Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Whoa!. You and Proteus..... IMHO Proteus is generally peremptive, terse, and discourteous but he is almost always right. He understands nuances of MOS very well indeed. Do try to work with him if possible. :) - ]<small>]</small> 06:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
::Whoa!. You and Proteus..... IMHO Proteus is generally peremptive, terse, and discourteous but he is almost always right. He understands nuances of MOS very well indeed. Do try to work with him if possible. :) - ]<small>]</small> 06:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
== Re: Incivil comments in edit summary at ] ==
You may want to avoid getting into an edit war at ], which is what appears to be happening. I saw your recent revert, and it appears that the edit you reverted showed no signs of vandalism at all. In addition, the use of the phrase "incorrigible idiot" in the edit summary constitutes a ]. If you feel that the edits of the user in question do not significantly improve the article in question, please take it up on the articles talk page. If the user in question refuses to enter into a discussion, then you may bring it up at ], but being rude and ] and continuing to revert edits as vandalism when they are clearly not will not serve you well. --]|]|] 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Paul venter, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, 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! --Bhadani14:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
CMB
Hi Paul,
Just wanted to let you know now that the question has been archived that I haven't forgotten our discussion, I'd just got to the point where I wanted to refresh my memory of the stuff involved before I got myself in any deeper. I will get back to you when I've managed to find a decent chunk of uninterrupted time to really concentrate on it and get it straight in my own head before trying to explain it to you. Probably best if we carry on on talk pages, though, if that's OK with you? --Bth15:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bth (ith, jth, kth?)
The world around us has waited for a few billion years for us to stumble on its mechanisms - a few weeks more will make no difference. However, I'm getting close to my threescore and ten.... never know when one's going to pop off! Thanks for the time and effort - I'm genuinely appreciative. --Paul venter17:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Paul venter, you put the {{helpme}} template on your talk page. How may I help you? When you answer, please put {{helpme}} after the question again so that we know when to look again. - Tangotango14:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
hi tangotango
thx for coming to the rescue - i have uploaded an image of Canary Pine bark and would like to place it on the Canary Pine page.....how do i go about it.
Hello, I reverted your edits to Pine because we are using the spelling "Pinyon" on Misplaced Pages articles. Thanks, and happy editing! SCHZMO✍22:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually the way to move articles is with the "move" button (to the right of the "history" button), as discussed at WP:MOVE. We move articles instead of copy and pasting so the history of the article (who wrote it etc) remains with the article. I have fixed up the move. Sydney Robert Liebbrandt now exists as a redirect to the article (when you move a page, it automatically creates the redirect, which is very handy).--Commander Keane07:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pincan21a.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 14:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Helpme
Image:Drakensburgmountains.jpg should be renamed Drakensberg.jpg . "burg" means town in Afrikaans - "berg" is the correct spelling and means "mountain". The image illustrates the article Drakensberg and the suffix "-mountains" is a repetition of "berg" . How does one correct this? --Paul venter21:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There isn't an easy way. Since the image is on the commons you would need to go to the commons, save the image to your hard disk then upload it under the correct name. Then get someone at commons to delete the old image. Also, you would need to change every article (possibly in other languages) that uses the image. Keep in mind that the article title doesn't need to be accurate, it's just a file name.--Commander Keane14:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded an image called Magaliesberg01.jpg, but the article Magaliesberg doesn't show the thumbnail!!!??? What stupid thing have I done (or not done)? Thx --Paul venter19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC) ((helpme))
License tagging for Image:MAGALIES.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:MAGALIES.JPG. Misplaced Pages gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:Drakensberg.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Drakensberg.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
OK, I've done most of them. "Ironwood" and "Red cedar" are still unclear however... Also, some the common names correspond to more than one species, so for these I chose the most common reference. --Schzmo12:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Swietenia mahagoni
Hi Paul - Swietenia mahagoni is the correct spelling (I know it's not what one might expect, but it is the spelling used in the original scientific description) - MPF00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; IPNI actually list all the variant spellings without favouring or rejecting any; looking through their Swietenialist, the basionym is Cedrela mahagoni L. Syst. Nat., ed. 10. 2: 940. 1759; it was transferred to Swietenia by Jacquin in 1760, and as afr as I can tell from the IPNI listings, that remains the correct name in Swietenia; the other spellings are all later (Lamarck on the early 1800s, and de Candolle a little later) and thus synonyms under the ICBN. The USDA GRIN also use Swietenia mahagoni, and they are generally very reliable in their nomenclature. I can't find any info to suggest there's been a formal proposal to change the spelling - MPF12:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit to James Kitching (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot417:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Umm, under the GFDL you can't pull stuff as other people have edited it. I've put it back to the image less one and sent a cpl emails til I can figure out what happened -- Tawker22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Images
In almost every case, images taken from websites or other areas on the net are not qualifing as "fair-use"..there are exceptions, but at this time, I believe that Misplaced Pages is going to do all it can to reduce the number of fair use images in this website to protect the GFDL license we operate under. When you go the upload page...you'll see a red box with the following:
Images found on websites or on an image search engine should not be uploaded to Misplaced Pages.
(For exceptions, see Misplaced Pages:Fair use and Misplaced Pages:Free image resources.)
Click on the Misplaced Pages:Fair use and the Misplaced Pages:Free image resources blue links to learn more about we can and cannot upload into the website. The policies on these matters are not designed to discourage people from not editing but only to ensure we don't post copyrighted material, which keeps the chances of the website being sued minimized. Thanks.--MONGO08:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have the permission to use the images and it comes from the person or entity that holds the copyrights, then you must demonstrate that on the upload page of the images.--MONGO11:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Has the copyright holder released the images into the public domain or allowed them to be used as free use? If the email you have says this and they understand this, then reupload the images with a copy and paste of the email or a copy and paste of a scanned letter demostrating that he/she has done this...then select the proper license from the license drop down tag...either "Attribution share alike 2.5" or "Attribution 2.5" I believe and upload the images. I never upload any images unless they are completely within the public domain or ones I have taken myself...so I don't know if I can direct you any better than this...let me know where the images are by linking me to the upload pages...or I'll just watch your edits and see how you do and try to make the corrections. I would have to say that the copyright issues regarding images is one of the most complicated things the regular editor will deal with, but once you figure it out, it starts to come naturally.--MONGO15:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The image rendering software for wikipedia is messed up right now...make sure you add a scan of either the mail of the letter you recieved releasing the images as free use or into the public domain to the licensing section and/or a a note to check the discussion page of the image upload to see the notification of release.--MONGO16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Comments in Big Bang Article
Paul, on the Big Bang talk page you wrote that, "The history of science revolves around the contributions of dedicated and brilliant amateurs.(Perhaps this is material for an article that might instil some hubris in arrogant professional scientists). My view of a scientist is perhaps slightly broader than that he should have some paper qualification certifying his expertise in some narrow field. As for experience, a lot of professional scientists seem to confuse that with growing older, or with how many trivial papers they have published in a suitably prestigious journal. I have found throughout my life, that the true scientist is neither arrogant nor patronising, that he is unstinting in giving of his time, and that his curiosity about the world around him, knows no bounds. These are the people who stand out from the common crowd. Science is shamed by such vainglorious strutting."
Aside from your use of the word hubris as an antonym for arrogance (when it in fact is a synonym of it), I completely agree with the substance of your statement. Which is why - rather than strutting around in life talking about how great science is and lording it over other people - I have instead devoted myself to a tireless effort of public education, outreach, public lectures, tours of research facilities, volunteering at elementary schools, high schools, and colleges, tutuoring, collaborating with people from all over the world, and pushing myself to be a life-long learner, taking every difficult class I can and reading books for which there are no classes. In my enthusiasm for sharing this knowledge (and more to the point of improving the quality of articles here on Misplaced Pages), it may come across as hubris to you but you are honestly the first person who has mentioned something like that to me. And while your statements above ring true for science as a philosophy, that "amateurs" have been the backbone of scientific progress it is important to note that the amateurs you speak of have been individuals who have dedicated their lives and passion to studying those fields and support fields like physics and mathematics. They may have been amateurs but they also had aptitude. This category of lifelong passion is the one into which I fall, and in fact only recently did I finish my graduate degree and become, formally, a scientist. I have however been a scientist long before I got a degree, and while the degree doesn't make a scientist for sure the aptitude does and must. You cannot pick a person at random off the street and find that they have an aptitude for differential equations or the operation of x-ray spectrometers, or even basic calculus 101 for that matter. So when an individual with aptitude offers her or his expertise, it would be naive to call that hubris, especially when there is so much confusion and misconception on so many topics wihtin the sciences as fundamental as the second law of thermodynamics, basic vector algebra, and so on. So please don't take my comments on the Big Bang talk page as a personal slight against you. My desire, as always, is to hold Wiki articles to the highest standards and to share knowledge with others on topics for which many have opinions but few spend their lives devoted to the exploration of. My experience in the fields of astrophysics and engineering make me an asset to that end, not an arrogant liability. (please forgive all the prepositions) Regards, Astrobayes22:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Astrobayes, quite right about hubris - I should parse my writing before hitting SAVE. Competence and aptitude, I am afraid, are not sufficient qualities to vouchsafe a scientist. In all my years of working with and in the scientific community, I have come to realise that there are vapid people sheltering behind the protective mantle of PhD's and the security of tenure. These same people are regarded as competent in their field. What they lack is quite simply curiosity about any other areas of life. To me, this curiosity is the only redeeming quality that we have and supersedes altruism, charity, love and of course faith and hope. I could happily share a desert isle with Adolf Hitler or Gengis Khan, because I think they would be truly interesting people and not the thorough villains which society has brainwashed us into believing. I digress....
To return, one of the necessary marks of the scientist (to my mind, obviously) is a curiosity about all things, and this desire to know can crop up in the most unexpected places. I have taught the basics of science to all sorts of people, and once in a while that golden moment arrives when you can sense the excitement and awe of someone's understanding a difficult concept for the first time - these occasions are precious. Somewhere in Misplaced Pages I wrote some rules for volunteers working on the reference desk to bear in mind before dismissing a question as frivolous or idiotic. Part of it was a reminder that potential scientists can come from the most unpromising backgrounds and that the treatment they receive, can douse the spark or turn it into a raging fire. Therefor, watch out for the facile use of labels like AMATEUR or INCOMPETENT, because they very easily turn into blinkers that can blind one to the truth.
Paul, you and I apparently share the same passion for life and curiosity about Nature. We might both agree with Einstein, who said "the great mystery of the Universe is its comprehensibility." I look forward to contributing to some of the same articles with you here on Wiki in the future, as we both have the same goal. And again, if what I stated came across as hubris, please accept my apologies. I cannot mask my enthusiasm to share my experiences working in the field of astrophysics and physics in general, but indeed you're right that it bears considering the backgrounds and sensibilities of others. Any can have passion about the natural world, and a little patience goes a long way. I must admit that I have grown frustrated over the years with some of my students not caring about science and math, and not only registering for the course ("to get the credit") but also then arguing about the subject material or sleeping through a discussion. I didn't intend for that frustration to translate over to my contributions and comments in Wiki. ...something for me to think about. Take care, and may the (c,G,W/Z,g) be with you! Cheers, Astrobayes18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Chris, I suppose one could use words like 'misrepresent', 'prevaricate', 'dissemble' and a dozen other euphemisms. However there is really no more polite or straightforward way of saying it. You provoke reaction by your unbelievably autocratic tactics, and your failure to apologise to your fellow editors for these actions, inclines one to believe that power has gone to your head. Then when your fellow editors respond in outrage, you shelter behind quotes from the Misplaced Pages policy. As I have pointed out to you, your actions might fall within the strict letter of Misplaced Pages rules, but the spirit you display is deplorable and will only serve to alienate other editors. Paul venter18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Paul, I saw the list of passengers you added to the Comair article. I suggest that a separate page be added to Misplaced Pages to list the passengers and crew of Comair 5191. Other aircraft crash articles on Misplaced Pages do not include the entire passenger list. I have no intention of editing the article to change or remove the list, but if this were a separate article with a link to it from Comair 5191 then the same thing is accomplished. Mfields112:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Paul, one other thing, I noticed someone has used your User page to write something that ought to be on your talk page. You may want to edit it. Normally your user page should only be editted by you. Mfields112:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You are now in violation of the three-revert rule. You shall immediately cease and desist from re-inserting the list of victims on Comair Flight 5191 or you shall find yourself blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for increasingly long periods of time.--chris.lawson23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Hello William, I think quite possibly I don't understand the 3 revert rule. The list of passengers which I added to the Comair accident article has been removed by chrislawson repeatedly. I have made what I feel to be a case on the discussion page for including the passenger list in the body of the article - I presume you read the relevant portions. The only reaction I got to my suggestion, was a revert. Now I'm a bit puzzled, so please enlighten me - if I added to the article and crislawson removed the information more than 3 times, is he not the person contravening the 3RR? regards Paul venter10:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Were that the case, then yes. But if you look at the edit history, thats not what happened. As I see it, you reverted >3 times in 24h, and no-one else has. Talking about it is good, but doesn't prevent you being blocked William M. Connolley11:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm. Chrislawson is far too canny to be caught like that - he makes use of the services of his sidekicks VxSote, LrdChaos, Peyna and Dblevins2. Have a good day! Paul venter11:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please take the time to read the comments by Mfields and Mytwocents on the chris.lawson talk page. I really don't mind being blocked unjustly, but if it were done without your having read the background to this dispute, it would distress me greatly. Cheers Paul venter11:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I have also reverted the anti-concensus change for which you got a 3RR block, and I am certainly nobody's sidekick. Not even close.
In fact, this is a textbook example of why the 3RR policy works: If it really were a no-concensus one-on-one battle between you and another editor, then you are absolutely right, both would be guilty of 3RR and blocked accordingly. But that's not the case. Four or five editors have reached concensus, and you refused to accept that concensus.
Just because I happen to agree with Chrislawson doesn't make me some kind of lackey or sidekick, and it's offensive to accuse people of that. --Jaysweet13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Really! You happen to agree with lawson all the time; coincidence? I don't think so. If you can't think and act for yourselves and can only function when you're part of a gang, then you have no business in the pages of Misplaced Pages. And certainly if you can't spell consensus, then what are you doing editing? Incidentally, you should look up the meaning of the word - it is used to indicate a trend of thinking and wrongly to denote unanimity. In which sense did you use it? Paul venter14:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"You happen to agree with lawson all the time," you say?? Please see this section of the Talk page, where I accuse Chrislawson of failing to assume good faith because of his handling of another editor's contributions. (Incidentally, you can also see Peyna disagreeing with lawson at the bottom of that same section... "sidekicks" indeed!) I had only two interactions on that Talk page involving lawson, and in one of them I accused him of a serious policy violation! How can I possibly be his lackey?!?
I am a 100% independent editor, and it is an insult to me that you would accuse me of being someone's puppy-dog and agreeing with him or her as a matter of policy.
In fact, it turns out that I might agree with you on certain things -- I also believe that Misplaced Pages policies are too restrictive in some cases about what information should be included. I think that the desire to be "enyclopedia-like" is causing WP to jettison valid and useful content.
But you wanna know something? This website is 100% free. No fees, not even ads. Since we're not living in Communist Russia, that means somebody is writing the checks. Money for servers, money for storage space, money for bandwidth... As long as that's the case, I'm going to abide by the policies of the folks in charge. If that means excluding content I think would be useful, so be it. I don't make the rules.
(And yeah, I admit I have a mental block on the spelling of "consensus" -- I do consistently get that word wrong, and believe it or not, I actually appreciate the reminder. My grammar and spelling are leagues beyond the average person, and I damn well know it, so I'm not going to go away with hurt feelings just because I got one word wrong. But you're right, I need to be more careful on that one.) --Jaysweet14:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact, your last edit is another 3RR vio. I advise you to self-revert it, because if anyone asks for you to be blocked for it, you probably will be, and for longer this time William M. Connolley11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe Paul's ridiculous and unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry against numerous editors are reason enough to extend the block, but if not, I'll make a formal suggestion that his sixth reversion is ample grounds for extending it without taking his gross violations of WP:CIVIL into account.--chris.lawson00:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Chris -- please see this section of my Talk page. I absolutely agree that Paul has made some unjustified accusations, but he has not made any more reversions since I confronted him, and I think we are gradually reaching a point of understanding. As you can see above, I was upset as anyone about his wild finger-pointing, but I think we may have convinced him there is no secret conspiracy here. If Paul can refrain from anti-consensus reversions in the future, I would actually oppose a block. (However -- and no offense to you, Paul -- I would suggest a one-more-strike-and-you're-out policy here) --Jaysweet05:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Paul: please avoid making unfounded accusations merely because someone disagrees with your point of view. From looking at your talk page, it's obvious that you have had issues with 3rr abuse - but that doesn't give you the right to toss the term about when a change is made to your edits. Thank you. --Ckatzspy16:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Ckatz, please understand that the accusation is not unfounded about your reverts - they are clearly recorded on the Eris history page. Secondly, the accusation is not linked to any disagreement - this is the first time you have responded to the note I left about your revert and your response has been marked by wild counter-accusations. Lastly, if you have a problem with my making Eris' number intelligible to the average reader, then please say so, and be kind enough to explain why. Paul venter16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Paul, first off, I've removed the copy of your reply that was pasted onto the talk page for Eris. We are discussing this matter here, and placing your reply on that page - without any context - is not required. --Ckatzspy16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, you accused me of approaching 3rr for two edits separated by (if I recall correctly) 30 hours. That is not, by any definition, approaching 3rr. When you apply that label, in a situation where it is not justified, it puts an unfair spin on the conversation. Also, we were disagreeing - you want to add a link to the asteroid list, others (including myself) don't. --Ckatzspy16:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I don't "have a problem with my making Eris' number intelligible to the average reader," as you so kindly stated. However, your link does not help to clarify the situation. It merely points people to a long list of minor planet designations, without any context or explanation. If anything, it will confuse the "average reader" by leading them to think that Eris is an asteroid - which it most definitely is not. --Ckatzspy17:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ckatz, Unlike you I don't remove comments that reflect poorly on me from my page - I'd rather retain a true record of the comments I've had. Secondly, I know that you disagree with me on the asteroid list issue, but to date you have not explained why. Having the support of other editors doesn't automatically make it right, otherwise we'll soon be voting on whether 2+2=4, and if the majority say it's 5, then we'll just have to accept it. Democracy in action. By the way, do look at the Misplaced Pages article asteroid - you might learn something. Enjoy your day. Paul venter17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Paul, did you read the third point above before writing your last comment? Also, there's a big difference between removing "comments that reflect poorly" and comments that are unfair. On my page, I leave the fair comments (as anyone who looks at it will see) and remove the unjustified accusations. --Ckatzspy17:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ckatz, No, I had not read your 3rd point, because when I replied you had not yet added it. However, if you read the Eris talk page you will see that I stated very clearly that a body of professional astronomers had added Eris to the list of asteroids, and I certainly am not going to disagree with them. Also, if you read asteroid, you will see that the name includes a great deal more than you seem to think. Finally, weeding out the comments you regard as unfair, tells me something about you. May wisdom smite your brow. Paul venter17:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Paul, two points: first, I had added the point before you replied - the log shows that quite clearly. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, you could well have started to write your comment while I was saving mine - but then you would have received the "edit conflict" dialogue when you went to save. Whatever - it's not really that important. However, reflecting back on the comment you left on my page yesterday ("I know that Eris is not considered an asteroid now, but when it was discovered the astronomers did not have the benefit of our 20-20 hindsight and added it to the list of asteroids."), you should note that Eris was added to the catalogue of minor planets on September 7th, 2006. The number was also assigned at that time. That would seem to rule out the notion of "hindsight". --Ckatzspy18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ckatz, Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt - I don't lie or twist situations to show myself in a better light. Not that it's important, but your analysis of the timing is spot on, including the "conflict of edit". And quite right about my misconception yesterday re asteroids - I read quite a bit about them between then and today, so that I certainly had a few mistaken notions cleared up as well (I hope yours were too!!). You know I hate this point-scoring and I live in the fond hope that two putatively intelligent people approaching the same problem from entirely different points of view might just come to an agreement about how best to resolve it. Lechaim! Paul venter22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ckatz,the TNO link, besides being in chronological order (which makes it difficult to locate Eris), contains less information than the list of asteroids - no discoverers or telescope location fields. The text at the bottom of the list of asteroids page also provides a full explanation of the system used. I've set the link back to the asteroid list. Hope this meets with your approval. Paul venter06:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: Eris
I removed the links because they are innapropriate in the lead sentance of the article. The designation "136199 Eris" is an alernative designation of the dwarf planet Eris, which is why it is bold in the lead. In addition, the links were innapropriate given the context in that section. The link to the list of minor planets would fit much better in the "see also" section at the bottom of the article, and the link to Eris (mythology) was redundant, seeing as it is also linked in the name section of the article, where it has a much better context. For more information, please see WP:CONTEXT. shaggy18:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree that the link to the list of minor planets is relevant, and a link to an explanation of the number would also be relevant. I question putting them in the lead section of the article, but I would support such an explanation in the name section of the article. It's so nice to have a civil conversation about a disputed edit for once :) shaggy19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
As one who has previously contributed to the above article, you might be interested to know that the Early life of Jan Smuts (childhood and early adulthood, 1870-1895) is up for FA nomination at the moment. Any contribution, whether a vote for/against or a suggestion for improvement, would be very much appreciated. The eventual intention is to raise Jan Smuts and its detailed sub-articles to FAs - this is the first to be completed and to go forward for nomination.
See the comment when I changed this to ball. A sphere is technically the surface of a ball. The Latin means ball. Though some people call this a sphere, this word is ambiguous, whereas ball is not. Am I being reasonable here? Stephen B Streater20:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello Stephen, Chambers: "sphere - 1.a solid figure bounded by a surface etc : 2.its bounding surface" When I studied geometry we differentiated between the solid and the surface by using "sphere" and "spherical surface" which I suppose was technical. "Ball" comes in for the same degree of ambiguity - think of cricket ball (solid) and tennis ball (hollow shell). Language can be a devil, and when you consider that it's all we have, it's all the more amazing that we don't have dozens of disasters like the Mars Lander which cost the taxpayer billions, because one team was working in miles and the other in kilometres - very distressing! The real question of course, is whether to apply ball or sphere, ambiguous as both are, to a globular cluster which is neither solid nor a hollow shell; which makes one wonder whether the person who originally used the term in this context (of globular cluster), was simply casting around for a phrase which would denote a spherical shape, without deep philosophical implications about its internal solidity.
I just think on balance that 'sphere' sounds so much more rounded and technical, don't you? Paul venter22:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I come from a mathematical background that agrees with the sphere article definition. I agree that to many people, a sphere is not S, but a solid shape, and a ball is something you play games with. The article is supposed to be aimed at the general reader, so perhaps sphere is more clear and scientific to them. Stephen B Streater22:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:Gandhi1.jpg
Hi, you are using Image:Gandhi1.jpg under fair use. It would be fair use only if used to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design). I have added the {{fair use disputed}} tag to the image. Please let me know if there are any questions -- Lost17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Linnaeus00.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Linnaeus00.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliments, but I was not me that added the picture, nor that removed the full name.
Sorry, but I didn't understand your question. Cheers.-- Berton16:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Podocarpus macrophyllus inumaki part.jpg
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.
Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. YellowDot20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have fixed it for you. There were a couple problems:
When I lined the image name, it showed up as a red link, meaning such image does not exist. Therefore I could not verify your claim.
You did not provide all the original info: author, upload date, location, decription, etc. Author and link to source were the most important things you missed.
You selected a wrong tag. You have to license any modifications under the same license as the original author. Therefore {{wikipedia-screenshot}} was completely unsuitable.
Please be more careful next time, and provide as much info in the description field as possible. It always helps. YellowDot00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Cedara00.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cedara00.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Can we discuss your stellar sorting addition on the globular cluster page, rather than turning this into an edit war? — RJH (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
But of course - I didn't think that an editing war was in the offing.... Do you not feel that the addition properly belongs in an article on globular clusters? I have to admit that I was rather puzzled as to the reason for the rather peremptory removal of the addition and thought that I had run foul of one of those self-appointed guardians of articles - one finds them, unfortunately, all over WP, and they seem to be more concerned with imposing their will, rather than advancing knowledge of a subject. So I do hope one can have an amicable collaboration. Have an excellent day. Paul venter21:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This needs to be made into an encyclopedia article or it will be deleted. This article must be written from a neutral point of view citing sources. See other articles for examples
Thanks for uploading Image:4711a.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Misplaced Pages and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)22:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mcsa00.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mcsa00.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Misplaced Pages and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The following images were uploaded by you, but are currently not in use. They have been tagged as public domain (PD), either as PD-self or other PD claim, or equivilant. These unused PD images may be subject to deletion as orphans. You may wish to add them to an article, tag them for copying to WP commons {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} or if they are no longer needed, they can be nominated for deletion by following the easy three step process at Images and media for deletion. If you have any questions, please leave me a note on my talk page. --Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr.)22:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Gay Cdn, If they're orphans, they must go. It would be a good idea to have a clean-up procedure in place, so that at the end of an upload session, one could remove the unnecessary clutter images. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Paul venter07:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Robth, Permission was granted via a phone conversation with Mike Raath of the Institute. I'm sure that if my word on this is not sufficient, I can obtain an email from Raath to confirm. It really is a pity that AED is pursuing these maliciously petty actions; there obviously is an enormous gulf between our goals and agendas. Have an excellent day. Paul venter06:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do obtain an email; we need to have a record of the release, and make sure that the copyright holder understands the terms they are releasing the content under. --Robth
Herewith the reqd email copy
Hello Paul,
Appended below is an exchange between me and Bruce Rubidge, in which he
says you can go ahead with the material you asked for. Is this
sufficient for the Misplaced Pages people?
Mike
Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Misplaced Pages article on James Kitching
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:19:26 +0200
From: Bruce Rubidge <rubidgeb@geosciences.wits.ac.za>
To: <raathm@geosciences.wits.ac.za>
References: <4561D585.4030602@geosciences.wits.ac.za>
Dear Mike
I am happy that they go ahead - it is always nice if they simply say Source
is BPI Palaeontology. Will see you at tea time
Bruce
Original Message -----
From: "Mike Raath" <raathm@geosciences.wits.ac.za>
To: "Prof Bruce Rubidge" <rubidgeb@geosciences.wits.ac.za>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 6:19 PM
Subject: Misplaced Pages article on James Kitching
> Bruce,
>
> Some time ago a man called Paul Venter contacted me to ask if he could
> use one of the photos of the dinosaur eggs and embryos in a piece he was
> doing on James Kitching for the 'Misplaced Pages' website. I told him that since
> it was already in the public domain, as long as he properly acknowledged
> it, it was OK. He has subsequently come back to ask if he might use other
> material that is on the BPI website for the same purpose. Initially I told
> him the same -- acknowledge it, and you can use it. He has now come back
> to say that the Misplaced Pages owners want an email from us confirming that we
> don't mind, and also confirming that once it is on their site, anyone can
> use it without copyright problems. I asked Paul to let me know just what
> material he was wanting to use, and that I would then put it to you as
> Director of the BPI.
>
> He has replied to say it is the material dealing with James that is on the
> BPI website, specifically what is in the 'History' page, as well as
> 'Research' and 'Journal'. My feeling is to say 'go ahead', but it really
> is up to you. What do you think?
>
> Mike
--
Dr Mike Raath
University Collections Curator
c/o BPI (Pal), Wits University
email: raathm@geosciences.wits.ac.za
Phone: +27-11 717-6683
Fax: +27-11 403-1423
Could you please forward that to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org? We need to have it in the records. --Robth20:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Selig Percy Amoils
Please do not remove properly sourced material from articles. It is vandalism. And please read WP:BLP. There is no requirement to consult living people on the content of their articles.--Runcorn13:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The following note was posted on Runcorn's talk page - Hi Runcorn, I would like to draw your attention to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons This policy in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material.
Jewishness is a very sensitive issue with some people and before placing Amoils in that category, I think that in terms of the guideline above, the very least that should be done before categorising, is to ask the subject for his feelings on the matter. Just a thought..... Have a good day. Paul venter 13:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
and noticed the following on the same page -
Tagging living people as Jews
Dear Runcorn,
perhaps it is time that we had a general discussion at the village pump. Would you care to join it? Bellbird 10:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
In what strange recess of your mind do you feel that removing an inflammatory category from an article is vandalism? Please check the meaning of the word - I'm not here to fill the gaps in your education. Paul venter07:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Paul - thanks for adding the African species to the species list, a very useful improvement which makes the page better reflect the diversity of the genus. Do you have a reference for them you could add to the refs list, please? - thanks, MPF12:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi MPF - have done so. Rod Moffett has recently revised the genus, so I'll get a new list from him and paste it on the page. Cheers Paul venter20:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks! Best to keep the species list as just covering species; the varieties and subspecies belong on the relevant species pages (when they get written!). - MPF11:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
PS I did a search on the web for Bernard Landgraf and found some pictures, like his featured pictures of the day for the Red panda, but that is taken in a zoo. Similarly, his featured lynx picture, has the makings of a zoo picture. My only concern is that if the snow leopard picture was taken in a zoo, then it doesn't make as much sense in the section on conservation (in the wild), even though I agree with you that it gives a much better idea of the physical form of the snow leopard. The picture of the cub in the national park in Ladakh will then make more sense, especially since the news report is about Ladakh. That's why the caption is important. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
PPS Hi again, I checked the Bernard Landgraf image and it is taken with a Cannon EOS 20D digital camera, which is not a camera a wildlife photographer would normally use. Given the difficulty of photographing snow leopards in the wild, it makes it highly likely that the Landgraf image was taken in a zoo. I am therefore putting the Ladakh image back into the article, but I have altered it to make it bigger and to make the physical form more visible. However, I like the Landgraf image. When the article is expanded a little more, which I plan to do, I will put the Landgraf image back in. Will that be OK with you? Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sorry! should have put in details, but there simply weren't any. The image comes from Wikimedia - click on the logo on the Snow Leopard page. Perhaps the person who uploaded it Bernard Landgraf?? might know. Paul venter12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gelada00.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gelada00.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot12:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Rosa Hope01.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Rosa Hope01.JPG. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 22:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Pinhal11a.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Pinhal11a.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you created this image yourself, please look at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#For image creators, select one of those tags, and add it to the image. To do that, simply go to Image:Pinhal11a.jpg, click "edit this page", and add the appropriate tag. Be sure to remove the current tag indicating a lack of licensing!
Thank you for uploading Image:Pincan21a.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you created this image yourself, please look at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#For image creators, select one of those tags, and add it to the image. To do that, simply go to Image:Pincan21a.jpg, click "edit this page", and add the appropriate tag. Be sure to remove the current tag indicating a lack of licensing!
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mother Teresa2.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mother Teresa2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
John Hutchinson (botanist)
Thank you for editing the article on Victoria Medal (horticulture) by adding in John Hutchinson. Just a couple of things, (1) I have corrected the link to John Hutchinson piping it to John Hutchinson (botanist) (it is always good to preview and check one's links); (2) we need a reference that shows that John Hutchinson was awarded the honour and what year he received it (the dates after each name are the year they received the award, and the names are listed in chronological order of award date). As you may note, I have fixed the award. It was 1944. Thanks again for your edits. --Bejnar19:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Cats
Given the length of your contribution history, I was very surprised to see three weird, empty articles: "Classification: Germany: People: By occupation: German ...s". Please read Help:Category. -- RHaworth08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Haworth, Yes I'm afraid I'm having great problems in categorising properly. If you look at Kurt Dinter and click on the categories of German taxonomists and German collectors, then you find the categories almost empty - I can only assume that these are orphan categories and that somehow I have misplaced Kurt Dinter. The tutorial on new categories I find very confusing. If you can help I'd be most appreciative. Paul venter08:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the answers are: category:German collectors is simply too vague to be worth having - it would lump together collectors of Meissen porcelain, stamp collectors and butterfly collectors. I am slightly surprised there is not even a category:Taxonomists but I think the answer is that these people are better categorised under the branch of biology they worked in. -- RHaworth09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mel Etitis, Someone obviously showed bad judgement in giving you blocking powers to enforce your POV. The consensus you talk about consists of three editors who are hidebound in their conservatism and interpretation of guidelines. Block to your heart's content, and the only thing it will prove is your abuse of power which you should not have been given in the first place. Paul venter14:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
First, I didn't say that I'd block you; I can guarantee, though, that someone will. Secondly, it isn't only three editors; I counted at least five editors beside myself, all of whom disagree with you. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Paul, please desist from making personal attacks on my attitude and views and whether they are beneficial or not. I am trying really hard to assume good faith on your part, respect your views, and build a consensus in keeping with what everyone has to say. I expect the same courtesy from you.Rueben lys 12:25, 11 March 2007
(UTC).
First of all, if you wish to leave any messages for me (which I hope you won't), please do so in the talk page. Secondly, if you see here I have consistenetly tried to respect your views and tried to make you see mine (ours). In fact everyone has before you've started calling everyone dinosaurs and Tyrannosaurs etc etc and accused them baselessly of engaging personal attacks and ultimately managed to piss them off. I have even gone to the request for comment to solve this issue, to build a broader consensus with more editors. Thirdly, you've consistently tried not to see anybody else's point, and insisted that you're point holds or the photo gets withdrawn, much like a school kid wanting to get included in the team. And lastly, I have stopped assuming good faith on your part, because obviously you do not wish to engage in a constructive process. I do not wish to carry on this conversation. Please do not post on my talk page (or even my user page) unless if it's a matter of life-and-death.Rueben lys14:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: I did not understand what you meant by your message.
"I have consistenetly tried to respect your views" "huge abominable photo" "quite a rude shock actually" Rueben, these are your comments and if you can't laugh hysterically when you see their inconsistency, then you really do wear rose-coloured blinkers about yourself. Paul venter16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Bhadani, I find that the person who supplied the above photo misunderstood the terms of free licensing. I would therefor appreciate it if you could put this image up for speedy deletion. Much obliged Paul venter14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure or is it your guess? I personally feel that the grand mother may have supplied the picture for personal use of the recipient, but we should ask the recipient. What do you suggest? --old man18:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Charles Davidson Bell03.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Charles Davidson Bell03.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi Bhadani, thank you for sorting out the Jonty Rhodes image. I have another problem with which I would appreciate your help. I started an article under the title of George Albu which was moved to Sir George Albu, 1st baronet and then moved to George Albu, 1st baronet. Wiki guidelines suggest that the suffix should never be used without the prefix, and that if possible the title should read plain John Smith or in this case George Albu. The system objects if I try to revert it, so could you please put the article back under George Albu. Much obliged Paul venter06:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Magaliesberg00a.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
There are 5 shown there - plus Sir David Harris who might be a knight or a baronet. Plus Graaf, makes 6 or 7. I am hoping to track down 12. - Kittybrewster (talk)09:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Shame
Shame you can't be civil. It somewhat amazes me that you are ignoring so many people. Many people have now told you how the article should he correctly titled, yet you ignore them. May I remind you do not own the article, so comments like "Article Under Construction" and "I know this must be difficult for you, but would you mind keeping your hands off this article until I have finished it?" (to Proteus) are totally unwarranted. Anyone may edit a Misplaced Pages article, and just because you created it you cannot tell other not to. --Berks10517:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you should be using long words like "polite" when you don't understand their meaning. As for the correct form for Lady XXXX, look at the Misplaced Pages counterexamples on your talk page. Have a good day Paul venter17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not quite sure what that was meant to achieve. Regardless many of the people on that list (and they weren't all people) are daughters of peers, so different rules apply. --Berks10517:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear I don't see you lasting long on Misplaced Pages unless you start being more polite to people and remember that Misplaced Pages is a joint effort. And the counterexamples, some weren't people, many were peers' daughters and many were redirects. --Berks10517:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware that they weren't all people - I was not going to waste my time sifting through them for your benefit. Next time you quote Wiki policy, kindly add a link I can follow so as to be just as enlightened as you. Also I have great difficulty in being polite to incorrigible idiots Paul venter17:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I see I'm myself and Proteus are idiots because we disagree with you. Well that makes you language perfectly acceptable of course! I really would advise that if you wish to get on well with people on Misplaced Pages, you should be polite to everyone. --Berks10517:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages are for discussion before being heavy-handed and changing things to your liking.....as for the "idiot" bit, if the shoe fits....Paul venter17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Amazing, you don't even back down, you just keep insulting. You are clearly not worth talking to, but as a last comment I will say my edits were not heavy-handed, they were fairly minor edits (adding 2 categories, changing the opening line to conform with MofS etc), and certainly not worthy of TalkPage before. --Berks10517:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I won't "keep my hands off" that article, or any others you've created. Firstly, Template:Underconstruction is intended to prevent edit conflicts whilst a major revamp is underway, not to stifle legitimate edits just because you like a particular article, and I'm going to remove it for that reason. Secondly, the fact that you've created an article doesn't give you the right to decide where it should be and how it should be formatted: such matters are matters of policy and WP usage, and aren't things to be sorted out as the article's being written, and I'm going to revert your edits reverting mine for that reason. I suggest, if you intend on being a constructive editor here, you learn how to interact with people on a reasonable basis, and not act as if you own a particular article, because, I'm sorry to have to tell you, you don't. Proteus(Talk)00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You do realise the index lists redirects as well? I'm certainly not searching through it looking for articles that support you. I'd like some examples, which you've said exist, of the wife of a knight being at "Lady Surname". I'm afraid the daughters of peers being at "Lady Forename Surname" (which is the correct place for them) is utterly irrelevant. Proteus(Talk)10:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I have put an {{Underconstruction}} tag at the top of articles you indicated you were working on.
Please add an {{Inuse}} tag on articles you are actively editting (and remove it when you are done for the day). This will help reduce edit conflicts. Thank you.
Whoa!. You and Proteus..... IMHO Proteus is generally peremptive, terse, and discourteous but he is almost always right. He understands nuances of MOS very well indeed. Do try to work with him if possible. :) - Kittybrewster (talk)06:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Incivil comments in edit summary at George Albu
You may want to avoid getting into an edit war at George Albu, which is what appears to be happening. I saw your recent revert, and it appears that the edit you reverted showed no signs of vandalism at all. In addition, the use of the phrase "incorrigible idiot" in the edit summary constitutes a personal attack. If you feel that the edits of the user in question do not significantly improve the article in question, please take it up on the articles talk page. If the user in question refuses to enter into a discussion, then you may bring it up at the administrators noticeboard, but being rude and incivil and continuing to revert edits as vandalism when they are clearly not will not serve you well. --Jayron32|talk|contribs05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
John Henry Turpin (1876–1962) was a sailor in the United States Navy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was one of the first African-American chief petty officers in the U.S. Navy, becoming a chief gunner's mate on the cruiser Marblehead in 1917. He was transferred to the Fleet Reserve in 1919 and retired in 1925. He is also notable for surviving the catastrophic explosions of two U.S. Navy ships: USS Maine in 1898, and USS Bennington in 1905.Photograph credit: unknown photographer; restored by Adam Cuerden
Archive – More featured pictures...
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
