User talk:Preston McConkie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Preston McConkie, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|} writing for the enemy/Gaming the system
[edit] Your link/disputed content additions from http://www.mormoncentury.org/
You should consider engaging in extended discussion on the talk pages of several articles, including Talk:Stem cell, about your additions. Wikipedia isn't a forum for speculation. If you want to provide content about the actual positions of people, such as the Mormon senators in the stem cell debate, you should use sources that represent their actual opinions and positions rather than a biased essay. Also, be sure NOT to keep adding it after others have removed it. You will end up getting blocked if you violate the 3 revert rule. Thank you. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I'm glad you've taken it to heart. Yeah, having someone revert your edits without good explanation is annoying, so I'm glad I was able to clear some things up a bit. Good luck with your future edits! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:OgdenByFordPermissionGrante.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:OgdenByFordPermissionGrante.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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. 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:OgdenAreaByFord.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:OgdenAreaByFord.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands 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. 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Civility on Wikipedia
Could you please refrain from using remarks such as those you made in the page history of Anaphylaxis on 4 August 2007, as they are considered to be Uncivil (Refer to WP:CIVIL). Also please note that the edit summary is for that, an edit summary, not for editors to express their personal views. Thanks for your co-operation. Thor Malmjursson 12:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Iceflow Is a member of The Recent Change Patrol.
- True, but the irony that you pointed out was pretty damn funny. Antelan talk 22:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ward Churchill and wiki policy
The wiki conflict dispute process includes mediation and as a last resort, arbitration. I think that arbitration may be inevitable. I liked Churchill's book called Agents of Repression but beyond that I think that he is a polemicist looking to sell his books, I am siding with Lulu on this one because I have read what Wiki has to say about Bios of living persons. Getaway seems to loathe Churchill but for me this has always been about wiki policy. That may be hard for you to believe but it is the truth. Anyway welcome to the article....... Albion moonlight 07:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AD-BC/CE-BCE
Hi. I am responding to you here because I have already commented enough on the Jesus talk page, and my comments there were becoming tendentious and I really am not trying to stir up more conflict. I am responding to you not to try to change your mind but because based on what you wrote there, I think you misunderstand the position of those who do not want to use AD/BC. At least, I wrote a lot on that page to explain why I don't want to use them, and your comment does not accurately represent my view (if you do not care whether you accurately represent my view ... well, you may as well stop reading this note). The reason that I myself will only use BCE/CE is not because I want to "the appearance of admitting that EITHER Jesus's spiritual or historical significance is the reason for the supposed year of his birth being used as the pivot for measuring recorded history." To be clear: I believe that most of the world uses the Gregorian calendar (and if they do not among themselves, they do when they enter international business or politics) is because Europe came to dominate the world economy and politics starting in the 1500s, and today Europ and the US still play a dominant role in the world economy and politics ... and yes, the reason that Europeans use the Gregorian calendar is because Jesus is, or for a long time was, of tremendous spiritual and/or historical significance to the vast majority of Europeans. I do not at all question this. The reason I myself will only use BCE/CE is simply because I personally do not consider Jesus my Lord or savior, and because I know that AD stands for "our Lord" and BC stands for "Before Christ (savior)," and if I ever said, "This is the year of our Lord 2006" I would view myself as a hypocrite and liar because he is not my lord. If other people do consider Jesus their Lord, or do not care about these matters, and want to use AD/BC themselves, I have no objection to them doing so. But I think most people who use BCE and CE are like me - they do so because they cannot in good conscience say that Jesus is their Lord or use words that give the impression that they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior. The only exception to this I know of is Christians who do accept Jesus as their personal Lord like Karen Armstrong (a former nun, who has written books about religion) who when writing for a popular audience uses BCE and CE because she knos many of her readers do not accept Jesus as their Lord or savior.
You do not need to respond to me - I am not trying to change your mind, and I am not trying to get into an argument. And you have every right to disagree with me but I assure you you won't change my mnd. The only reason I am writing this note is because in your comment on the Jesus talk page you supposed a reason for why people won't use AD/BC. Since you suppose a reason, I figured that meant that you were trying to understand them. Since your reason doesn't apply to me, I thought you might want to understand my reason (even if you end up still not agreeing with it). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note on my page. I too appreciate your courteous tone. I know that you are acting in good faith, I appreciate your willingness to explain our own motives, and am very glad you are taking mine on good faith. It is hard for me to say what I would do had I been bon into a world where there were no alternatives to AD or BC - I suspect that instead of AD, I would do what most Jews do when using current dates - we just don't say "AD." I don't know what I would have done instead of BC. Be that as it may, I was born in a world where people were already using BCE and when I went to Hebrew school and whenever we had a historical discussion in synagogue we just used BCE.
- I appreciate your spirit of dialogue so if you don't mind, I would like to respond to your suggestion that the use of BCE/CE originated in an attack on the divinity of Jesus. Since this is such a contentious issue, and one I feel strongly about, I once did some research (I admit, relying only on Google). It is still not clear to me when BCE/CE started so honestly, I just cannot say what the actual motives were. However, would like to suggest to you an alternate scenario. This hinges on my felief that that “CE” has earlier antecedents. In a 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux, we find, “The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation” (I can't give you a citation, I found this googling). In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell, wrote “The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days.” “Vulgar” comes from the Latin word vulgāaris (from vulgus, “the common people”), meant “of or belonging to the common people, everyday,” (so the "Vulgate" version of the Bible was Jerome's atempt in the 400s to translate the Bible from Hebrew and greek into what was the comon language of the Roman Empire, Latin. So I think Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries used the phrase "Vulgar Era" to mean “common era.” Why they used this, in addition to AD, I can only guess – I suspect it was to acknowledge that the date was commonly used, even by people who did not believe that Jesus was Lord. Remember that before Columbus, only Christians used the Gregorian Calendar. By the 1700s Europeans had colonies around the world and were trading more extensively than ever before with non-Christians. Perhaps by the 18th century huge numbers of non-Christians, maybe for the first time in history, were using the Gregorian calendar too and these authors were using "Vulgar Era" to signal that even non-Christians were using their calendar - their calendar in other words had become common.
- If I am right, people would have stopped using the term "Vulgar Era" when the principal meaning of "vulgar" had changed from meaning common to meaning obscene. Perhaps at that time people who would have used "Vulgar Era" would have started saying "Common Era." There is some evidence for this in the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Chronology." It says (and this is available on-line too): "Foremost among these [dating eras] is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living." This 1908 example from the Catholic Encyclopedia is the first use of “Common Era” I can find, and I believe it was used synonymously with, or to replace “Vulgar Era.”
- The first Jewish use of this practice of which I know is from an inscription on a gravestone in a Jewish cemetery in Plymouth, England:
-
- "Here is buried his honour Judah ben his honour Joseph, a prince and honoured amongst philanthropists, who executed good deeds, died in his house in the City of Bath, Tuesday, and was buried here on Sunday, 19 Sivan in the year 5585. In memory of Lyon Joseph Esq (merchant of Falmouth, Cornwall). who died at Bath June AM 5585/VE 1825. Beloved and respected."
- This inscription, like most, uses the Jewish calendar (5585), but ends by providing the common year (1825); presumably the “VE” means “Vulgar Era,” and presumably VE was used instead of AD in order to avoid the Christian implications. But given that Christians were using the term as early as 1716, I would suggest that these Jews were adopting a Christian convention.
- Preston, I know that since the late 1700s Europeans, including many Europeans who were born to Christian parents or even educated in the Church, have turned against Christianity. I don't mean to offend you (or be unsympathetic) but i think this is part of a larger assault on religion - Orthodox Jews who reject Jesus (and who would not use BC or AD) would nevertheless share your view that more and more people do not believe in God and are dismissive of those who do believe in God. I am sure you are right that some people who use BCE and CE have open contempt for Christians (but - and again, I hope I do not offend - I would like to suggest that there are many people who are contemptuous of Christians and yet who use BC and AD, just as they celebrate Christmas with a Christmas tree and presents ... they simply do not care about the religious content. I once had a small argument with a non-Jewish friend who was upset that I do not celebrate Christmas. I told him, I am not a Christian, and he said "Neither am I but I celebrate it!" I am gussing he uses BC and AD too which to me is inconsistent but I guess many people are inconsistent). Anyway, I do believe that there are people who use BCE and CE because they reject Christianity.
- However, I still think it is interesting that Christians (or so it seems) were the first to use "Vulgar Era" and I speculate "Common Era" as well. I'd like to think that it was because they were acknowledging that there are people who share their calendar but who do not share their faith. I hope no Christian is ever offended by my using BCE and CE - by my celebrating Hannukah instead of Christmas, and Yom Kippor instead of Easter. I happen not to be living n the US right now (I got a job in England). One of the things I miss about America is that in America, in addition to the main broadcast TV networks wishing people a merry Christmas, at the appropriate time they also wished people a happy Hannukah - it made me feel included. I don't like it when anyone has contempt for the personal faith of another person (which by the way is why I do not object to people using BC and AD on the Jesus page). But I do think people of different faiths (including people of no faith, if that is really possible) also have to learn how to create a "common" space where they can meet and interact (which, for what it is worth, is why I also support using BCE and CE on the Jesus page). My own interpretation of the idea of a separation between Church and State in the US is not that the idea itself or the US government should ever persecute religion or exclude religious people, only that in a country with people of so many different faiths there should be some space (mental as well as phsycial) where - without abandoning our Christianity or Judaism or whatever - we can meet not as Christians and jews but as Americans. This is not something that the British are very good at and for all the conflict I have seen in America we still manage to give people of widely different faiths a lot of freedom. Oka, I am starting to get homesick. Anyway, I appreciate your taking time to read this. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your source on clinton
It seems okay by me but I don't really consider it a reliable source. As always I can only speak for myself, Unfortunately sourcing isn't my main concern, BLP I wont delete or change that section but I may support others that do if and when they do it or propose it, Albion moonlight 19:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ward Churchill
Thank you for taking a step back and looking at what I was saying. Getting involved in an article that has so much around it is sometimes overwhelming. I've only so much time to devote and want to see a couple projects through before taking on others, though I've put Churchill on my future list. I try to spend a bit of time each evening checking contributions by new editors and reference checking, which is how I came across this article. My time is consumed at the moment with Columbine, which is a huge project. Trying to remain unbiased about things is hard sometimes. Anyway, thanks again. Wildhartlivie 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I am truly glad
Perhaps I have misjudged you. You did a fine job working things out with wildhartlivie. You seemed to be coming on so strong that I thought you were trying to drive him off. I got too excited. I did not assume good faith on your part so subsequently I became verbally aggressive. It will probably happen again but I hope it doesn't, I am just a human being like everybody else. I prefer thins to be civil but I sometime behave in an uncivil manner. I hope we find a way to get along but if we don't we don't. Unlike you I am not a professional journalist but wiki is for everybody. Albion moonlight 07:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gwoyeu Romatzyh
Thanks for your recent edits. FYI "the sinologist BK" is normal UK English, though I realize that "the" is often omitted in US English—particularly in journalism. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Era notation
Please see WP:MOSDATE and do not change era notation without consensus. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] And thank you.
My assertions pusuant to tagging were hasty but they were never intended to be a threat. I guess I just assumed you knew about about wiki policy on tagging pursuant to mis or dis sourced material. Please read the material below and you will see in part the point I was trying to make. Thanks.
Jimmy Wales has said it is better to have no information at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.[1]
Albion moonlight 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, and I regularly delete material that is clearly speculative. However, the material in question on the Churchill page was not speculative; it was couched as fact. The only issue was whether it was properly sourced. I accept that I was too impatient with Wildhartlivie for not looking for documentation before tagging the section, but I don't think Wales's remarks on speculation apply to the issue.
- Nevertheless, I welcome any educational feedback. It's always more helpful to get a lesson in policy than to have someone assume I know it and am purposefully ignoring it. Cheers, Preston McConkie 13:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You are quite right it didn't apply. I suspected that you were assuming that it wasn't speculative and I did not want to be the one who had to check it. Like I said I jumped the gun. I should have simply waited to see what Wildhartlivie and Lulu had to say and stayed the hell out of it until I was sure. I am glad that we got that settled. Thanks for your time. Albion moonlight 14:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "experiences" versus "has"
I saw your comment and thought it worth commenting on.
The word "has" implies ongoing or continuous ownership. By contrast, the word "experiences" conveys something that is episodic or occasional.
The statements "He has depression" and "He experiences depression" convey subtle differences.
Regards LittleOldMe 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wow! I'm overwhelmed. I have just got back from lunch.Thanks for your kind reply and, in addition, a barnstar on my user page. Thanks a bunch! LittleOldMe 13:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jake Gyllenhaal
Hi, and thanks. I was surprised to see you as well. Don't worry about the edit. It's a good article, it just needs minor tweaks, I think. I like for text to flow smoothly and boy, do I hate those "blah blah, and then blah, and then blah"s that keep popping up in articles!! Wildhartlivie 12:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Eeps, I think I just put in one stray "however." HOWEVER, it DID fit!! I want what I read to be as smooth as if I were speaking it aloud. When I run across run-on sentences or too many that use a semi-colon, my eyes start to cross and my brain smoulders. Someone once told me to "write like an adult, but gear it for an 8 year old." I try to keep that in mind. Cheers! Wildhartlivie 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Preston: Thanks for the Barnstar! I also thought that you did a great job dealing with the reference questions in Ward Churchill. Glad to have you in Wikipedia! Cheers!--Getaway 14:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Spring
If you're going to just re-create your article, will you please blank the original and add {{db-author}} to it? In the future, you can just move the page. If you need help, please drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks. GlassCobra 07:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure thing. In this case, if you have two versions of the same article, remove all the content from the version of the article that you want deleted, and replace it with {{db-author}}, which generates a speedy deletion notice signifying that the author wants the page deleted. In the future, if you have an article that you want to retitle, click the "move" tab up on the top and enter the name that you would like the article to be moved to. Just make sure the destination is empty before you try to move it. Click here for more detailed instructions on moving pages. If you need any more help or if I wasn't clear enough, go ahead and hit up my talk page, okay? Happy editing! GlassCobra 09:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just checking in. I saw that you redirected "The spring" with a small S to the version with the large S, well done. Is there anything else I can help you with? GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus
I'll sign but only after I see more good faith efforts on people's parts to discuss the matter on the Jesus page. And we don't go to mediation until we exhaust other means of resolving disputes e.g. mediation cabal (informal mediation) and RFC. --Slrubenstein | Talk 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Whaling
Thanks for all of the clean-up on the article. Please see my comments at Talk:Whaling#History_section; I'm more than willing to be convinced that the fact and reference you removed don't belong in the article, but without being convinced I'll probably put them back in a few days. Enuja 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] date conventions
Preston - I appreciate your detailed explanation, and courtesy in providing it in a constructive spirit. Personally, while I don't think I will ever agree with you on this specific point, I actually do agree with you on most of the general points/principles you have raised. Now, you may not agree with what I am about to say but please know I mean it sincerely and with good intentions: I suggest that you need to think about Wikipedia in a very different way. One of the whole points of the "wiki" nature of this project is to encourage experimentation and change, rather than conservation. I don't want to get into a theoretical argument about whether change or conservation are intrinsically good or bad. I do believe that variety is good, though. Most encyclopedias are conservative if only because of the costs of revising themselves regularly. That is why great encyclopedias (e.g. Brittanica) are revised on every several years. There may be other reasons why Brittanica is relatively conservative, I am just singling one practical reason. Wikipedia by contrast can be revised at any time and in effect is being revised by the second. You can see how this will attract contributors who value change, and it is set up to encourage change. The point is not that EB has it right and WP has it wrong - nor vice versa. Can't we just say that EB's approach (which also includes PhD.s as authors whose work is then revised by an editorian review board - rules we do not have at WP) is one way of doing an encyclopedia, and WP another, and it is good that both exist and people have the freedom to choose between such different products, produced through such different ways? Another consequence of the "Wiki way" is that editors will (I would shout this out, because so many of our policies and customs derive from this hard, cold fact) attract editors of radically opposing, fundamentally different POV's. The wikipedia solution is not to tell people to be dispassionate and objective (let's say that is what EB or any good peer-reviewed journal claims ... although I am sure you are aware that despite their claims there are people on the left and right who claim that they are not really objective), it tries to come up with frameworks to encourage people with strongly opposing views to be able to work together. In the early days there were practically no policies! Why? Because "rules" may not be a way to enable everyone to get along, they may just be a way to get people to get along with whoever makes the rules! Review some of our policies and you will see that we have never eliminated ones like "be bold" and policies that encourage people to be unconventional. I would suggest this: when editors have to turn to a policy or a guideline to resolve a dispute, it really means that the "wiki" aspect of wikipedia has failed: it means that editors have not found a way in which each of them, acting freely, can reach a compromise that enables them to work together. Having failed, they turn to some rule, really abdicating their responsibility (some might say freedom) to work things out for themselves. All that I have said is in the way of general reflections on Wikipedia, and meant to be sincere advice that will spair you grief (however much it is an outcome of principles or good intentions) and heklp you contribute all you can to Wikipedia. I think this advice holds for other contentious articles like Fascism and Iraq war and Global warming and Capitalism and Evolution (obviously, just how contentious these articles can get depends on who is around). Now, when it comes to dating conventions at Jesus, most editors who have been working on the article for years - including Christians and Jews, pious people of faith and atheists - have reached this unusual compromise to use both systems. I realize EB and AP would NEVER do this, but here is why I know it is a good idea: it works. For years it has enabled a very diverse group of people work on an article about a person who has been an object of adoration and vitriol, and explained by both orthodox dogma as well as bizarre conspiracy theories. It has enabled most of us to work together in peace, to produce an article that satisfies both devout Christians and militant atheists as well as people with a wide range of scholarly backgrounds. And while I know you find the double-dates jarring, if you can look past it I hope you agree it is a pretty good article. I think the fact that this homespun compromise, not devised by a committee of experts, not a rule everyone everywhere has to follow, but a compromise we ourselves worked out, is actually something to be proud of because however awkward, it has enabled people who otherwise might not get along to do good things together. Please just consider this. And please consider my reflections on Wikipedia - what it really means to be "wiki." With reaspect, I would like to suggest that what may make you a great journalist may make you a lousy Wikipedian - not because the AP guide is wrong, but because journalism is a whole different kind of project and the mainstream products of journalism, whether the new York Times or US News and World Report or the Nightly news on TV are all produced in a radically different way than Wikipedia. I don't think this means you have to be a lousy Wikipedian. I have every reason to think you can make great contributions ... it is just my way of saying that skills you have honed as a journalist and that have served you well in journalism may just not serve you well here. I've never served in the armed forces but from what I have read soldiers know that different kinds of wars and battlefields require different kinds of tactics and weapons. If that is true in war it is certainly true in peace, especially here. My advice, again with respect, is that you put aside some of your journalistic skills and sensibilities, not out of shame but simply because they are not appropriate here. Think about the audacity of writing an encyclopedia by wiki, what this really means, and I think you will see that it requires and fosters a different set of skills and sensibilities. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
PS: if you still want to press with mediation, I think you need to include User:Averykrouse and User:Jayjg Slrubenstein | Talk 14:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This is flight BG2007, calling the tower for help
The article Biman Bangladesh Airlines is almost ready for FAC. It needs a proper copyediting oversight now. Can you, please, take a look at the article? If you're busy, you can always leave your comments at the peer review. BTW, fantastic user page you have there. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Your reply made me so happy... I don't know what to say! When I was trying to get a copyeditor to look at Bengali Language Movement, it was lying around at the FAC for about a month. Before Riana, Kyoko and Truesilver stepped in, I was about to give up hope for the article. Ask me for any hep, clarification or bits of information you need while going through the article. Lucid prose or brilliant English or impeccable article structures are way beyond my league, but for everything else I may be of some help. Thanks, dear, and I mean it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks from me too. → AA (talk) — 21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's so nice to know that I am a part of your fist copyediting league project. For the placement and the design of the destinations part, I guess, it is how the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation likes it to be. But, well, that may not be the end of things. WP is very much an evolving collaboration. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] % to percent?
In the Utah article you just went and changed all of the %'s to percents, written out. I don't understand this change and find it needlessly repetitive and wordy. I didn't want to revert because I don't want to get any hostile responses (I've done that too often for reverting people's long works), but I still find the change annoying, imo. bob rulz 09:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if the manual of style says so, then I'm probably in the minority. It still seems redundant to me, but there's really no point in changing it back. Well, I just wanted to see your reasoning, and that works well enough for me (I've never actually read the Manual of Style, haha). bob rulz 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for your constructive edits on Sun Myung Moon. Keep up the good work here. Steve Dufour 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
 |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| For having excessively good humor while cleaning up articles. I've never seen someone have so much fun doing it. Your edit summaries are just great. Keep it up! Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 05:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] James Milner
Not asking for a copyedit here. But this is currently a FAC and in wondered if you could tell me if you feel it passes 1a of the criteria. And if not what needs to be impoved. Buc 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] December 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Schlock Mercenary, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. If you feel the article needs a shortening, please make sure to leave a coherent result. -- /home/dalric/talk 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] League of Copyeditors roll call
 |
Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors. |
Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation
 |
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/Jesus.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Image-Preston McConkie as soldier.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Image-Preston McConkie as soldier.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia 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 have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell babelfish 06:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Audie Murphy edits
In your summaries for your numerous edits of the article Audie Murphy, you posited several questions, which I would like to deal with.
- "Is anyone interred without military honors? And has anyone ever been buried with only partial military honors?" Gouveia2 has already pointed out there that there is a distinction between "full" and "standard"; as for the first, Robert F. Kennedy, a navy veteran, was buried in Arlington "with bare minimum military escort and ceremony" (Wiki's RFK article). Sounds like a military funeral sans honors to me.
- "As opposed for wounds received eating ice cream?" People have received Purple Hearts for "wounds" incurred from a behind-the-lines accident with a can opener.
- "Despite an invitation to Hollywood, he had hard times there? Do invitations usually ward off hard times?" When the invitation comes from a major movie star (with his own production company, yet) because he sees potential stardom, and even the beginnings of a film career don't happen for nearly three years, the "but" is definitely justified.
- "Do people name kids after someone out of a lack of respect?" It is not infrequently done out of an ulterior motive, hoping to impress for personal gain, such as being named in the will.
- "It was ACTUALLY ghostwritten? Wow, no kiddin', it was ACTUALLY ghostwritten. And whoa, the surprises don't stop. It was ghostwritten by a writer!" The byline indicates that Murphy wrote it, but in actuality (i.e., "actually") he did not. That is the context in which the word was used here. Just read a few pages of the book, and there's no doubt that this under-educated Texas (I'm a Texan myself, BTW) farm boy could not have written it, so I was glad to find a source that not only states that it was ghosted, but by whom. McClure was a personal friend of Murphy well before this project, so his status as a professional writer needs to be pointed out as well.
- Concerning Audie's older son playing "Joe Preston Murphy", "Wow, in fact? You're not yankin' my chain? Besides, this statement needs to be worked in somewhere other than out of the blue." In fact, it is the preceding line, about Universal allowing Murphy latitude in choosing his roles, that your closing sentence applies to, as the paragraph is otherwise about the Audie bio-pic, "To Hell and Back," wherein son Terry appears as kid brother Joe.
- Your deleting the opening phrase of the statement concerning Murphy's "Walk of Fame" star: They are given out for various fields. Gene Autry has several, so specifying the one for which Murphy's was issued is not entirly out of line. Your edit summary is not quoted here because it was completely non-informative, which Wiki guidelines recommends avoidance of (ditto sarcasm, BTW).
- "...talented is a needless paean." Not all musicians and composers are particularly talented. Murphy could have fallen in with individuals of lesser skills.
Note that this is far short of everything you did. However, I will now go and replace all of the above, not necessarily identically to what you deleted. Ted Watson (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sarcasm is not constructive
Preston, the edit summary for one of your recent edits to Sewage treatment reads:
No crap? Wow, I wouldn't expect that, being that it's in, like, an article about waste water treatment
That sort of uncivil, sarcastic remark is what drives people away from Wikipedia instead of encouraging them. It really was uncalled for. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
