User talk:ProfDEH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is ProfDEH's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to ProfDEH.

Welcome!

Hello, ProfDEH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Buffalo Bill talk to me 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - bot edits are deleted to keep this area clear.

Contents

[edit] Bicycle messenger

The image you should either replace the other pic of a fixed wheel, or be added to wiki media commons. Buffalo Bill talk to me 08:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I note your comment about my fixed wheel image but don't agree about the duplication. The earlier image shows a fairly sensible machine and doesn't show the whole bike. An interesting aspect of the fixed wheel scene is the way riders build their own bikes. Some like a battered machine, purely functional, but there is another aesthetic involving expensive and/or colourful components. Both in contrast to 'normal' bikes that are exactly as they came from the shop. I hope write a bit about this on the article when I get time - unless anyone has ideas about an alternative location? ProfDEH (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the two images are not a duplication, but the article is about bicycle messengers not fixed wheels. Therefore there is no need for two images. I note your comments about the fixie scene, but again, the article is not about fixies, it is about messengers. There is no evidence that a majority of messengers ride fixies.Buffalo Bill talk to me 09:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You obviously know more than I do about this subject, so delete it if you like - the bike is too distinctive to represent fixed wheel bikes generally. For now I'm moving it to the bit about fashion at the end.
Sorry for meddling, but moving it to commons would be the most beneficial thing to do. That way the reader can still find the image if he's looking for more illustrations on the topic. There's no need for all the pictures to be present in the article itself, if there's a link to commons. Key (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That's OK, I'm interested to know what people think. The messenger article needs some major sorting out, somehow it misses some of the most interesting aspects (from the point of view of readers who are not involved in this scene). The picture is there as a reminder that, without messengers, it's doubtful if that whole alternative cycling thing would exist. The difficulty is to convey that on a factual basis. ProfDEH (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pascal's triangle

Hello, you had previously commented in this discussion, so I wanted to let you know that a new version of the image has been uploaded for comment. Thanks for you time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I didn't see that you'd already commented. My apologies. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welsh Rarebit/Rabbit

You got me going on a new article for this. I've got a draft started on my user page and would welcome feedback. OwenSaunders (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put in any modern recipes because the major changes to the dish took place in the 19th century and once we get into the 20th we have copywrite issues with the recipes. OwenSaunders (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Once I started looking at policies, I started to think what I've written is actually original research. So still pondering it. OwenSaunders (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

I really don't think so. Clearly you've done a lot of research but that's collecting existing published material. I think compilation is the right description - see Original research - which is the basis for most articles. ProfDEH (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that a) the newspapers I cite fall more under primary sources than secondary (oddly the policies don't explicitly refer to newspapers) b)moreover, the way I use those source may be, to some extend, advancing a position through how I synthesis the materials. I haven't had time to look further into to this, thus the article is in limbo.OwenSaunders (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orson S Fowler

I'm creating a redirect for Orson S Fowler which is how his Octagon House book is attributed. ProfDEH (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TUSC token b24f147fb63c245ca0e4aa9f9ad2702b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!