User talk:Wikiklrsc/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Wikiklrsc/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 04:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've added another note anonymously on the help desk. Basically, some things are delayed more than we want to. Updating indexes requires some manual actions on the part of developers, I believe and I'm not sure how often it's done. You could try searching Wikipedia using Google or Yahoo! - they usually update sooner. But I wouldn't worry about this. It may take some time, but eventually your article is gonna be found. with a "search" query too. Can you find it using WikiWax? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• You might not know how to post messages in wikipedia, but that last one reached me fine. I think your best shot is asking one of the developers why it's so slow. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:54, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• I've never checked how long it took. So can't say that I know how long it usually takes. I'm just confident it will work eventually. You can check the contributions of these developers, try asking one that contributed today or yesterday if you want a quick response. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, i didn't know. It been a while since i caught the show. --Boothy443 | comhrá 22:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikiklrsc, I had forgotten that he'd phoned in an article to the Liverpool Echo, though at the time he had pretended to be a reporter. On the 1st Marriage I don't know why you've modified my edit on that as it is accurate (source: Peel's autobiography & a few websites). You say the modification was "due to being unclear on the motivation of prior edits by "AllanHainey"" - my motivation is to have a full & complete wikipedia entry. I will check Peels autobiography tonight for more details & re-add info on this, as a 1st marriage (especially to a 15 year old) is a significant part of his life & should be included. If you've got any objection or reason not to include this we can discuss it on the talk page. Thanks for confirming the computer programmer bit - I hadn't seen any reference to it on the web or autobiography so I assumed it was false. AllanHainey 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, just to let you know I checked out the computer programmer bit in Peels autobiography, he worked for Republic National Life Insurance, Dallas, filing cards for an IBM 1410 (punched card using computer) in 1963. I've noted this in the article but I haven't described it as computer programming though as it seems to have been mostly a clerical filing job rather than programming as we know it. AllanHainey 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article slightly to note the Who's who entry.AllanHainey 11:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Zerbey 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, yes I noticed that with some suprise. I wold have thought WP:ISNOT a listings magazine. It would be great if we had a database which enabled us to find out what was on Radio 4 on 12 October 1955 (The Dreaded Batter-Pudding Hurler of Bexhill-on-Sea), but that is currently unfeasible. I would suggest that if these schedules become significantly out of date, they are removed (or updated if someone can be bothered), otherwise they can be left. Same message left on article talk page. Rich Farmbrough 22:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm happy with using depression (mood). It's often a bit tricky to know which of those two to use, corrections are always welcome :) I've made the change -- sannse (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The usual policy is to link to any article that is likely to be written. The idea is that this encourages readers who come across a blank link to start the missing article. The different colours of the links should be enough to show whether the link leads to an active article or not. Of course, if no one is ever likely to write the article, there is no point in having a link - it's all a matter of judgement and, to some extent, of style. Hope this helps -- sannse (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be that one or two dead links are OK, and may even encourage people to start articles, many are a bad thing. I agree. Rich Farmbrough 12:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with your point, on the other hand WP is a work in progress. I've left a message for the anon user, who has also worked on some announcers, so perhaps is planning on doing the rest... There's little harm in delinking red-links, unless someone's clearly got a project in progress. Also many people would not agree with the mutliple links (to the same target) in these lists. I do (although it's a judgement call) because I don't think people should have to search a list for the first occurance of, and because it looks tidier for all to be linked rather than 75%. 11:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That article is a prime VFD candidate if you really want my opinion :) I don't read the magazine myself so can't comment on its validity. (Although that Hollaback Girl song is annoying). Zerbey 21:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[ ...The article under discussion is that of Professor/Dr. James R. Russell...]

Hi Bob. That seems fair enough, I've removed the notice and commented on the talk page. Hopefully any issues can be worked out there -- sannse (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, looks like you already have this resolved but let me know if you still need any assistance. Zerbey 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, I've left a message on Dsc's talk page to ask him to discuss this, and I see you have reverted (I'm an ex-member of the arbitration committee by the way :) But the main thing is not to panic, and not to edit-war. It doesn't matter if the banner is there for a day or so, these things will be sorted in time. In fact, it's better to have the banner for a day than to get into a dispute over it. Calm and slow is best :) -- sannse (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sannse speaks sense. I will try to keep an eye. Rich Farmbrough 22:23 27 February 2006 (UTC).

Bob I agree with the above comments, it looks like it has been resolved now anyway. I wouldn't be too worried, or in such a rush to recruit allies, Dsc only put on a "needs attention" banner, personally I don't think it does but the worst that could happen is that the article would be improved. More likely than not after discussion by interested users on the talk page the banner would be removed anyway. AllanHainey 11:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, Dsc is now talking on the article talk page, which is great. He feels that the subject is not notable enough for an article. I've explained that the route to go if that is his opinion is to take it to Articles for deletion. I know it will worry you if he does that (it involves a much larger and more unpleasant looking banner for about five days) but, if that is his opinion, this is the best way to sort out the question. This may mean a short-term ugliness in the article, but it means the question of notability will be resolved one way or the other in the longer term. -- sannse (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, although I have limited Wikipedia time at the moment (new job) so am not able to keep that close an eye on what's going on -- sannse (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this is a conflict peripheral to Armenian Genocide. Oh boy! Rich Farmbrough 21:59 28 February 2006 (UTC).

Yes, it does seem that it's connected there - that tends to raise the temperature somewhat -- sannse (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob - see my comments of the articles talk page. Rich Farmbrough 22:30 28 February 2006 (UTC).

It looks good. Bob, I don't suppose you have a GFDL photo? :) Rich Farmbrough 10:44 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Bob, I think it's a new protection against wikimail spamming. Click on where it says, and press confirm, you should get an email. Check that the link in the email makes sense (I haven't looked at mine yet), and the you will be able to confirm that you want to recevie wikimail. Rich Farmbrough 18:41 2 March 2006 (UTC).

My apologies--I was tracking the contributions of an editor who was inserting POV in almost all the articles they edited--I think I inadvertantly reverted valid edits in one or more articles. I gave up on the task when I realized I wasn't being careful enough. Nareek 17:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted most of my reversions--a lesson for me about overenthusiasm. Actually, it was nice to see how well WP responded to POV--the edits I was "reverting" were mostly gone long before I got there. Nareek 17:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the addition of the parenthesis in "Plato wrestled at the Isthmian games(and he was very good at it)." (even leaving aside the formatting and syntax) was both vague and rather weak. Moreover, I don't honestly think that his wrestling prowess is important enough for us to spend much time on in an article like this, but if it were, it still wouldn't really belong in the summary. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you were told not to use this system, it was introduced in December to replace the template system which has several problems. I personally disagree that this system makes the article harder to edit, I find it much easier to have the note associated with its text. Additionally, when changing the flow of an article with the system the references section never gets out of sync.

I changed the section header to "Notes & references" both because the external links appeared to me to be sources that could be used to verify the facts presented, i.e. references, and as an encouragement to other editors to add references to support each claim made in the article. It's not something I'm going to argue over though. Joe D (t) 00:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my fault. I think it should be Category:Radio DJs in the UK I would fix it myself but I have to get offline, if you could fix them manually I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, I've replied to your note on my talk page there ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Paul August ☎ 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a good catch on the City College article re Rocky and tuition. That was a gross error and I am ashamed I didn't catch it myself! -- Fred

P.S. Small world! I just saw a notation above re James Russell. Knew him many years ago. Has done great work. Pleased to see the article on him.

Thanks, Fred. The CCNY edit had me a bit bewildered ! Yes, Dr. Milgram's Small world phenomenon works again ! Dr. James R. Russell is a very interesting and prolific scholar in his field. Perhaps we have crossed paths, too, to complete the circle. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 16:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the clean-up sign from the entry on the City College of New York. I've been editing the history portion of the site over the last few days.Iss246 (talk)ISS246 —Preceding comment was added at 23:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I created separate section devoted to public transportation, including subways and buses. I didn't think the previous version belonged under the South Campus rubric. But I want to tell you that I deleted the C train subway stop at 135 and St. Nicholas Avenue because I don't want a curious but innocent visitor to walk alone through St. Nicholas Park.Iss246 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, your note to me is right regarding the fact that the C train stops at 135th St. But I know a couple of people who were mugged in St. Nicholas Park going from the College to the 135th St. subway station. I would feel awful if, on the basis of the CCNY Wikipedia entry, someone from out-of-town took the C train to 135th St. to cut through the park in order to visit the College. Not only would it be bad for the visitor, such an event would reflect badly on the College although the College would not deserve blame. I know about move of the Hamilton Grange, which for years I wanted to visit but never got around to visiting. Perhaps the move will improve safety, but that is a wait-and-see condition.Iss246 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to your recent comment. I sourced Tom Bender's book on the intellectual history of New York City for the Gibbs story and the contrast with Columbia College. The wording of the paragraph could be improved. Perhaps you would like to have a go at it.Iss246 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You did a great job editing the paragraph bearing on Gibbs. I think we have done a pretty good job in tandem beefing up the CCNY entry.Iss246 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I observed that the entry for City College indicates that the institution has an endowment of $220 million, a number that does not appear to me to be correct. Do you have any information about this?Iss246 (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little more twinking of the paragraph that contains a reference to Wolcott Gibbs.Iss246 (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good refinement of the Gibbs paragraph.Iss246 (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the "mentioned above" phrase you deleted. I only inserted it because the description of the Goethals building includes information already mentioned earlier in the section on the history of the college. I wanted to check with you because you and I seem to care more about this Wikipedia entry more than most others. Don't you think we need a phrase to indicate that the information about Goethals is redundant as a courtesy to the reader?Iss246 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a better reference to having mentioned Goethals earlier. I made the reference as much to alert the reader to redundancy as to alert future editors to be careful.

I also added a couple of paragraphs about the Bertrand Russell affair. City College had such an exiting history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made the CCNY entry better simply by dividing the history section by century. It will be easier for readers to assimilate the history of the college.Iss246 (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right... maybe I'm just blind... all music lists it as singular... I'll move it now. Thanks for pointing that out. gren グレン 22:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this link shows a re-release cover with "songs" not "song"... I really don't know. gren グレン 22:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Peacock. Surely West's work can stand by itself without all this advertising. Also, asserting that he is the fore-runner of studies on the interplay between the Greeks and the Orient is a vast overstatement. In particular, one major work on the relations between the Greeks and shamanism was published in 1951, when West was 14.

Regards, Septentrionalis 05:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitford wrote in 1827, and IIRC his assertions depend on the existing Orphica being genuine, which there is now scholarly consensus against. I would prefer not to source anything (at least anything that is a conjecture about Greek prehistory) from Mitford, and very little from Grote. We know more than either of them did - and both of them are deeply involved in their arguments over the Reform Bill and the Establishment of the Church of England, as much as Greek history.

Lengthy quotes on Greek mythology would be preferable if drawn from Eliade, Harrison, and Dodds, as the people who actually established the present position.

May I recommend this style^[1] of footnote, which numbers automatically and permits footnotes to stay in line. Septentrionalis 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, however,for reverting the anonymous restoration. That was not my intention; I thought I had merely failed to save an edit. Septentrionalis 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should of course have included Rohde; perhaps if I'd actually read him he would have occurred to me... Please do keep editing, btw. Septentrionalis 20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens again leave a message oin the anon's talk page. Suggest you leave a note on the talk page for the article. If no diaglogue can be established let me know. Rich Farmbrough 15:12 13 June 2006 (GMT).

Let's see what happens. Rich Farmbrough 17:47 14 June 2006 (GMT).

I will check if I remember. Luckily it's not a major change. Rich Farmbrough 17:50 14 June 2006 (GMT).

Incidentally it may be because it's a blog, we rarely link to them. See WP:EL. Rich Farmbrough 17:58 14 June 2006 (GMT).

Hi Bob source found, and included. Rich Farmbrough 08:18 23 June 2006 (GMT).

Hi Bob, It's amazing isn't it. I'd seen it before, but lost the url. It's a pity they didn't make it pen source. Rich Farmbrough 13:32 1 July 2006 (GMT).

Basically if there is (there was, recently), it's not a good idea to do it because of WP:BEANS. However there is a discussion on meta about this, I have added a comment. Rich Farmbrough 21:35 1 July 2006 (GMT).

Incidentally the software is available, per the external links. Rich Farmbrough 18:33 2 July 2006 (GMT).

Bob, thanks for the heads-up. RandyS0725's edits are a mixed bag. He seems to be relying exclusively on websites as sources, with predictable results: some of the information he's adding is potentially useful, but unsourced, while other things are plainly inaccurate. I'm not sure what to do on many of the articles, as they're fairly obscure figures and I don't have access to a decent library at the moment. Most of them should probably be reverted, but I hate wiping out a new user's contributions so completely. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reverting the ones I don't believe; most of the ones I've left look like either genuine minor corrections or Hesiod. But he seems to be gone; I don't think I bit that hard. Septentrionalis 14:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I'm involved in what seems to be an irresolvable dispute over at Cyclopean structures. I've created a RfC, would you care to comment at Talk:Cyclopean structures? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks for commenting, we'll see if it gets us anywhere... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, it's an AOL vandal, and has carried on, so I've instituted a short block. Cheers, Rich Farmbrough 20:48 25 July 2006 (GMT).

I've semi-protcted the page, for a few ays, but it's not good practice really. Are you sure the "Lemon drizzle cake" is untrue? Rich Farmbrough 21:57 9 August 2006 (GMT).

I've just asked User:Voice of All if his bot can guard the article, which may be a solution. Rich Farmbrough 22:07 9 August 2006 (GMT).

See User talk:Ericd Ericd 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on User talk:Ericd Ericd 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps? There is, after all, more than one Boston. Rich Farmbrough 18:41 13 August 2006 (GMT).

Indeed, I'm just down the road from Boston Lincs. Naming conventions (place names) "allows" any of the following I think:

• Long Island, Boston, Massachusetts
• Long Island, Boston
• Long Island, Massachusetts
• Long Island, Massachusetts, United States
• Long Island, (Boston)
• Long Island, (Massachusetts)
• Long Island, (Boston, Massachusetts)
• Long Island, (Massachusetts, United States)

and possibly

• Long Island, Massachusetts, U.S.
• Long Island, (Massachusetts, U.S.)

There may be a Massachusetts project that has it's own conventions. Incidentally redirects are fairly harmless. Rich Farmbrough 19:35 13 August 2006 (GMT).

Incidentally, while I don't think there are any other LI's in MA, that's why I suggested Long Island, Boston, Massachusetts as more explicit. Rich Farmbrough 19:37 13 August 2006 (GMT).

Hi. Unfortunately none of this discussion got recorded on the article's talk page. So I was blissfully unaware of it when I renamed Long Island, Boston, Massachusetts to Long Island (Massachusetts. If I'd known I would have discussed it first. Still I stand by my reasoning - please see Talk:Long Island (Massachusetts). -- Chris j wood 09:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for an hour. If it happens again I may sprotect the article and block the IP. Rich Farmbrough 21:14 23 August 2006 (GMT).

Incidentally it was about a day before it was vandalised. Rich Farmbrough 21:19 23 August 2006 (GMT).

Blocked 15 min and sprotected. Rich Farmbrough 18:31 25 August 2006 (GMT).

Could you explain everything you did recently on the Statistics page? Preferably do it on the talk page. You made some pretty big changes (good changes, as far as I can tell), and I think it warrants a bit of explanation. Thank you. Chris53516 21:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - these infoboxes are usually only used for towns in England, not villages or parishes. We can keep it, but it is an anomaly. David 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well leave it now - I've filled out the gaps in the information. David 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Shuts of Shrewsbury" section of the Shrewsbury Forum is entirely written, and photos taken, by myself (the "Proud Salopian"). I put that link into the History of Shrewsbury article. Not sure whether it would be wise for each shut to have an article on Wikipedia, but maybe a Shrewsbury shuts or Shuts of Shrewsbury article? David 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on that. I had noticed a person "blanked" paged it, then just copy and pasted the original back, at about the same time the bot did. My bad. Thanks for the heads up. Bevo873 19:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Bevo873[reply]

The homeless http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homelessness&action=history article has gone to hell, sockpupets reverting vandals. I see you care about the page, please fix it.Patcat88 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have it (mostly) under control. I would agree, though, that the article is U.S.-centric, and needs some of the "archeolofy" removing from it. See my comments on the talk page. Rich Farmbrough 17:35 26 August 2006 (GMT).

s/archeolofy/archaeology/ :) Rich Farmbrough 18:08 26 August 2006 (GMT).

Hi Rich. User:74.130.68.242 (User talk:74.130.68.242) (Special:Contributions/74.130.68.242) added a specific link [1] to many articles, including the article on a Homeless shelter, in order to collect a list of shelters in various US states. I wonder if it belongs in Wikipedia as it appears, although seemingly altruistic, a non-informational solicitation. Thoughts? Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc

loks like whomp has it under control. Rich Farmbrough 22:29 27 August 2006 (GMT).

Hi Bob, when you move an article use the Move tab, not cut and paste. This will move the talk page and history. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 10:21 28 August 2006 (GMT).

What do you think of using this picture on the Homelessness article as the lead-in? This is another featured picture on Commons. howcheng {chat} 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I meant replacing the current photo of the woman in Nice with this. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only added the picture because one of the statements in the paragraph stated that some homless people are panhandling to get money for purchase of drugs or alcohol in the accompaning paragraph. But if you believe it is better for the article not to have it, that's all right with me. I just took the picture the other day, and the homeless guy was really happy as he was flashing his sign around everywhere to get money. I wasn't sure if it was in the best interest of the page, but I figured I would add it to show the perspective of the homeless person as well. But thank you for removing it if it was not with the encyclopedic value of the article. Sorry for the trouble. --Nehrams2020 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that including famous quotes will create endless debate regarding which ones should be included. Some other examples: "Money can't buy happiness, but neither can poverty." "Poverty is the schoolmaster of character." "The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved." Also, such brief quotes do not usually contain much factual information, they usually express an opinion, although usually in a striking way. So I think Wikiquote is better, the article should include this template to show that there are quotes in Wikiquote.Ultramarine 16:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, I have as they say, "an issue" with the idea that if a sister project exists, material deemed here as suitable for it, must be excised. In particular "dicdefs" dictionary definitions are often transwiki'd, but are not the stuff of Wiktionary, and there is resistance to having "source" material since it "belongs" in wikisource. These ideas do not, in my opinion, address the problem of a.) WP on other media (paper, CD Rom) or b) the changing nature of sister projects. For example I understand there's been a "purge" at wikibooks. Rich Farmbrough, 19:23 8 September 2006 (GMT).

Greetings, Bob. You do have a point there that sometimes an external link just isn't enough. And agreed, the Internet Wayback Machine is limited. But in this case, is the whole press release necessary? It mostly speaks about the production team's technique on transforming one of the abandoned buildings for the film. It may be a good idea to paraphrase part of it, specifically the part about which building on the campus was utilized for the filming, but I generally don't like extensive "trivia" sections. They're useful to connect two topics and provide links and resources for further investigation if the user is so inclined, but they need not spell every detail out on this article's page. My humble opinion, of course. If an when the website link disappears, you could still cite the press release as a source without a link. And if inclusion of a partial source is the reason, then I should be typing up whole chapters of books for some of the articles that I've created! But then we'd venture from the land of merrily including footnotes to the land of copyright violation. And again, agreed, in-article quotations are useful, but from a press release from a film made in one of the buildings? Maybe if the director or producer had said something about the architecture or history of the building.

Oh, one more thing. I also doubt that website as a source. I'm not sure it's quoting the full press release. Look at the last paragraph. "Konrad" is used without a first name or title for the first time in the press release. Best, Rkitko 17:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again. Yes, I had forgotten about the Girl, Interrupted (film) footnote. I surfed back on to that article and was reminded about the note. I removed it like the other. If you're really concerned about loss of information from that website, I would suggest including that information--paraphrased, of course--in the article and citing the information anyway. Even if the site does disappear into the ether of the internet, I would still consider the cited information verifiable. Cheers, Rkitko 21:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, thanks for the note: I'll move the photograph. I didn't realize the history behind the page; I'm trying to be prolific (with quality, not simply quantity), so I don't necessarily have time to look at the histories of all the pages. Thanks for letting me know - Dave. --DavidShankBone 20:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob - I'll have to check out about the squash court - didn't know! It seems like this issue about the Homelessness in the United States and worldwide is, well, the US has the worst problem with it out of the developed countries. I'm sure Zimbabwe and a few other impoverished countries also have their fair share, though. Keep up the good work! And thanks for the compliments. --DavidShankBone 20:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, that one photo was the first I had planned in a series I've thought about for the last six months or so. They aren't mean to have a point of view; they are only meant to document. If you want to keep up with it, the gallery can be found her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidShankBone#STREET_SLEEPERS --DavidShankBone 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I'm very flattered by the links and it will be interesting to see if they stay. What you did is also interesting in terms of my experiment on this site, which I plan to make the subject of a grant proposal. It will be interesting to see if the WP community is ready to start accepting some of its own User's original work as worthy of referential inclusion--at least as far as images go. I updated the links and I put in a little paragraph explaining the series, which is very simple. I will also take your advice and work to obscure faces enough to render them unrecognizable. About a year or two ago New York Magazine did one of those "You know you're a New York when..." articles (or was it Time Out?) and one of the entries was, "...when your local homeless person goes missing and you start to get worried." There is one guy named Eddie who has lived on 4th Street between Avenue A and Avenue B as long as I have, which is five years. He is Street Sleeper No. 2. He pets my dogs, I talk to him; I've bought him some bottles of booze (after five years, he's chosen his life--I'm not going to be sanctimonious about what he needs), given him alot of my well-made shoes (that are worn down for me) and other items. Batteries, etc. But still, there is another woman who has been in the neighborhood just as long. She is walking chaos. The very depiction of all-consuming addiction: her face is always flushed red and looking bumpy. It resembles, if you can imagine, a face that has spasmed so often from the highs and lows of addiction that there are knots in the muscles; lumps that need the attention of a deep tissue massage. Unlike Eddie, I've never spoken to her. She is angry and always coming down. I last saw her a week ago. She was in horrible shape; she was standing/leaning against a railing on Avenue B and 6th Street, seemingly convulsing. Shaking or something. I walked by her slowly. I had my camera, but I thought it would be so rude to take her photograph. But I have regretted not doing so ever since. Because this woman has a story, and at the very least, a lesson to tell. She goes ignored except by other vagrants (and even they shy away from her). Maybe she is in rehab, or jail. Maybe that was the last day she was alive. And now she's lost forever. That's why I started doing the series. "You know your a New Yorker when..." I'd say so. Thanks for so many high compliments. --DavidShankBone 14:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here is the link Street Sleepers --DavidShankBone 14:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see; he does seem to be acting in good faith, and most of the edits are minor. The only extensive edit is this compound edit of Theogony; and without looking up Hesiod, I'm not sure it's worse than what was there before. (Feel free to fix it, if necessary; I only gave it a glance) If you're concerned, leave him a note; I think he mostly edits for attention anyway. Septentrionalis 18:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep an eye on him; many of his edits have been, and deserved to be, reverted. But there is no real recourse short of blocking, which is unwarranted. Septentrionalis 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to drag things out. Btw, how is your NT Greek? Can you help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe (Spiritual Life)? Septentrionalis 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked right after doing it, and inserted some corrections. Actually there was a 3-way skip (CAS) instruction but I don't think it was an optimal way to do the arithmetic IF. -- RTC 23:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I had been told the same thing when I first learned Fortran (about the 704 3-way branch). But when I researched the 704 instruction set it didn't make sense. However if anyone can prove that the original FORTRAN always used the CAS instruction to implement arithmetic IFs, then it should be clarified. However I can't find this at this time. -- RTC 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following at [2]:

The FREQUENCY statement disappeared for two reasons, as far as I can tell. The first is that it didn't improve the code much; changing the order of the "branch if greater" vs. the "branch if less" instructions after a test made little difference...

This appears to suggest that the Transfers (TZE, TMI, TPL) were used, as they could be reordered to reduce the number of machine cycles. CAS always took 2 machine cycles, then the TRA that it skipped to took 1 more. -- RTC 20:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at that 704 manual on Bitsavers when I added the explanation about Transfers vs. the 3-way skip (CAS) to the Fortran article. -- RTC 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the IF structure was inspired by the CAS, but the compiler could optimize it the Transfers as needed. However as CAS considered -0 and +0 to be different and the TZE & TNZ considered them to be the same, I think that the original FORTRAN didn't even use CAS, but instead generate the following code:

TZE n2

TMI n1

TPL n3

-- RTC 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I heard is that the coding of the FORMAT statement in FORTRAN was that of an already existing 704 I/O Library that the compiler linked in. This should probably be added to the article, if it is verifiable. -- RTC 16:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely will need to discuss adding Hall to the Freemasonry page bibliogrophy, as Hall was definitely NOT a 33 degree Mason, and was not all that well-versed in the Craft and its symbolisms. The book was published in 1928, when he was only 27. According to the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, Hall was initiated in 1954, when he was 53 years old (and did not go through the Scottish Rite to achieve the 33rd degree). While he may, or may not have been well-versed in esoterica in general, very little he says relates to actual Freemasonry. Blueboar 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the reference to Hall being given the 33rd degree in 1973 that is in the article on him. You may notice that I have asked for a citation on that... this is the first I have ever heard of this claim. It does not ring true to me... The 33rd degree is usually given in a ceremony held at a Scottish Rite temple such as the House of the Temple in Washington DC ... it would not have been held at the PRS. It may have been granted by an irregular fringe body... and thus not be legit.

However, even if he was granted the 33rd degree in '73, it has no bearing on his book... The Secret Teachings of All Ages was written 45 years before then, and well before he even became a Mason (by some twenty years). He had no accurate understanding of Freemasonry or scholastic authority at that time. The book is pure speculation, and most of it is wrong. And, no, his book is definitely NOT read in masonic circles. Most Masons have never heard of him... indeed most of those who know of it are either occultists incorrectly assuming that Masonry is an occult philosophy, or Anti-masons who quote passages from it out of context to try and "prove" Masons are satan worshipers or some such hooey. Sorry to disapoint you. Blueboar 16:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding on this issue. You are correct in that Harmony is the support of all intitutions (even Wikipedia). If this were a reading list for experienced Masons... ones who were already familiar with the facts of what the Craft is all about and had the wisdom to sift the fact from the speculation, I would not hesitate to include the book... However, the Freemasonry article here is more of an introduction to the Craft for those who do not know much about the fraternity. I would not want such people to form their opinions based on such questionable work... when it comes to Hall, I have learned to apply the new name I was given while standing in the NE corner of the lodge... Caution. Blueboar 18:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I have been able to enquire at the source (I called someone at Scottish Rite)... and it turns out you were correct. Hall was given an honorary 33rd. This does not change my objection to inclusion of SToAA, however, as the honor was granted many, many years after the book was published. In any event, I hope you will continue to contribute to the Freemasonry article. S&F Blueboar 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Fortran is of interest, use the history there to access the 22:04 25 August 2006 version. You'll find lots: quotes, links, papers, manuals, ....

btw, one of the manuals linked for Fortran II, "System Manual for 704 and 709 Fortran", has the IF statement generated code.

enjoy

User:69.106.254.246 (User talk:69.106.254.246) 06:22, 19 September 2006

Hi Beland. You added that nice 1888 map of Boston harbour to the History of Boston, Massachusetts article. It appears now twice in that article. I presume that was your intention. It looks fine, unless someone objects to duplication. It's a really good historic map. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Oops, I hadn't noticed that! I removed the first instance...I'm trying to get a collection of maps showing the geography at different times, all in a row. It should be easy to find a replacement picture for the chronology section...thanks for pointing that out! -- Beland 20:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beland. Ah ... I see. Thanks for letting me know. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beland. An interesting collection of maps (Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection) is located at the library at Uni Texas, Austin. Even or especially old maps ! To wit.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/

And for Boston and Massachusetts if that's your interest...

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/boston_1842.jpg

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/massachusetts.html

Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Good idea! I've gone ahead and uploaded the historic Boston maps and linked some of them from History of Boston, Massachusetts. -- Beland 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, the text you restored is superior in terms of accuracy and verifiability; the anon's rewrite might have been in good faith, but the footnoted references do not support what s/he wrote. There is one piece of information in the anon's edit that would be good to put in the article--the ambiguity of pharmakon, which means both medicine and poison. Unfortunately, the anon attached this characteristic to the pharmakos instead, with the sentence "That which can cure can kill."

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention, I hadn't seen it before. I like what you're doing with it. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob.

You write:

Hi Chris. You changed the "Notes" section in the article on Boston Harbor Islands to "References" saying "Call References References". Well, I didn't put those items in, as I remember, and they are rather odd "footnotes" (they _use_ the footnote mechanism) and I don't think worth being footnoted.

Actually I put them in, and then somebody else changed the section title. They do not use the footnote mechanism, but rather the Wikimedia reference mechanism (<ref> and <references>), which was specifically added to Wikimedia to ease the addition of references. And that is how they are being used here.

For example, citing the current ferry schedule seems superficial, etc. There are usually several parts of the postlogue to an article: See Also, Notes, References, Bibliography, and then External links. I am not sure the Notes for this article are really needed. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 13:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC) (User talk:Wikiklrsc)[reply]

I absolutely agree that if viewed as notes, the ferry schedule is indeed superficial and probably unnecessary. But it isn't intended as a note; it is intended as a reference and as such is essential to citing my sources, as required by WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:V. Specifically it is the source of the statement in the article Georges Island and Spectacle Island are served throughout the year by ferries to and from Boston and Quincy, connecting on weekends and summer weekdays with a shuttle boat to several other islands. Similar arguments apply to the other reference cited.

Of course it is possible to argue that the above access statement is a bit superficial and non-encyclopedic. But I felt it at least gave a feel to readers about where the islands sit on the accessibility to remoteness scale. -- Chris j wood 15:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob. You write:

I have been working with the resident historian and archivist of Long Island (Massachusetts) to get many of my source documents and I have gotten a lot of material and unpublished City of Boston reports. For the moment, I can't really verify that Calf Island (Massachusetts) was called "Apthorps Island" although Charles Apthorp owned both Long Island (at some point for a while whilst others like Nelon owned it as well and it had been called "Nelson's Island" et al.) and Calf Island. I will look into it further. I don't have my documents here right now. I shall have to look into it. In the interim, any thoughts?

The only reference to that name I'm aware of it is in the 'factsheet' for the island, on the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership web site at http://www.bostonislands.org/factsheet_template.asp?rsIslands__MMColParam=calf, where Apthorps Island is explicitly indicated as an alternative name. Superficially these factsheets seem reasonably well researched, but it isn't clear from the web site by whom. Perhaps your contact may know, as there is a similar sheet on Long Island. -- Chris j wood 10:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the speedy tag from articles you created. If you disagree, add {{hangon}} below the tag, but do not remove it. Mapetite526 22:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I'm a bit out of my depth with Thomas Temple, but the problem seems to be that the article does not establish why he's a notable figure. Your comments on the article's talk page go some way to establish this, but adding a sentence to the article explaining why he's important would help; something like "his correspondence is an important source for the early history of Canada", for instance. Sorry I can't help more, but I have very little knowledge of this period of history. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got him linking up with List of Acadian governors and that confusing period. Stormbay 18:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fair enough! I can't imagine why the article had a speedy delete on it...happy editing! Stormbay 22:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. Of course, User:195.93.21.33 continues to vandalise Clare Nasir's article ! Luckily someone else found it this time. (cf. User_talk:195.93.21.33#Vandalism_of_Clare_Nasir.27s_article_again) Is there nothing that can be reasonably done ? I know, I know ... Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Extended block this time. Rich Farmbrough, 20:25 14 October 2006 (GMT).

I have less patience with AOL IPs now, there are so many ways for the innocent to avoid being caught. Rich Farmbrough, 20:25 14 October 2006 (GMT).

Thanks for your kind comments, and the excellent work on Loppington. I actually find I prefer to work on subjects that aren't too close to home (in an emotional more than geographical sense). Both because it gives me a degree of detachment which I think helps in the context of an encyclopedia, but also because it forces me to research things and learn about interesting things in the process.

On the other hand I find I do need to have a sketch in my head as to what a subject is like, and in the context of geographical places it is quite hard to get that without breathing the air at least once. So I rarely write about a place I've never been to, but equally rarely about somewhere I have a lot of recent experience of. In the case of Boston Harbor and its islands, my experience was a fairly mundane two or three days holiday bolted onto the end of a business trip to Boston in June this year. A cruise on the harbor one day; a day trip to Georges Island by ferry another day. Everything else is from researching the web.

I'd certainly no intention at the time of getting quite so carried away with the subject. But it is strange the way that sometimes a subject creeps up on you like that. -- Chris j wood 19:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new bibliography references are great. You obviously have a big advantage over me in terms of access to the printed page, whilst I'm more or less forced to rely on things I can get to electronically. Keep up the good work. -- Chris j wood 11:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich. User:162.39.180.2 just put a spurious external link (under the guise of a link called "Education Software") into many many articles on education, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=162.39.180.2) Unfortunately, I just now don't have time to fix them. I just wanted to point it out. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

User:Zuzz has reverted all except one, now fixed. Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18 27 October 2006 (GMT).

I have to admit I've never heard of Wei Wu Wei before. What sort of information does his book contain about Zen, and what makes it an important source for the article?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why I removed the link you added. It's because the linked-to article 1) is not really about pi at all, but about the philosophical concept of perfection; 2) is not particularly good quality; 3) is not written by anyone noteworthy; 4) is not published anyplace special; 5) has no references to other work; 6) contains bizarre assertions like "Pi exists and life exists because Pi is the ONLY equation that allows LIFE to exist." All in all, it doesn't contribute to the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. --Macrakis 22:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I had these articles on my watchlist and noticed your changes. I've in turn made some changes and noted them on the talk pages for discussion and consensus-building.

With the Caudill article, I was concerned about NPOV and general structure -- I just haven't seen amazon-style discussions in other authors' articles. Maybe the WikiProject Books folks might have some ideas on this -- I left a note there.

In the other case, it was more about editorial emphasis (how critical was Caudill to the ARC's formation?).

I saved the text I deleted from the articles on the talk pages so that it can be added back in. --A. B. 03:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, apologies, I should have explained the birdwatching change, too much of a hurry.

This is a a global page, and a book based on one park in one city in one country is a bit parochial. If the book fits anywhere, you will see that there is a link to a page of notable bird books. sorry again for not explaining, jimfbleak 18:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about it; if you think it's a bad idea to have it in the article, go ahead and take it out. I won't be offended. —Chowbok ☠ 16:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it out. Thanks for the notes; after looking that over I feel this picture just unnecessarily opens a can of worms. —Chowbok ☠ 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the link on the photography subject. Emerman 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll put the link on my front User page. I'm about to clear out my rambling babble of me yammering from my talk page, now that I finally "get it" about the fair use stuff chowbok attempted to introduce me to (i was hard headed like a lot of them in hearing the news. I wish there were a way to get the latest news on policy changes in email newsletter form from wikipedia). Emerman 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I actually like the current configuration of images: I think they're balanced and of appropriate size. We should not make an effort to hide the faces of homeless people because doing so dehumanizes them. If showing their faces evokes sympathy, so be it; it's not my intention, though. -- WGee 02:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made an excellent point regarding it not being a cause of "chronic homelessness". I just learned how to do the 4 tilda thing to sign my posts so I am averse to make changes on anything. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.43.147 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, taken it out, it was in the wring place in the article, and the wrong article. Maybe has a place in Homelessness in the U.S. Rich Farmbrough, 20:10 24 December 2006 (GMT).

The header wasn't carelessly removed, it was just vandalism.[3] As you know, the article gets a lot of that stuff, so it's important to dig deeper into the edit history to find out what's been going on recently. I found a lot of text removal,[4] even after another editor had come in and cleaned up other junk.[5] This is real miner's work; any odd small changes should be regarded as a dead canary. — coelacan talk — 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. I'm pretty new to that article. It looks like you've been doing a lot to keep it running smoothly already. Keep up the good work =) — coelacan talk — 18:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sprotected this temporarily. It's not a good solution, because, as you know, anonymous editors have also made good edits to it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58 29 January 2007 (GMT).

Hi Wikiklrsc,

Since you seem to be a seasoned Wikipedia editor I find it particularly curious that you added "Further Reading" sections to both Religion and God in order to add a link to the "Dr. Donald Knuth MIT Lecture series on God and Computers". As you know, it's difficult to link that sort of specific subject matter on such broad entries. Wikipedia, after all, is not a directory, and if every entry as general as Religion accommodated every related POV or discussion about this or that religious aspect then we would just end up with a directory and not an encyclopedia. In fact, there is probably a good reason why no "Further Reading" section exists on either of those entries--because having such sections and keeping NPOV would turn the entries into directories of books, lectures, and various other literature. I hope you understand why I reverted your additions. Thanks.PelleSmith 20:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also responded to your comment on my talk page that I think you left at the same time that I left the one above. Jinx. Have a good one.PelleSmith 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just mistakenly posted this on Rick's page, even addressing it to him, after tracking down your mention of involving a "senior" editor. Show's how with it I am at the moment. Anyway here is what I meant to post on your page. Cheers.

Wikiklrsc, no offense, but threating language isn't exactly in the wiki spirit, however modestly stated it is. The issue here isn't about notability (which i would gladly argue if you wish) but about the structure of the entries, and the principle behind adding links to any such topic specific essays no matter how notable the writer is in entries like religion. We can't accommodate every essay, or lecture series that is similar to the one you added. There are billions of them. That is why, and I'll track down the exact language if you want, you can read about Wikipedia "not being a directory". If, some of the information from this lecture series, can be worked into the main entry then by all means do so and reference them. Given our current interaction, I will gladly leave judgement of such materials up to other editors so as to not have any conflict of interest. However, I don't see how the link should be included. On what grounds?PelleSmith 20:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edit with the best intentions in mind, and perhaps I make mistakes. In this case I don't see a mistake, but clearly I do. The fact that you have been involved in Wikipedia for a while, made me go to your page, and post an explanation. I was surprised at your addition, given your history, and out of all due respect wanted to explain. However, your or anyone else's "seniority" doesn't change anything about the nature of an edit. No editor is afforded any more leeway in an unproductive edit than another. That includes me. By all means post on talk page, or for that matter revert my revert and see what other editors at Religion say. I will gladly in fact recuse myself from this entire matter. Have a nice day.PelleSmith 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While some of Donald Knuth's books adorn my shelves, I would doubt that he is a good source for those articles, any more than the Good Doctor would be for Bible, despite having written on the subject. Having said that the link would undoubtedly be useful on Knuth's page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42 29 January 2007 (GMT).

Could you give an expansion of "Ostafrika Hrsg. Gerhard Kubik", as it doesn't mean much as it stands. I assume that it's the abbreviation of a journal title, but it's impossible for me to work out what it's an abbeviation for. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. (I'm still not sure what "Hrsg" meant...) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I had a quick look, while not egregious spamming it looks wrong. Two links in Comic Relief for example. Rich Farmbrough, 13:32 13 March 2007 (GMT).

This sentence in the introduction is fascinating, and I'd love to know more about it. "He was also part of the modern movement to revive the classical heroic mask from ancient Greek theatre and Japanese Noh theatre in some of his plays." Can this be expanded into a paragraph explaining its significance? --In Defense of the Artist 20:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. The best thing is for you to have a look at Susan Smith's book and her development of the theme as cited in the article: Smith, Susan Valeria Harris, "Masks in Modern Drama", Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. See pp.66-70, 106-08, 131-36 and index [S124]. It is fascinating. There is also a review of Susan Smith's books with appropriate comments at this link in JSTOR [6] in "Masks in Modern Drama", Review author: James W. Flannery, Emory University, Theatre Journal, 1986, The Johns Hopkins University Press. The book was based on a PhD thesis of the same title, Northwestern University, 1979. Also, Dr. Smith has a homepage [7] at the University of Pittsburgh. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Hello there, thanks for adding the reference you did to this article. I've removed it for now, because I'm not sure it was in the right place. It was in the section titled 'Academic studies' which it isn't, being a magazine article (albeit from an academic institution!) Also, Ronald Hutton's address which is described went way beyond Wicca - if this link belongs anywhere I'd suggest that maybe an article with a broader scope, such as Neopaganism. But honestly, I'd think twice before using it at all as I'm not sure how much it adds that isn't already sourced... If there's something there that would merit an in-line citation, perhaps. But many of these articles suffer from an overload of 'See also' and 'Further reading' links, so I'm doubtful.

Don't take my reversion as definitive! If you think it belongs, stick it in and we can argue it out on the talk page. but I thought I'd start the discussion here rather than just leave you with my edit note in Wicca. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 15:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've put a query up on the "Fair use" discussion to see whether using the standard photo is ok. Waiting for a reply... Martinwguy 10:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chawkins.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, sorry about that. However I did put note somewhere (?) and raised the general matter at villagepump/policy. Rich Farmbrough, 09:51 28 November 2007 (GMT).

The Sklar book entry looks like spam for two reasons: (1) There is no reference to the book in the article, so the book's contribution is merely its appearance as a "see also." (2) There is another article, living wage that focuses more on discussion of "fairness" with respect to wages. As the minimum wage article tends to be more factual, the Sklar book is probably better off appearing as a "see also" for living wage. Wikiant (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betacommand bot put a challenge on the Vic McGlynn article. These are low resoultion captures from the in-studio webcam at BBC 6 Music. I then edited the photo and made a new one and uploaded it. The image in question is "Image:VicMc3.jpg" . It is fair use. Please advise. I think the betacommand bot is not working out well. Thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't qualify for fair use because photographs of living people are virtually always replaceable - a free photo could be taken of her and uploaded. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:VicMc3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have made some edits on the Housing First pages. I would like some guidance as to editing it so the different types of Housing First are displayed. The articles you added about "Housing First" are different than HUD supported Housing First programs and do not properly reflect programs supported by the Federal Government. Other types of programs that provide housing offer it to alcoholics that continue to drink, substance abusers who choose not to recieve help, etc... While they may be considered "Housing First" they are very different mentalities and have very different outcomes than "Housing First" offered through HUD's Shelter Plus Care or Supportive Housing programs. Bmcombs (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sourcing in that article is not as good as it should be anyway. I think it's better to ask for sourcing or take the stuff to the talk page rather than just remove. Doesn't look like this is an ongoing conflict anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 13:14 16 March 2008 (GMT).

Even if you take the screenshot, the copyright is owned by the company that made the program. They own the layout and the design, and as such they own the image. Because of this you have to use this license: {{non-free software screenshot}} and provide a fair-use rationale. I can do the latter for you if you want. asenine ^t/_c\^r 00:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, even if you touch it up it is a derivative. asenine ^t/_c\^r 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! Please do have a very nice day. :) asenine ^t/_c\^r 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bob. That would be great. Thanks for your note. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks really good. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I own a copy. You want a scan of the cover? It will have to wait until next week; I'm in Africa right now. Uucp (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - not Wikipedia related, but very much Shrewsbury related! Have a read of the following article about the new move by the County Council to add 20 of the shuts and passages in the town centre to the rights of way map.

http://shrewsburyforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1390

It's an important moment in getting many of the town's shuts and passages the protection they deserve. Would be most excellent if you could chip in with a letter of support or so. David (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not at all. Wiktionary has some excellent articles with full usage notes sections, etc. This would fit perfectly over there. Rossami (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not since the page describes an actual food. I could see potential for expansion. The lexical content ought to be moved over, though. I'll take a crack at it but more eyes (and editors) are always welcome. Rossami (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, copyedit from my home talk page: "Hi. It's not a big thing really but you reverted out my addition to the Amelia Earhart article with the popular cultural reference in the new upcoming animated film, "Fly Me to the Moon". I just saw the movie in a reviewer's pre-screening this past weekend. I can't back it up since I don't have the script in hand but I did see it and it had a major sub-theme where the grandfather had saved Amelia Earhart's life on one of her solo flights. Admittedly, it's not high scholarship but I thought it was worth a fleeting mention. You apparently didn't and without discussion before the purgation. Best. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)"

First of all, Bob, thanks for the note. Perhaps you did not see the edit comment that I made when the note was reverted, "Undid revision 229857123 by Wikiklrsc 'perhaps if you can back this up with some authoritative sources indicating notability')." All that is required to "connect" the statement is a citation or quote, but it is contingent on the original poster to have that form of verifiable information at hand. I did a quick screen of the film and although it is a marginal aspect of the film, Amelia is mentioned; I didn't quite see her as a "sub-theme" but you can expand on it if you provide some form of cite. My suggestion is to use something like: *In the 2008 3-D animated film, Fly Me to the Moon, a major sub-theme is that the Grandpa had flown in Amelia Earhart's aircraft and woken her up when she fell asleep, thereby saving her life on her solo transatlantic flight.^[1]

FYI, the use of the word "plane" is deprecated in wiki aviation articles as it is commonly translated into the planing tool and it is actually a derivation of the word "aeroplane" and "airplane" with "aircraft" usually substituted. Also be careful to note that the flight in question is the earlier transatlantic flight not her ultimate circumnavigational flight of the globe. Read this note in edit mode to see the full note and citation style. Looking forward to seeing the note appear again. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Again, thanks for the interaction and "banter", I really do appreciate speaking to other WikyWacky editors like yourself. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry but they are a lot of English articles which are quoted in French pages of WP or elsewhere, only with English web-links and sometimes even without French abstract. Let have a look for example on the "Articles dans des revues académiques" in fr:Joseph Stiglitz. It doesn't the matter. And it doesn't look hazy! Why does-it look hazy when it is one French article with English abstract? Wouldn't it be better if I add a link toward an english resume like « Why patients attending free health centres seek care »? And why don't you suspect me to be Maryse Marpsat because of my quotation of her French-English paper in "The homeless in Paris : a representative sample survey of users of services for the homeless, in Dragana Avramov, ed, Coping with homelessness : issues to be tackled and best practices in Europe, Ashgate Publishing, by Maryse Marpsat and Jean-Marie Firdion"? Are you specially male-gender focused in your suspicions? Wanda007 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, I haven't seen your change in the homelessness page! Thank you for having incorporated the English "Health Economics Letter" in a note. It's much better now and I hope, more useful, for English readers. Wanda007 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, Thanks for your thanks! If you want me to help you in your French reading of homelessness' issues, don't hesitate to ask me, but only after this long week-end, on the 18th. ;)) Wanda007 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article on the litigation between the MBTA and MIT students over the hack of the CharlieCard system. I note that you previously edited the Charlie Card article on this topic and I would appreciate your help in expanding MBTA v. Anderson. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just want more eyes on it to keep it up to snuff on both the legal and technical aspects. If you can drag in and synthesize stuff from press coverage (as we've both been doing, it appears), then we'll have a nice little article too. Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on this today! From my POV, I hope this case develops more in both press coverage and importance with respect to appeals because this is both an essential and clouded issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know both authors personally (though it's been a few years) and agree that that they were good articles providing a synopsis of the event. But given the amount of coverage it received from major press outlets, I think if we are to privilege any news sources (which I don't think we should either), we should include other papers as well lest editors like myself get their notability panties in a knot. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. i think the section should be removed completely. xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Pinkadelica (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of templates to leave warnings. This one could have been blocked, but I left a warning anyway. If you see them continue any admin will block. You can leave the warnings {{subst:test1}} through to 4 or 5. Complrehensive details of the many warning templates are here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:59 7 September 2008 (GMT).

Hiya. Didn't know if you noticed or not, but you deleted a bunch of text while leaving a comment. I reverted it, as I was a little lazy to manually refactor it myself. Anyway, usually we try to avoid deleting other users' comments on talk pages if at all possible. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and again on tiptoety's talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 02:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just replied to your message on my talk page Thanks! Pip (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just replied to your message on my talk page Thanks! Pip (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just replied to your message on my talk page Thanks! Pip (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like his use of the classic "when you know you're wrong, go on the offensive" technique in the edit summary too. Beve (talk)

Careful not to break WP:3RR on the page. I gave him a level 1 warning. You should give him a level 2. Hopefully he'll stop and if not ultimately it will probably lead to a ban. Hopefully others will notice the page and assist. Beve (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the truth is that when you decrease the supply of an item, its price increases....that's not vandalism or POV....that's the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.143.123 (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth lives on: WHEN YOU DECREASE THE SUPPLY OF AN ITEM, THE PRICES INCREASES...VIVA LA SUBSIDIZED HOUSING! -- preceding comment left by anonymous User:68.40.143.123 21:45, 29 October 2008

BY THE WAY I REALLY LIKE YOUR "CABALE" CARTOON ON YOUR USER PAGE. IT IS FUNNY AND I AM BEING SINCERE! QUELLE CABALE!? -- preceding comment left by anonymous User:68.40.143.123, 22:27, 29 October 2008

Do you mind if I move your comment and respond on the article talk page? That's the appropriate spot. TJRC (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, leave whatever comment you're comfortable with on the article talk page, and I can discuss there. On some of these discussions, other editors often have some pretty good ideas, so that's the best spot for this. TJRC (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Nitin Saxena, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Nitin Saxena seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Nitin Saxena, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the series of external links from the article Manga because of the existing {{NoMoreLinks}} template on the article. If you think the external links contribute to the article in line with Wikipedia's external link guidelines, then please discuss them on the article's talk page. --Farix (Talk) 22:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about removing your ref, but urbandictionary can never be used as a valid source for something like that. You've made a good point about the questionable nature of the very fact within the article (the one that I current have tagged with ^[who?]), and so I think the best thing to do is not to add subpar sources to defend it, but rather just to delete it, given that it has been tagged since September and no one has found a good source for it yet. Thanks for your message, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I checked around, and the only mention of the "flutterby" thing in any marginally decent sources is only to say that it is entirely erroneous, which makes me wonder why we're even bothering to mention it. The wording in the article was basically "so there's this theory that's wrong but lots of people think it's kind of a spoonerism" and we were looking for a source for the "lots of people" part, and there's no way to verify that, and even if there were it would be kind of pointless, given that the theory is wrong anyway. So I just axed it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for not out-and-out removing the section! I can't take any credit for writing it; as you pointed out, it was a copy-and-paste of the first paragraph in the Homeless women in the United States article. I added it to the Homelessness in the United States article so that former article would not be orphaned. It's a notable topic in any case, even if it needs a lot of work. I'll attempt to find some citations over the next few days. I appreciate your offer to help in the attempt!

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob,

The sources you provided look good. I haven't given them a thorough review, but feel free to start adding information from them to the section. As for the future of the Homeless women in the United States article, I would be content if the title was simply redirected to the "Women" section on the Homelessness in the United States article, if things stay as they currently are. Considering the length of the Homelessness in the United States article, any extention of the "Women" section would probably justify the counterpart article specifically on women, so it would probably be best not to merge if you still plan on adding information from the sources you found. If the merge takes place, however, the only portion I would transfer from the Homeless women in the United States article is the reference section (and possibly the external links). The body of the text seems too biased for much of anything to be salvageable. Thank you for the encouragement about my last revision!

Neelix (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at his, and seems it has been dealt with. Rich Farmbrough, 02:48 12 January 2009 (UTC).

what the Greeks called themselves, rather than what others called the Greeks

No, that is not the issue at all. The article talks both about what the Greeks call themselves and about what others call the Greeks. The issue is that your reference is about names of individuals i.e. anthroponyms, while the article is about names for the Greeks as a group i.e. ethnonyms. Your reference is absolutely fitting in the Greek names article, where you also added it, but I don't see that it has any relevance at all to Names of the Greeks. --macrakis (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input may be useful at Talk:Adoption#Further_Reading_Section. Ha! (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with keeping the section in. As a stand-along stub, it's of little value. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Response to your message about Ackroyd's book: my preference is not to mention it all, even as further reading. The book is completely inaccurate and should not be considered a good source of information. I don't think Wikipedia should acknowledge it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I made any indication that I'm not willing to talk about this? Why else would you campaign for support and suggest I'm close to violating 3RR? Assume good faith, fellow editor! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sometimes I react quickly and only use my brain ex post facto. I think it's worth continuing the discussion you started at Talk:Edgar Allan Poe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the GAR reviewer, I am informing you that Pythia, an article that you worked on, was delisted in GA sweeps process. My suggestions are available on the GAR page. Hope they are useful for article improvement.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Pythia/GA1 for details. Sorry for the use of jargon and not giving the link. Main reason for delisting is references. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you will find that the website that I used backed up the citation with no deviation, the relevant passages are in both sites, but the one I used is more in line with WP:EL since the original site exists to "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" (WP:ELNO #5, Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" since the letter itself is only a small part of the link you provided. I don't see how the content is different in regards to the citation, and it avoids the opinion that there is some sort of website promotion going on by providing a text only with no advertising (WP:ELNO #... what ever the one about advertising is.

The external links were removed for the reasons stated above.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is a discussion on the talk page, please contribute if you want the edit to stay.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not sarcasm, frustration that I made an attempt to enter in discussion and it was ignored.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chris3.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. εω (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I misunderstood. Read it too quickly I guess. I thought the book was in German only. You might recheck wording when you re-enter it if it mentioned German at all. I read Jacob Burckhardt who probably never wrote in English. When I use his references, I don't mention that the original was probably in German. But, again, my apologies. And thanks for taking the time to make it clear to me. Student7 (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. The Taibbi article is online now so I thought we should have a link, but I moved down your quotation. I've read through the piece, and it's somewhat thin on actual evidence of naked short selling, mainly fails data, and the opening anecdote seems lifted from a much earlier Bloomberg article. The constant use of the word "counterfeiting" gives me concerns from a WP:FRINGE standpoint, as regulators say it is not counterfeiting, and on the central point have said that there was no large amount of NSS in financial stocks. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His Goldman article caused quite a stir. This one less so because he's not really saying anything new, having been asserted by the CEOs of both companies. Editors have complained in the past about putting too much journalism in the NSS article, which I think is why it is separated out this way.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your external link edit at Brooksley Born. I was uncertain how to cite a television program -- whether is was better to acknowledge the producer or the local broadcaster? In this context, may I ask you to look at two similar citations which might need to be tweaked?

• Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives > "External links" PBS (WNET, New York), The Rape of Europa, November 24, 2008? Perhaps it would be better to cite PBS/OPB?
• Hyūga class helicopter destroyer > "Notes" footnote 5: PBS/WNET, NYC: "Japan's About-Face: The military's shifting role in post-war society." July 8, 2008? Perhaps it would be better to mention Wide Angle TV public affairs program?

May I pose a related question: In general, I replicate or expand inline citations in the References; but I identify external links intermittently. Do you have a "rule-of-thumb" which would help me decide whether to replicate the inline citation in the external links section of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, for example? --Tenmei (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the tweaks you introduced. Thanks for showing me a better way to handle this. --Tenmei (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nuanced comment about Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. In response, I promptly removed the potentially controversial link. This subject requires extraordinary delicate editing, but I need some time to think a bit about how best to explain in a concise manner. Perhaps I'll get back to you in the beginning of next week .... --Tenmei (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You knoweth the drill by now, I believe. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikiklrsc! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 28 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Clare Nasir - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A google search brought up this. I don't know if it's reliable or definitive, but it is interesting. Kolindigo (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Terribly Happy make me terribly happy! Thanks for the fantastic contributions. Verkhovensky (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the clarification and for your work on the article in general. I was going off what I'd read in news articles and reviews, so I'm glad someone was able to provide more information that I couldn't! Petitscel (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...for your help with the article Essex (whaleship)! Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for boldly contributing and discussing. I do appreciate Further Reading sections, where the literal and figurative weight of the added material is sufficient. Here's an example of an article which has made it all the way to Featured Article status, with an excellent Further Reading section: San Francisco. --Lexein (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see you adding amicus briefs to this entry. They are notoriously irrelevant. I've seen justices admit that they are hardly ever referenced. Some clerk is forced to read them and that's the end of it.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a style issue that has nothing to do with the actual name of the publication. The rule is: Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence. For a work of art we do:

• He wrote The Moon and the Sixpence...

but not for things like newspapers:

• Today's editorial in the New York Times... (not The New York Times)

Leaving "The" in the citation makes sense, but in the body of an article the preference is always to use lower case for readability.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You replied with this example:

Young, J. (2003, February 14). Prozac campus: More students seek counseling and take psychiatric medication. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A37-38.

But that's a citation, which is exactly the case in which "The" is kept, as I said above. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the New Yorker article to the piece. There are two reasons I'm writing, one fairly trivial, and one more important. The trivial is your addition of the second source for the father's being a dentist. Frankly, I don't think it's necessary - the New Yorker article was sufficient for such a non-controversial assertion. I also think it's mildly promotional (for him and for Facebook - gave me a laugh), and if you really think another source is needed, I suggest the actual license here. But my preference is to remove it. I just didn't want to do that to you after I made such a fuss about the dentist thing in the first place.

The second more important thing is the following sentence (NOT added by you): "Microsoft and AOL tried to purchase Synapse and recruit Zuckerberg, but he decided to attend Harvard College instead, which he attended in September 2002, and where he joined Alpha Epsilon Pi, a Jewish fraternity." As you'll see, I removed the source and inserted a citation needed tag. I was surprised to see that the source had nothing in it about the stuff in the sentence. Maybe there's another source in the article that addresses it, and someone just got confused, but I'm too tired to hunt it down. If you feel like looking into it, that would be great.

You can respond here rather than on my Talk page. I'll watch yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your lucid comments. I thought it was a hommage to 10522 and MZ to put a link in to Dr. Zuckerberg's practice rather than a link to his dental license, in essence, to back up the New Yorker article. But it was admittedly technically redundant and albeit good for the painless practice, perhaps it would be best to remove it. I'll do so. I actually thought about it a lot before adding it. Briary Ln. and Russell Pl. are nice ride-throughs anyway near the Sawmill. So I'll remove it with that caveat. Ah. Well, the ref pointers got crossed, and entangled, my editing fault, so I just now referenced the September 2010 New Yorker article which did talk about MS and AOL and MZ. Thanks for your kindest thoughts. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the references. The New Yorker piece is good for quite a bit, so your references to it are now very helpful. The last change I made was to combine the paragraphs. I think the Synapse creation and then attempted purchase, segueing into Harvard, should all be together. My last edit for tonight because I'm signing off. Thanks for being so cooperative and helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done ! Many thanks for your kind help and words. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your copy edit on Joseph Brodsky. I have just added some new content, and your clear eyes are appreciated. If you have a little time to comb for copy errors, t'd be much appreciated. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Span (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for Pirate, which you will doubtless see. It pays to understand that people using twinkle to revert a lot of actual spam and vandalism are probably using standard edit summaries, even if in a given case they are mistaken - and probably are used to working reasonably fast removing spurious links without problems. Therefore, although the characterisations are unfortunate it's best not to take them personally. I have been called a vandal by a bureaucrat, they were simply wrong, ill-advised to use the term certainly, doubly so without checking their facts, but at bottom simply wrong, as we all are from time to time. Rich Farmbrough, 20:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I left them a note, shame that they hadn't been welcomed. Rich Farmbrough, 17:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably time for you to archive your talk page. See Help:Archiving a talk page for the many ways on how to do it. I generally archive mine every 50 threads, and I archive by doing a page move to an archive title (e.g. my current talk page will end up as User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 29), and then turning the resulting redirect into the new talk page, and providing a link therein to the archived page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]