermeyers 13:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest A-B
• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest C-D
• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest E-F

--Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to wait for an admin to action the speedies first. Noisy | Talk 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the tedious revert war regarding UK/England in the Cornish related articles. As a member of a WikiProject relating solely to the Penwith District I am following our Policy of not bothering to get involved in this matter. However, if there is a place where a reasonable discussion is going on then I wouldn't mind having a look and see if there is anything worth contributing to.... er, I trust that you are okay with this as I see that you have reverted/edited some articles within the "Project remit".LessHeard vanU 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this page. Melissab 00:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an expert please can you look at this article. Thanks Andy --Spartaz 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I've read elsewhere about the early smelting work at Rievaulx. I'll search out some references later. I've not got much access at the moment. Noisy | Talk 22:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - can you advise on what stub tags this should have? Should I be keeping an eye on the other place for a thread about an exceedingly drunken gathering? --Spartaz 09:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Round Table this coming Saturday 2nd. Thread title 'Calling London!'. Be there or be forever Keith! Noisy | Talk 09:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be there per venom - except that I got back from Iceland yesterday and will be off to Gothenburg on 3rd. :-( I have PM you my moby number elsewhere for pisstaking and abuse on Saturday. --Spartaz 10:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your note to me on the above. I'm not sure where the problem lies, nor why you think links need to be changed. There is no harm in a redirect. How is redirecting to "Dome" leaving a "hole"? Anyway, I will look at the impact again a bit later to see if I've missed something, and certainly, having the original article there is better than the disambig page you've moved in. At this point, I don't get it. Cheers, –Outriggr § 23:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I don't know if you've noticed yet, but I put back Cupola. As I mentioned in the edit summary, I didn't notice that Cupola had a disambiguation page, which, I agree, is a good reason to leave the article there. Personally, I blame silly merge templates that get left on articles for months. At some point, someone's gotta remove them or act on them, and either way, someone else won't like it... no worries. –Outriggr § 00:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noisy! Here's another attempt to redirect Burton brewing into English beer. I hope I'm doing it right this time! Cheers! SilkTork 17:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:27 (UTC)

I have only just found that you reverted my addition of reverberatory furnace to Cupola (disambiguation). I agree that reverberatory furnaces do not have a cupola in the architectural sense. However the word was historically used as a synomyn for a reverberatory furnace. Please see reverberatory furnace#history. The Latin cupola is literally a little barrel. In ther case of the reverberatory furnace, this probably referes to the barrel-shaped vaulted roof. You have done a lot of good work, and please keep it up, but please ensure that you are acting out of knowledge. Peterkingiron 12:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on United States technological and industrial history. You indicated you had an interest in the topic. Come on by and read what's been going on! Madcoverboy 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think there is a mistake in the mito map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg

The Australian group should be marked S. The article on Haplogroup S indicates that Australian aboriginals belong to group S, and the Haplogroup M article doesn't list Australia.

I think the long squiggly arrow in the source map (leading through Arabia and India to Australia) is not the one meant by the M.

Ordinary Person 10:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some strange people talking about you elsewhere. Congratulations on the milestone (or should that be millstone?). Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the editing interests you mention on your userpage, you might be interested in joining the History of Science WikiProject. You can browse the lastest project newsletter to see what some other editors have been doing lately with the histories of science, medicine and technology. Cheers--ragesoss (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cranege brothers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources found.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Industrial Revolution article for which you are or have been a significant contributor. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding a number of issues, including layout, image use, and inline citations, and that length, prose, and use of external links also need discussing. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I'm letting you know in case you're interested in helping to resolve the concerns, though you are under no obligation to do anything. See Talk:Industrial Revolution/GA2 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PHALARIS GRASS. Since you had some involvement with the PHALARIS GRASS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Plantdrew (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:RfD note|National Capital Territory}} Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]