User talk:Norwikian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A shaky start

Hi Norwikian. Sounds like you had a rocky introduction to Wikipedia. Sorry about that. People here can be rather abrupt from time to time. (And, alas, this is one of my sins too.) No matter—welcome to the 'pedia. It seems that you have the background to contribute a great deal here, and I'll look forward to seeing more of your work. Anything you need to know, just ask. Cheers -- Tannin 12:06 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Norwikian, I marked your new article Sir Thomas Browne for deletion. I don't understand why you felt you needed to create a duplicate entry of Thomas Browne. Would you mind combining the material from the one article into the other? Thanks, -- llywrch 22:49, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the VfD page as that is where deletion discussions need to occur. If you leave it at the village pump it may appear that there is a consensus to delete the page when someone comes to do that; you can not assume that the deleting sysop will have read the village pump, so it is safest at VfD.

It is unfortunate you are becoming disillusioned, but I can not understand where the accusation of elitism is coming from. Threats to broadcast your negative views of wikipedia will again hardly help your case when you are trying to defend your article. (See Staying cool when the editing gets hot.) Decisions are rarely made in an off-hand way; there is genuinely an attempt at reaching consensus. Your point about contacting the poster of the article prior to its deletion is a good one, and I believe it is recommended by the deletion policy. Angela 15:29, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In depth, and in the open,reply.

I did not personally, nor do I now personally object to a listing of a librarys contents being included on wikipedia. But listing on Votes for deletion, as I see it is a matter which is precisely at right angles to that evaluation. In listing an article there, I am not making a personal judgement (ideally), but interpreting the community standards, which I have aggreed to respect (implicitly, by continuing to contribute). What I felt, was that there was a lack of a clear ruling, whether such material was appropriate for wikipedia or not. And if you take the time to read the wording of my note announcing its inclusion on Votes for deletion, you will note how betwixst and between I was about the whole thing (Please try to understand, that lots of good articles have at one time or another been listed on Votes for deletion. I don't particularly like that fact, but it remains. For my own view, of what the first step should be like, see: Dead letter office.)

I may speak to your evaluation of your perception of my philosophical outlook later, but not right now, not right at this forum. Suffice it to say, that if you knew me, I feel sincerely that you would not call me a snob. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 00:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Reply.

First off. I think it is fair to note, that I am not a fan of "The Simpsons", and very rarely if ever watch them. (Have probably seen 10 episodes at the very most, and those not from start to finish).

That said, on your article, please understand that this is an alive project. There are no genuinely final verdicts on the disposition of any one page. Even if the VFD process went against you (which is still pending, so I won't comment on the likelihood or otherwise of any outcome), that is not necessarily the end of the matter. If you then thought a deletion was genuinely arrived at without a sufficient majority of people or other problems existed with the process, you might still feel you have grounds to make a case for undeletion at the appropriate page (Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion).

But on the other side of the coin, even though the page pass through unscathed, there truly is no guarantee that it will remain an independent article for all eternity. Some editor who may not even have read the arguments on VFD, may just accidentally stumble on to it, and then and there, on his own judgement, willy nilly join the material to the main article on Thomas Browne. Then again, the page may survive three centuries in the form you leave it. There just is no closure on the disposition of any article on wikipedia, nor is there ownership of the text, or control over what other editors may do to it, except through ones own diligent and diplomatic efforts to demonstrate that ones view of the disposition of this or that page or fact is the most in line with the ethos of wikipedia. This is distressing to many. But there really is no way to help it. It is the nature of this beast. One should endeavour to think of wikipedia as some elemental beast which can be surprisingly generous and forgiving, but at times incredibly capricious. That is my view anyway. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 08:22, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Fun with Onebyone

"Still say most have not grasped true status of polymath"

I think you're misunderstanding what the people who proposed/supported deletion meant. I don't think anyone argued that T.B. himself doesn't deserve an article containing as much information on him as you (or other contributors) feel is useful. The question was over whether the article as it stood at the time of the proposal seemed to be a viable topic.

So nobody was trying to put down you or your work (and likewise the Yale Dean), and I hope you won't feel unappreciated. I'm still cautious about separating it from the article on the person though. I'm not sure what "road" it was the orginal proposer was talking about in his first post, but I envisaged an organizational nightmare in which we have separate articles for Norman Cook's music collection, Leonardo's sketchbooks, Imelda Marcos' shoes, Robert Boyle's experiment log and other such collections which, while interesting because of what they tell us about their owners, might not be considered encyclopedic entities in their own right. It's a (subjective) question firstly of how far to split information up, and secondly of when lists are appropriate. Onebyone 14:29, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm new around here too - I only mean to give my opinion rather than to say "This Is The Way Things Must Be Done". The way things have turned out, the consensus seems to be that the page is worthwhile, so keep up the good work. I'll let you get on with it, and look forward to reading more in future.

"far from a true description of the Banquet of the learned" - sounds like an opportunity for you to put things straight. Well volunteered ;-)

By the way, would you rather I used user email rather than this comments page? -- Onebyone

(I foolishly put this on *my* talk page. Oops.)

Re: TB catching.

Yep, that was pretty much what I meant - more people were getting involved in the Thomas Browne discussion. I think there was some other edit I made about the same time with a similarly bad pun, but I've got better now ;-)

And you haven't started a trend as such, there are already loads of articles of lists. Some of them are deliberate, where they're basically lists of links to other articles. Some of them seem to be stub-like, in that they might eventually be lists to other articles. Some of them do fall under the heading of "Wikipedia is not an almanac", and different people are annoyed by this to different extents. Depends on hw strictly they want Wikipedia to stick to being an encycolpedia, and how much they want it to be the one single place to find out what you want to know...

Yes, maths is my (former) academic subject. Browne would have been in the middle of the early study of calculus (Liebnitz and Newton), logarithms (Napier and others) and analytic geometry (Descartes, etc), and presumably had books on some of those subjects. Sadly he missed out on the guy who is probably the first truly top-level genius who was a specialist mathematician - Leonhard Euler.

I'm not in the US, I've just been trying to Americanize my spelling to fit in a bit better ;-) I live in Oxford. Onebyone 21:44, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

first truly top-level genius who was a specialist mathematician

Actually, that's not right because Fermat was a specialist mathematician earlier, and certainly a top-level genius... But anyway, Browne might have been one of the last totally polymath academics, since at around that time it was becoming more and more difficult to compete without specialisation. What do you reckon? Onebyone 22:00, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, if you have a list handy of mathematicians in the library send it to me and I'll test my general knowledge to see how many I recognise. It'd be interesting to see how many of them are still widely known today, and how many have vanished into a historical footnote in a textbook somewhere.

I'm not sure I'd call physiognomy "pseudoscience" - at the time it was an honest theory which turned out to be wrong. OK, so the study of physiognomy was heavily influenced by prejudice, but as an attempt to observe trends I don't think it was completely wrongheaded.

Pythagoras, by the way, was a nutter ;-) Onebyone 12:59, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I call Pythagoras a nutter not for his views on numbers and mathematics, but for his philosophy and in particular cosmogeny. He seems to have spent his time making stuff up out of whole cloth. Fair enough as a personal project, but if you're doing that you should probably consider the odds that what you think up will just happen to be true ;-)

Oughtred - name wasn't immediately familiar, but I do know what a slide rule is... Onebyone 10:31, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Do I rate Carroll as a mathematician? Well, I've not read any of Dodgson's mathematical papers so I can't say anything definite, but as an original mathematician he's pretty obscure - I don't believe he was among any of the groups doing startlingly important work at the time. But I seem to remember that he created some interesting mathematical puzzles, which would make him a good mathematician in the everyday sense, just not a great mathematician in the grand academic scheme of things.

Pythagoras' romanticisation/mysticism/worship of special numbers like 10 is another one of the things I mean when I say he was somewhat nuts. It's all very well having a favourite number (just like a favourite colour, or a favourite TV programme), or giving numbers symbolic or allegorical meaning. In my view though there's no justification at all for claims that numbers can be any more special than that, so I think it's barking up the wrong tree to take things any more seriously, and bordering on obsessive to expect your students to believe it too. I could never be a hermetic - chaos magick is about the furthest I can suspend my natural disbelief...

Use of 12 rather than 10. The only thing I can think of is that highly divisible numbers (12=3*4=2*6) are often more convenient than less divisible numbers (10=2*5). Also, physically dividing things into fifths is more difficult than into halves or thirds, so historically handling things in twelfths is going to have been easier than tenths. Electric scales make all this a bit obsolete now, of course. As for 12 months, you're never going to have a satisfactory decimal year, since 365 is a rubbish number, so probably nobody ever saw any point changing ;-) -- Onebyone 10:29, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Rubbishness of 365 - I probably wasn't very clear, I meant that it's rubbish (meaning no use) in the context of a decimal system. That's just because it isn't related in any simple way to any power of 10. It might be useful in some contexts, for example due to being the product of a reasonably large prime (73) with a small one (5), but that wasn't what I was talking about :-)

What do you mean by "number exhibits phenomena we can't explain"? It's certainly true in the sense that certain things constitute "happenstance", and there's generally no explaining that. Is this what you meant?

On the subject of Oughtred, I don't think it's vanity or arrogance, so much as a choice of priorities, that I think the invention of the slide rule is far more significant and worthy of respect than the first use of the symbol x. The use of x I consider a curiousity, of interest to etymologists and like-minded folk who want to know how mathematical conventions came about. If Oughtred had been the first person to use any letter to represent an unknown quantity, then that would be incredibly significant to the substance of maths, and I'd be in favour of a statue. This is significant rather to the choice of letter that we use when there's no particular reason to choose any other. Do you see the same difference I do?

Calculating the odds of coincidences - there have been some studies trying to look into this kind of thing. You can't calculate the odds exactly, though, because for example there's no way to judge whether people choose their house numbers entirely at random, or whether instead they are more or less likely to choose numbers they find significant, such as birthdays. I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that it's random, but you can't be certain. The other interesting thing about calculating odds of coincidences is that you don't only want to know the odds of what happened, but also the odds of anything else equally remarkable happening. That's impossible, because you can never track down every possible thing that would be remarkable. All you can do is place a lower bound on the probability. -- Onebyone 12:23, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Learning with Angela

Secondly, it's best not to try and generalise the characteristics of Wikipedians as you did in your comment. It may make people defensive and therefore harder to reason with.

Hi Kevin,

You asked if I recommend you leave the page in its present state. I'm not sure. If you feel you have addressed the concerns (wanting more of an intro etc) at VfD then maybe. If it's frustrating then you probably should - no use getting stressed about one article.

In regards to the "objectives, long-term plans, ownership", perhaps Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and About might help? I can't think of anything that really answers this at the moment. If I come across anything more useful I will let you know.

Perhaps you could mention your concerns about the original author being contacted at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion. It may need to be addressed but I think that the assumption is that by writing on the page that is being listed on VfD then the poster will realise as if they care for the article, it will be on their watchlist.

The discussion of the page at Talk:Library of Sir Thomas Browne/Delete seems largely positive. With so many people wanting to keep it, it is not going to be deleted now. The discussion will continue until it has been there for seven days, and then the discussion will be archived so it may be used as a case study for future deletion decisions. (Not all such debates are kept, but ones that get particularly long like this one are). Wikipedia:Deletion policy might help if you want to understand it more. Angela 19:28, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Since VfD got too long (93kb), the waiting time was reduced (semi-unofficially) to six days rather than 7. Your article had been listed for 6 days so has now been removed. As I said above, there were many votes to keep it, so it has of course not been deleted. The deletion debate now remains as an archive. Angela 01:06, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

Contents boxes?

Hi Norwikian, what do you mean by "contents boxes"?. If you mean the automatic table of contents - that appears automatically when you have more than three main headers. Norwich has one. If you don't see it, maybe it is because you turned it off in your preferences. Library of Sir Thomas Browne doesn't have one because it doesn't have any headers. You make headers using two equals sign either side of a subheading. If this is not what you meant, let me know. Angela 19:50, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hi - there's a couple of responses for on my talk page. And seeing your name reminded me: I think a couple of weeks ago you emailed me about something - I'm really sorry I didn't reply; I'd had all sorts of problems both with my ISP and my mail software eating my mails, and your message disappeared off the face of the earth before I got the chance to respond. So sorry about that - if you want to resend it, or say whatever it was you said here or whatever, then feel free, and hopefully I'll get a reply to you this time! And if I've just got you mixed up with someone else, feel free to ignore this and suppose I've gone mad. All the best--Camembert

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for supporting me. RickK 16:22, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I beg to suggest to you, Mr Norwikian, that I am much younger than the Earl of Emsworth, and, in fact, I live nowhere near Shropshire! But I thank you for your welcome in any event. Lord Emsworth 16:12, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome - it's nice to be noticed, but unfortunately you waited until the evening after I went on holiday and I've only just seen your kind message. I have to admit, I've only read Porter on London and the Enlightenment - I'm currently working my way through his last, 'Flesh in the Age of Reason'. Browne gets a brief mention in 'Enlightenment', but it's a bit dismissive (though there's a good quote: "there is no happiness within the circle of flesh"). -- Gregg 03:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Thomas Browne quarrel with B

Hello, Norwikian. I am going to offer you some unsolicited advice, and you can take it, leave it alone, or flame me to a crisp, as you prefer. I am speaking strictly from my own hard-won experience, and there is nothing at all theoretical about it.

If you feel someone is being unreasonable and rude, you can go essentially two ways. You can be rude back and escalate it. Or you can be polite and try to see things from the other person's POV. The latter choice leaves them with another two-way choice: be reasonable back or look like an ass. Most of the time they will choose the former, and then you can both start communicating and generate light instead of heat.

I know quite well it's hard to be nice when you feel abused, but my experience has been that, even if the other person does choose to be an ass, you feel better afterwards if you haven't let yourself get dragged down.

Cheers,
Tualha 07:00, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Big Cat

Hi, Norwikian, yoo got messij BigCat 01:39, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC) ahhh, hoo iz Benny? BigCat

Ahhh, No'weekian, Papi and Benny the Baw' defintly sepo'ated at bo'th. Meaning Papi hass fameely, ahh, goud. BigCat 03:44, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC) Papi very gentl nature? Only know Papi is evvy where and like to talk to peopawww!

"Benny the Ball Benny the ball was a short purple cat who wore a long sleeved jacket. He could be described as a very cute cuddly cat with a very gentle nature. (voiced by Maurice Gosfield) "

ahh, Fitz not so funny looking, but he very bad cat. He fondle gal cat, nuff said. Papi love to have gal cat to play with. Papi da ladyzz cat. ahh, you want nautical huh....

TADDAAA he'z mye cousin

Heo's mye other cuosin fom England

Image:Catgent.jpg

Papi luv Wikipeia. Papi wite stubs fo' ahtikkoz cuz they tell papi to loe'n how to spell foe'st, ahhhggh. So No'wikian, wite me ahtikko about Papi may Gawd find you funny. BigCat

MEOWWWY KWISSMISS (ah, the Russian Ohtodosk one, now seems), ah, incase you don't know, the origin of late Russian Ohtodosk kwissmiss had to do wid some Sweedish guys, back in 800 AD, travelling in Uchraine and got wee bit smashed on AKvit and missed da, ah, Viking Yule Time and said, vell ve vill now go til da Greek Kwissmiss party, and TaDa, they got baptizd and become Russian! da moral of da story... Socialism brings everybuddy together! Ya! Ahh, it's all jokes. But if you wanna find Swedish-Russian connections, just go check out da Lada, little Sovietsky car, and tink about da, uh, Volvo! Ahhh, it's all jokes. But anyways HAPPI NEWWWWW YAAAR! BigCat 06:50, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ahh, dat's right, Norwikian, keep all birs away from the Big Cat , da Big Cat usually stays away from da British Bull Dogs and drink with da, uh, Rooskies

ahhh, too bad Wiki disabled uploading pixies. I got myself a funny picture of me partying Russian style!!! BigCat 14:40, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I hope that I didn't seem too rough about the Thomas Browne uploads to Wikisource. In themselves they are perfectly fine. My concern there has been with all these texts that just appear with nohing to say where they come from. In himself Browne is not a problem, and the style of English seems such that the even the translations have long been in the public domain. There are other materials, however, where these questions are not so trivial. Do you have the original Latin titles for the works that you contributed?

I was intrigued by your quaternity paragraph on your user page. I've always found a fascination in that somewhat shadowy presence in Western culture, whether as evil or as the feminine. When I mention it very few people seem to understand what I'm talking about. We've got a lot of "scientists" at Wikipedia. ☮ Eclecticology 06:43, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

[edit] User Page Correction

Thanks a lot for the correction. Spelling is obviously not one of my strong points! --Alex S 23:22, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin Alexanderplatz

Thanks. I was reading "The top 100 books of all time" from the Guardian newspaper, and checking to see if we had articles on all of the authors, and turned out there were a few we didn't, so I wrote one on Doblin, then added the Berlin Alexanderplatz article to go with it. Rick K 20:28, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:35, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

In response to your comment, when you've contributed personal essays or whatever else to Wikipedia, you've basically licensed them to be used indefinitely under the GFDL. This cannot be revoked or denied. However, you still own the copyright to your contributions and can relicense them in any fashion that you see fit. This includes the multi-licensing drive above or if you use your personal contributions in a book. Most people don't know that their copyright is maintained, but this is because U.S. copyright law (where the Wikipedia servers are!) states that an author automatically has copyright for their creations, even if they don't think about it, unless they specifically disclaim copyright. If someone uses your contributions licensed under the GFDL without (a) attributing it to you and (b) releasing it under the GFDL, as the copyright holder you have the right to ask them to remove it or seek legal or other means for forcing its removal. Wikipedia is great in the fact that it doesn't require to you donate your intellectual property, but merely licenses it from you. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 13:28, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Garden of Cyrus

Hi Norwikian, I classified this as part of classifying all the non-fiction categories I could find. I've removed the occult categorisation at your advice. Can you think of a more specific category than philosophy? :ChrisG 21:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified images

Thanks for uploading these images:

Image:Kevintidy.jpg
Image:Boating 97.jpg

I notice they currently don't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release them under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks, Kbh3rd 18:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: Inclusion of Biblical figures at List of occultists

I have put up a poll concerning the inclusion of Solomon, Jesus, and the Three Wise Men at Talk:List of occultists. As someone who has contributed to the page in the past, your input is invited. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Browne not from Chesire

apologies for the error. by all means go ahead and revert my edit - i d revert it as you requested if you were a bit more civil in manner and correct in assessing my so-called "persistent" erring. regards - Mayumashu 13:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Europe page as living in or being associated with Europe. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Europe for instructions.--Rmky87 04:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Historic libraries

Could you please reconsider your vote on this matter. The reason you put forward for voting against is based on a misunderstanding in that you are confusing "Historic" and "historical". Historic does not mean "no longer existing" as you stated, it means "famous or important in history or potentially so" (concise OED). Therefore it does not match the likely intentions of the creator of this category. CalJW 14:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

And a merry Christmas to you too! --Sum0 19:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Kevintidy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kevintidy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -SCEhard T 06:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! Should all be taken care of now. If you have any questions about tagging images in the future, feel free to drop me a note! -SCEhard T 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Sir Thomas Browne on America

Your recent edit to Sir Thomas Browne on America was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia 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. // Tawkerbot2 12:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the was triggered because you removed all of the page content. In the future when you want to merge items, its best to do a redirect (using #REDIRECT [[new page name]] instead of blanking, the bot won't revrt it and it makes it easier for users :) -- Tawker 07:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Cyrus title-page.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Cyrus title-page.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cyrus title-page.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Cyrus title-page.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia: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.

howch e ng {chat} 21:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simply untrue fabrications: (Your Title not mine)

well where does one start. So Martin Luther King, Florence Nightingale and Adolf Hitler have no influence because they have been dead more than 10 years. Who do I let know first, English education system, Russian fascists, my the list is endless. Browne's belief in witches may have been an aberration within the amazing scope and in some cases original thought of his works, but it is exactly because of these latter points that his influence on the 1662 Bury Witch trial was so great. At a time when many legal, theological and scientific minds were questioning the existence of witches he and Hale (future Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales) were quite happy following the due process of law to sentence two women to death. Their honest drive to seek the "truth" facilitated the acceptance of spectral evidence in the case. The fact that this evidence was accepted by two such eminent thinkers of the time led the justices of Salem to quite rightly accept it in their Witch Trials. The tryal of witches was published after the death of both men, so their opinion on that record cannot be ascertained. What is know from their own words is that Witches existed! FACT; Browne did attend the 1662 trial FACT; He did influence the trial FACT; and the 1662 trial was used by legal officers of Salem to verify the acceptance of spectral evidence FACT. I have never questioned the eclectic, original and important thinker that Browne was - just that he was also a complex human being who made mistakes, and held beliefs! Can I point out it was you that introduced PC into this discussion I was just recording the facts. I thought it was for a form of encyclopedia! that contained FACTS. The other personal points (sorry personal criticisms) raised --- HO HUM. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)