User talk:Ephebi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ephebi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

If you need help, check out Wikipedia: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!  --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On December 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norwood (charity), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello Ephebi, and thanks for creating this article, which GeeJo kindly nominated for the main page. In future feel free to self nominate - the majority of articles are selfnominated. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Dictionary of Biography

Hi, Ephebi - you seem to like editing articles about famous Australians from the past. I wonder if you would like to take a look the project page Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do/Australian Dictionary of Biography (Shortcut: WP:ADB) and see if you could help out to edit or create new articles. Thanks. - Diverman 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiliam Burges

Hi, have removed your dates for WB's father. Don't know the dates myself but those entered cannot be right as it would make him 110 at death and also he would have died after WB. Perhaps they could be re-instated if we can find the right ones. KJP1.


Sorry, again removed the dates before I saw your comment on my page. Will re-instate. However, I stillfind the dates highly implausible. Whilst WB did die young, it seems improbable that his father died aged 90. Also, sure I read somewhere that WB's inheritance from his father funded his early career - clearly such an inheritance would only materialise on the death of AB. Will check further.

KJP1 08:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Me again. Got a mate who knows much more than I about geneology to look into WB's father. You were quite right on death in 1886, apologies and congratulations. However, his reasearch shows AB as being 79 in the 1881 census and 84 in the year of his death. That would give a year of birth of 1802. But shall leave as 1796 for the present. But am heading to West Norwood tomorrow so will see if I can find the grave.

Regards.

Thanks for the directions. I shall see if I can post a photo.

KJP1 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

KJP1 19:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for Deletion discussion on Category:Burials

I have nominated Category:Burials and all its subcategories for deletion. You may comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 21#Category:Burials. Dr. Submillimeter 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House categories

I would suggest placing all houses that could be described as houses in the appropriate subcategories of Category:Houses, even if they were built very recently. Part of the problem with the "house" categories is that the difference between "house" and "building" is poorly defined. This was broguth up during some of the discussions, but we never really discussed the issue. The first definition given by http://www.m-w.com is "a building that serves as living quarters for one or a few families". That may be enough to distinguish between which buildings should and should not be placed in this category. (In this case, Citygate ecotower and BedZED should be left out of this category.)

If you want to separate older houses from newer houses, I suggest developing some type of objective inclusion criteria for separating them. One possibility is to seaparate houses by century (e.g. Category:19th century houses in London, Category:18th century houses in London, etc.). Another possibility is to use "listed" to distinguish older and newer houses. However, keep in mind that even 20th century buildings (such as the Trellick Tower) may be listed. (However, some people could call buildings such as the Trellick Tower "historic". I saw someone on BBC One and an article on the BBC website say this.)

I hope that this is helpful despite our disagreement on using the word "historic" in these category names. Dr. Submillimeter 18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you did not like my first suggestions on separating houses by century, how about Category:Houses in place built in the Nth century? Also, really consider writing more specific categories for listed buildings. What would be wrong with Category:Grade II listed houses in London as a subcategory of Category:Houses in London and Category:Grade II listed buildings in London? (The housing category seems like another problem.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Historic civil engineering landmarks

I just wanted to turn the category into a proper noun (Category:Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks). (I almost nominated it for deletion, but then I decided that the designation scheme is just like any other designation scheme used for categorization in Wikipedia.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, your comments are much clearer now. Dr. Submillimeter 15:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Letts

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. Don't worry about the quotes, it's no problem. I moved the article from "Thomas Letts" to Thomas Letts. It should be ok now. Cheers Paul20070 11:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Norwood

Just telling you that I must of mistakenly taken of the Lambeth one, but Upper Norwood does not in any way include Bromley! Bromley is not at the top of the hill and therefore not in Upper Norwood boundries! Bromley stops at Crystal Palace Parade, and then Croydon, Lambeth and Southwark take over. So I will be taking Bromley off the Upper Norwood page. Pafcool2 15:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pushback source

Hey, thanks for your add to the Pushback article. Do you perhaps have a source about Virgin Atlantic trying out towing a/c to the runway instead of taxiing? I find this an interesting fact, so I left it, but it would be really good if we could add a source for that. Thanks. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jumping in on someone else's conversation here, but they put out a press release on this about two weeks ago; it's probably on their website somewhere — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord-Lieutenants

Thank you for bringing that Royal Warrant up, it's a very interesting point. Do you know where these things get published? I'd like to see if there was a similar amendment to the order of precedence in England and Wales, but I couldn't find the Scottish Warrant in the London or Edinburgh Gazettes. Choess 20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knight's Hill

Is this edit correct? I'm not 100% certain so I haven't reverted it, but I think it is the Knight's Hill in W Norwood that was historically an outlying part of Tooting & not the one in Tulse Hill. (As the original author of the article, I am glad someone's at least taking enough of an interest in this article to edit it! Usually, once an article reaches GA status loads of people dive in and start adding to it, but this one seems of no interest to anyone... — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] political positions

You have a reasonable position, though one I don't obviously agree with. I believe the two people who supported the "potential..." rename were supporting something that would not have survived a renomination, but that's just my opinion, obviously. Bring it up on DRV and if others agree, it'll probably be changed. That would be fine with me.--Mike Selinker 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway

The Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway was authorised as a broad gauge railway but was not built as such. There were a few half-hearted attempts by the Great Western to force the company to lay a mixed gauge but the third rail was only laid on a short section and in such manner as to make it unusable.

The offical Board of Trade records in The National Archives are full of inspectors' reports complaining about the poor engineering and the failure to construct the broad gauge as laid down by Parliament, but in the end the arguements fizzled out and no broad gauge trains were ever run. This is why I do not believe it should appear in Category:Broad gauge (7 feet) railway companies. Geof Sheppard 12:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katrina

Hi, since you can't quote Wikipedia as a reliable source, I changed the ref to put the PDF used in the article you linked. I also added it was one of the five deadliest Hurricanes, since it is also written in the PDF. Cheers! -- lucasbfr talk 15:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Good point. Thanks. Ephebi 15:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Carbon credit

The POV is definitely better; a lot of the stated facts on both sides still need references, though. Thanks for your expertise! Mbarbier 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find where you'd moved my post on Carbon trading to Carbon tax. Can you help. John D. Croft 01:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of ???

Bizarre! Needless to say, that was not my suggestion - and the category I wanted dates added to was a different one. I am travelling or I might well have gone for Bhg´s suggestion. But anything that was appropriate under the old name should still be appropraite under the new one. Johnbod 12:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London congestion charge

Thanks for taking the time to read the report and improving the reporting of the effects. It's made a big difference to the readability of the article. Regan123 (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi and a belated Happy New Year. Do you think we should go for FA status on this now? --Regan123 (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • yep, I thinks its looking pretty good, and its stabilised quite well. PS - while you're at it, thought you might like to check out a new one I've done on Traffic in Towns aka Buchanan report - another seminal backgrounder from the 60's. Ephebi (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Done! Another well written article which I have rated as B class for WP:UKROADS (which I hope you'll join). Regan123 (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC) The Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London congestion charge review page is up and running. Regan123 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well it made it to Featured Article status. Well done on all your work on the article. Regan123 (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

What I'd recommend is periodically running your edits through AWB - select "Special page" from the drop-down menu, paste

Contributions&contribs=user&target=Ephebi&namespace=0&year=&month=-1 into the search box,

and select "make list"; check the "Enable regex spellcheck" and "Skip if no typo fixed" boxes; then, select "save settings as default" from the file menu. This will then skim through your last 1000 mainspace contribs for typos. You need to manually check all its suggestions, as the spellchecker's fairly hairtrigger and suggests a lot of false-positives.

When I get the chance, I try to run Recentchanges, Newpages and New account contributions through — an awful lot of new material is prodded/speedied for "looking messy", and this cleanup at least gives them a fighting chance. As long as you have a reasonable size monitor, you can leave AWB running in the background (check "low thread priority" in preferences) and periodically flip over to it to see what it's found. — iridescent 23:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs and punctuation

It apepars I slightly mis-spoke. The guidance isn't actually in the manual of style, it's here: Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place ref tags , neither is it any longer so cut and dried as to whether it should be before or after (so long as the articleis internally consistent), which I don't think was the case before my edits in any case. Personally, I think having the footnote after the punctuation is aesthetically more appealing, but that's a personal opinion of course. David Underdown (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi Eph, thanks for writing. I will attempt to explain the use of the new reference format that you encountered.

The manner in which Wikipedia cites reference sources can be found in {WP:REF} which is an extensive guide to how to cite sources but yet there is an interpretation of two factors that is involved. References as a bibliographical term is a nebulous one and is not specifically used in cataloging, rather it is a description of sources. The references area remains a kind of a "catch-all" in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research, then a "Further Reading" section can be established.

The actual cataloging terms in use in Wikipedia are "Notes" which refers to either footnotes or endnotes and "Bibliography" which is the full record of the information source. Quite a while back, and I do not know who actually began the practice of "nesting" the notes and bibliography sections, but an editor in the {Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography} project group had created a separate set of templates that incorporated the three terms, with "References" as a main heading (again primarily a Wikipedia convention not found in most published works) and the "Notes" appearing as endnotes using previously developed <reflist> templates, followed by "Bibliography" that uses the actual library cataloging terminology with the use of <refbegin> and <refend>.

One of the advantages to this new set of templates is that it places the endnotes in close proximity to the reference source, especially useful if there is a series or multiple citations from the same source. Another feature is that the new templates have condensed the text considerably and that is appreciated whenever a very lengthy list of bibliographic records is involved. See: Amelia Earhart as an example of how the templates have worked to conserve space. When the first instances of the use of this template became noticed in the Aviation Project Group, it was quickly adopted as a "clean" alternative to the earlier format of separate "Notes" and "References" section which was always clumsy as many editors prefered the use of the term, "Bibliography."

It still remains a matter of preference for editors as to which format to use and I have seen a number of other aliterations and variations on the theme but generally prefer a widely-accepted model that is able to incorporate both the "Notes" and "Bibliography" sections together yet keeping the main heading of "References" intact. In reading carefully the essays and other articles from proponents of various reference sourcing styles that you provided in your opening query on my talk page, you will note that the new templates do not change any of the previous section guides; in retrospect, the templates enhance the use of the previous notes and references sections without loss of information or major change to the bibliographic record.

FWIW, let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. I am also an editor (by trade) and an author who has worked with a myriad of editors from line to graphic and overall concept editors in five publishing houses. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the extant templates. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References" under the sub-heading of "Bibliography." In the Reggiane Re.2000 article for example, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. It is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing in citation/reference notes. The "true style guide" is not determined by Wikipedia but recommendations are made as to following recognized standards. It is always preferable to use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. As to the exact citations in question, they are written in the traditional "Author. "Title". Place of publication: Publisher, year." convention but being adapted to an electronic/digital source of information. Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

In terms of adoption of a style guide, I don't not believe there was ever a fulsome discussion on the various merits of either/or systems just a general acceptance that the earlier reference/notes did not allow for a determination of a bibliography and that the new format provided a clean alternative. FWIW The style guides provided by Wikipedia do not preclude this alteration. Bzuk (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Joshua Field (engineer)

Hello, I notice that you are interested in West Norwood Cemetery and have contributed to the above article and wondered if you could help me. I currently cannot find any information regarding the date of birth of Joshua Field and hope that you can help me out. I assume you live near to the cemetery, could you please check what date is shown on his grave? Please don't go out of your way to do this, it's just that I can't find any reference to it anywhere (other than it being in 1786) and I have checked almost everywhere for it. As i say don't do this unless you happen to be passing (It may well be that it's unknown!) it's not urgent it's just that the article looks a little incomplete without a birthdate. Thanks for any help you can give me - Dumelow (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • As you tell, I have a soft spot for our engineers. Unfortunately I don't have any more detailed info on his birth date to hand. In fact, one of the current DNB authors gives 1787–1863, which differs from teh Friend's biography & WP article. Although there are 300,000 burials in WNC his sarcophagus is in a very accessible area of the cemetery so it should be possible to track him down without having to don the wellies! Can't do anything for the next few days but will see what I can find out. If you know any more about him then do help expand the article! & if related then drop us an email via the Friends of WNC website (let me know here if you have) & we'll see if we can get a photo to you. Ephebi (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply, I haven't had much time lately. Thanks for agreeing to check the grave I am very grateful for that. I am always on the look out for more bio details for engineers to expand wp articles as some of the are very short and not very informative so i'll continue searching my university library. I am not related to him, but he was the first of my articles to correct the shortage of presidents of the ICE on wp, a subject i am interested in. If you can get an image easy enough that would be great, but it's not too important at the moment, I tend to steer clear of uploading images as I have not yet found the time to read all the copyright guidelines but I assume most images of him will be well out of copyright by now. Again thanks for the help. - Dumelow (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed you have cleaned up the above article and added references, thanks for that. - Dumelow (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Building Schools for the Future

Hi, placing references is not covered by the MoS - instead see: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Where to place ref tags. Personally I prefer the "Nature" style that is mentioned there, as opposed to the US style which was chosen by one American body in the 80s, as this keeps items within the same clause or section of the sentence, and helps readability, IMHO. The BFS article had a mixture of styles, and I had actually tidied it up for consistency before you changed it around again. I was just about to update the article with more info on the primary school programme, but I'll wait 'til you've seen this before proceeding, to avoid any more edit conflicts. Regards Ephebi (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I hadn't actually been aware of the multiple "accepted" variations of referencing, as I always thought it was the "CMoS" style that was Wiki standard. However, if either is deemed equally acceptable, than that is completely fine and I apologise if you feel inconvenienced by my amending (doesn't matter to me the origin of the style). Like with my edits there were a few spelling errors (I didn't really check one edit properly), I noticed also you had made some format errors in ref tags that needed correcting, hence the punctual edits. None the less, by all means update the article as you feel best suits (even if that changes my edit) and we can both be aware of such minor technicalities :) Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 23 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Energy elasticity , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London Meetup - January 12, 2008

Hi! There's going to be a London Wikipedia Meetup coming Saturday January 12, 2008. If you are interested in coming along take part in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Meetup/London7. The discussion is going on until tomorrow evening and the official location and time will be published at the same page late Thursday or early Friday. Hope to see you Saturday, Poeloq (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Camulodunum

Do you have a source for this? The template is about towns during Roman times, not Celtic. I haven't been able to find any sources to suggest that throughout Roman times (keep in mind the length of time they were in Britain) it was considered capital at all.[1] - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Have a look at the related article - there's lot of info on this out there - I'm sure if you were to even google on the iceni uprising you'll come across references. Note that the first colony took over the ancient town of Cunobelin - "Old King Cole". If you find something to disprove it, then you better take it up with the Town Hall & the Colchester Archaeological Trust ;-) Ephebi (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In all the books I have on the subject, nowhere does it claim Camulodunum was ever its "capital city of Roman Britain".. it was one of the many Celtic capital (of a specific tribe) prior to Romans arriving thats for sure, and was the first place the Romans took, but nowhere does it say it was officially named a "capital city" by the Romans, because Britannia itself didn't even exist yet.
All of the Celtic tribes had their own pety kingdoms (many up and down what would become Britain), essentially, Camulodunum was the "the main town of Roman Trinovantes terriory", before they had actually defeated anybody else to form Roman Britain, as the template is about Roman Britain then it doesn't belong to be marked as a capital. Camulodunum essential acted as a point for them to launch an invasion on the rest of the island, standing in it for a couple of years out of the 400 or so the Romans were on these islands, doesn't make it a "capital" and the Romans never named it as one. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic Aviation and Kyoto

Are you sure that Kyoto excludes all aviation? I am aware that international aviation was excluded due to the complexities of allocating emissions, but I thought that there was no such issue with domestic aviation. --FactotEm (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very comprehensive reply. --FactotEm (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Felixstowe F.3 etc

Hi, I suppose this is an issue with the manufacturer template approach, in that the F.3 was made by at least 4 different manufacturers including Shorts. As things are at present, each manufacturer's template ought to include this type, with redirection (as is the case with Shorts) to the Felixstowe article, so that there is no duplication. Shorts made approx. 70 Porte-designed "Felixstowe" flying-boats, of which were 35 F.3s, the rest F.5s for the Air Ministry and Japan, so it is certainly not 'incorrect' for them to appear in the list of aircraft built by Shorts. Where do think we should go from here? --TraceyR (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Stockholm Congestion Tax

In the article Congestion pricing, you made some editing to state that the Stockholm congestion tax was only a test. From what I read in the respective wiki article, this scheme was made permanent since 2007 even with congressional approval. Can you clarify which is the right information please, or were you just trying to make a reference to the 2006 trial period, but then, info regarding the permanent status should have been kept in the article? Thanks.21:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)~

  • I've only seen information about the 6 month trial period - if you have more up to date information then please add it. I'd be particularly interested if there are technical reports on its traffic effects (I prefer information in English but can read a little bit of Swedish/Norge). Thanks. Ephebi (talk) 08:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, then I am going to rework a bit your edit, to make clear the difference between the trial period and permanent implementation in 2007. I'll get back to you soon with some references regarding last year implementation.Mariordo (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The only English website with updated info is the site of the Swedish Road Administration, that has some statistics up to December 2007. I couldn't find before-after comparisons. Real traffic information is available only for the trial period from several environmental group's sites, just Google it! Mariordo (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I already undid your edit but then included most of your modifications afterwards, and now it makes a difference between the 2006 trial and the 2007 definite implementation. Go and take a look at it.

  • Thanks - have done. looks fine 8-) I'd like to get some meaningful statistics in an "effects" section but its hard to get meaningful statistics out of the Vägverket site - my Adobe reader says most of their PDFs are broken - can you read any of these? Ephebi (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trams in London

Hi Ephebi - My main purpose was to disambiguate omnibus and correct the spelling of 'Bombadier'. The ref formatting change was part of AWB's general fixes, in line with WP:CITE#Ref tags and punctuation. It's not possible to switch off only this fix. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bug, it's a difference of opinion. No other editor has complained. You are at liberty to revert the changes if you take such exception to them. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chios.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Congestion pricing

Thanks for your contributions on this article. Do you want to participate in the discussion regarding a proposal to merge congestion pricing with time-base pricing, which I opposed for the reasons explained in the talk page. Mariordo (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Reuter

See my answer to you on discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.172.154 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

You will find this example in WP:cite - The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]

   Notes

      1. ^ Miller 2005, p.23.
      2. ^ Brown 2006, p.46.
      3. ^ Miller 2005, p.34.



   References

       * Brown, R (2006). "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78).
       * Miller, E (2005). "The Sun", Academic Press.

that is why I keep changeing your edits. You are using

  • The Sun is pretty big[1], but the Moon is not so big[2]. The Sun is also quite hot [3].

Which is not as per WP:cite.Pyrotec (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. You also seem to have reverted my changes as well.
I have no particular objection to your "Nature" type referencing; it just does not seem natural to me. I suspect that there also is a bit of anti-USA feeling attached to it; and, I note that you choose to use US sources when it suits your purposes. The system to which you object is called "Havard" referencing; and I used in for both of my UK post-grad degrees, so that is how I expect to see references.
Penny is somewhat controversal but that is due to unreferenced (unverified) statements; some referenced statements that are unverifiable; statements that contridict published sources; and premature removal of {sources} and unreferenced flags.
I was intending to update the article once I had all the references to hand and I see that you have been adding material (some of which is referenced, some of which is not referenced and some of which is badly referenced); and one web citation that can only verified with an Athens logon - but presummably it also exists as a book, so why provide a web reference that many people cannot access?
As a forewarning, I have taken objection on grounds of verifiablity to your use of the 1987 Lorna Arnold reference, for which you have provided an ISBN and attributed the publisher as Palgrave macmillian. However Palgrave macmillian did not exist in 1987, it only goes back to 2002 and Palgrave only goes back to 2000. Lorna Arnold did have a book on the Australian tests published in September 2006, by Palgrave macmillian, with the ISBN given, but not the title that you used; and she also did a (the offical) report in May 1987, but that was published by HMSO. So you appear to have cross-mixed two documents on the same subject by the same author. I borrowed and read the 2006 book over Christmas - I expect to have a copy of the 1987 report by Wednesday. Basic errors in referencing such as this do not enspire confidence; especially as they can be verified by going to e.g. amazon, or by reading the book(s).
If you choose to revert the references back to your Nature references that I will not object to that; but I will continue to object to statements that are not referenced, or are unverifiable; or apear to have been taken from elsewhere without verification; or possibly made up.Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the 1987 Lorna Arnold reference is: Arnold, Lorna (1987) "A Very Special Relationship: British Atomic Weapon Trials in Australia". London: HMSO. (Paperback) ISBN 0-11-7724241-1. I now have a copy in front of me. That happens to be the title that you added to the McClelland Royal Commission article on 16 March 2008; so why is the reference in the William Penney, Baron Penney article, which you added on 20 March 2008, given as: Arnold, Lorna (1987). "British Atomic Weapons Trials In Australia". Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1403921024? A simple search against ISBN gives the matching book as: "Britain, Australia and the Bomb: The Nuclear Tests and Their Aftermath (International Papers in Political Economy)", (Paperback), by Lorna Arnold (Author), Mark Smith (Author). Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. There are several possible answers: your comparison of the MCClelland Commission Report and the UK report came from another source that you have not (yet) acknowledged; you are adding sources that you have not used; you are confused over your sources; it was a typo; possibly the two books are the same, the later being a revision of the first? I will now obtain a copy of the later book to confirm or eliminate that explanation; there could be others that I have not listed. I also have an Athens logon name, so do I need to double check that Oxford Dictionary of National Biography reference? Pyrotec (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overend, Gurney and Company

Thanks for your excellent addition to Overend, Gurney and Company, however you placed the new information out of chronological order in the article. I have moved your new information farther down in the article, but it still does not exactly blend in with the rest of the story told there. Can you please take another look and see if you can smoothe out the sequence of events? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good now! Thanks, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] palm oil external links

I'm sorry, looks like I were to quick to judge that link. =( The pages didn't look serious/notable to me but contained lots of ads. I'll be more careful in the future. --Apis (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ecotax neutrality

Hi! You recently voted to delete the Ecotaxes category on the basis that what can be considered an ecotax is POV. Since the majority vote was to delete, I think it's an indication that the Ecotax article might need some NPOV improvement. Would you help tag the POV areas so I can fix them? --Explodicle (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

If a prod tag is removed for any reason, it should not be put back into the article, it should instead be taken to AFD. See WP:PROD#Conflicts for details. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, there's nothing in the log or the history showing any AFD process, just the initial speedy and then the prod. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)