User talk:DrKiernan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for your AFD comments. Looking at the BLP policy, there is no special treatment given to children so your comments are not correct.

We keep some children's articles, but not others. There needs to be equal treatment, keep all or delete all. That's why the others are listed. Otherwise, some people may be trying to delete black children's articles and not white children's (but we can't be certain who is voting like this and who isn't).

Watchingobama (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

What parts of WP:MOS would you like to purge? I'll probably help with about 95% of them.

The MOSNUM quarrel was about an effort to insert a corrective to the previous insertion, as easier than removal. I regret the actions of one side as much as the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've decided to concentrate on article-space for the moment. MoS-reform will just soak up my energy and time that I would prefer to spend elsewhere. Ultimately, MoS pedantry can be ignored, and doesn't really affect content. Whereas content itself needs checking and monitoring everywhere. DrKiernan (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
If it would stay out of FA, which it does much of the time, I would agree. If you change your mind, buzz my talkpage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edwardian period infobox

Hi, I've reverted your edit on this. I've also removed the box from the bottom so the infobox at top is the sole source of information for 'preceded by' and 'Succeeded by'. I've added these infoboxes for a whole series of articles from Tudor period through Stuart period (England), Georgian era, English Regency and Victorian era to Edwardian period. I think they add a nice bit continuity between the historical eras! Hope you agree, Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not the continuity I disagree with, it's the style and format. The name of the article is repeated in big black text at the top of the box: it is already shown in big black type twice at the top of the page. There's no need to show it again. There is a frame around the image which is inside the frame of the box: I think this looks untidy and would prefer a single frame. DrKiernan (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've reduced the fontsize for the name at top of box and removed the frame around image as per your ideas. I'll do the same for all the articles in the series asap. cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mumia Abu-Jamal

How do you know, that google is carrying this video in violation of the creator's copyright? --Raphael1 23:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it says "Copyright Otmoor Productions 1996. All rights reserved." at the end of the film. DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you know, that google wasn't given the right to publish the video by Otmoor Productions, who owns the copyright? --Raphael1 18:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't. Nor do we know that they did. Hence, no link. DrKiernan (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for an article I read on this subject 10 years ago and was surprised to find no mention of it in the wiki article. Then I found it prominently featured on the "simple" wiki of the same article: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal#Claim_of_1992_confession. Has this article been deemed irrelevant? If not, it was in a major publication, so it should be cited, I feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorrk (talk • contribs) 20:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been moved to the companion article Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal. DrKiernan (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jordanus de Nemore

Thanks for your comments. I will work through them over the next few days. Some of them may not be feasible since absolutely nothing is known about him as a person, and certainly there is no image that has any valid meaning, other than some diagram from his text. But your points are good ones, and I appreciate the comments both for this article and for other ones that I have been working on. Thanks again.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Fox

Thanks for your improvements to George Fox Vernon White . . . Talk 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War of the Spanish Succession

Is up for Featured Article Review. Please take a look and see if you are interested in helping it come up to current standards. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assata Shakur

As the author of the Mumia article (or one of the authors?), I thought that you would be able to offer an informed review of the Assata Shakur article, which I have recently nominated for featured status. Savidan 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)