User talk:Greensburger

Welcome!

Hello, Greensburger, 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:

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  AdamBiswanger1 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those who want information on the entire Epic of Gilgamesh will want to go to the Epic of Gilgamesh page. However, there is much that has been written on the Gilgamesh version (Tablet XI) of the flood myth that will interest people who are not interested in the immortality theme in the Epic. I created this Gilgamesh flood myth page to focus on the flood story. Greensburger 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that you're doing a great job on Gilgamesh flood myth. Keep up the good work! Also, don't forget that you can customize your userpage, and your talk page is more for conversation with other users. Regards, AdamBiswanger1 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste moves

  1. Don't do cut and paste move
  2. Don't try to move The Genesis Flood - the story to which it refers is at Noah's Ark and both are staying put.

— Dunc|☺ 16:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think of moving the Noah's Ark page. Nor would I think of deleting the page promoting the Whitcomb and Morris book. I bought their book when it first came out in the 1960's and found it very interesting. However it is a violation of Wikipedia rules to promote somebody's book by giving it a monopoly on a generic phrase. A generic phrase such as "the Genesis flood" should point to a disambiguation page that points to the Whitcomb and Morris book, and to the Noah's Ark page, etc. If somebody wrote a book titled "Noah's Ark" (and there are several), you would certainly not approve of it monopolizing the generic phrase "Noah's Ark" and neither would I. I think my attempt to distinguish "The Genesis Flood (the book)" from the generic phrase "The Genesis flood" is a proper use of disambiguation. Please restore the disambiguation page. Greensburger 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The title of the book is The Genesis Flood, beginning with The. Like The Pipettes is different from Pipette (aaah, Rose...) — Dunc|☺ 17:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utnapishtim move

I put it through the process mainly because I suspected the page was being watched by a lot of the contributors to Noah's ark and didn't really have a sense for how controversial it might be among them. Perhaps not very, but sometimes it's hard to tell. If there are no responses within a few days I'll just go ahead and do it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I finished inserting the references in the Ziusudra section. Greensburger 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. Excellent work. I wonder if the Atrahasis epic is similar enough to merge there as well, or if it had developed sufficiently further that it's best to consider it separately? I have no strong opinion about it myself. (Relative to Ziusudra, "Atrahasis" sounds almost like an epithet taken for a name.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that the Epic of Atrahasis is closely related to the Epic of Ziusudra and the Utnapishtim story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but each has its own little area of uniqueness that would get blurred if they were just sections of one large page. The relationships should be shown with a summary paragraph accompanied by cross references. I will add a paragraph to the Ziusudra/Utnapishtim page to mention Atrahasis, but only one paragraph. I likewise resisted the urge to add more content to the Atrahasis page, but instead I created a new page Gilgamesh flood myth that shows the relationships between the flood myth sections of the Epics of Atrahsis and Utnapishtim tablet XI in the Epic of Gilgamesh, without getting into the other relationships with the other flood myths. There is a lot more to be said on the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh flood myth pages, but they should be kept separate from the Atrahasis page and the Ziusudra page. Otherwise, there would be one large page that loses focus, just as the flood myth gets blurred on the Epic of Gilgamesh page, which is about Gilgamesh's quest for immortality and not about the flood myth. Greensburger 00:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 5 article

I have looked at the Amazon summary of the Robert Best book, [1], and it seems like this may not be original research after all. If so, the article needs to be edited to make clear (at the beginning!) that this is reporting on someone else's theory. (No comment at this point on whether the theory is notable or not.) Also, the title of the article should be changed to make clear that the article is about Best's theory, not about Genesis 5 itself. If you do that, I might be persuaded to withdraw the AFD nomination. NawlinWiki 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the line you suggested at the beginning. Greensburger 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the title, if you change the title to "Genesis 5 (mistranslation theory)" I would have no problem with that. I don't know how to do it without cutting and pasting to a new title. Is that what you want me to do? Greensburger 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the title requires a page move. I'm busy now but will look at it later this afternoon. NawlinWiki 17:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the comments so far in the AFD discussion, I think the best choice is to move this into a new section in the Genealogies of Genesis article. I have voted "Merge" in the AFD discussion. I think I'd better not actually do anything to the article until the discussion is complete, though. NawlinWiki 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to my Genesis 5 comments & tables being moved to a new section of Genealogies of Genesis where it is certainly relevant. I considered doing that, but I feared that it would be deleted by somebody who is hostle to any suggestion that Genesis 5 was mistranslated. Such people may be very protective of the Genealogies of Genesis page, so I thought a separate page would avoid an edit war. Also my Genesis 5 comments would be relevant only to Genesis 5 and not to Genesis 11 which are run together in Genealogies of Genesis. Greensburger 20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Genesis 5 redirects to Genesis for a good reason: the title "Genesis 5" refers to a chapter in the book of Genesis. Geneaologies of Genesis is not a synonym of Genesis 5. The material that used to be there went to Geneaologies, but that doesn't mean the redirect should go there if it doesn't make sense. Mangojuicetalk 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Geneaologies of Genesis is not a synonym of Genesis 5." Actually Genesis 5 is entirely about genealogies. Look at it from a future searcher's viewpoint. If they search for "Genesis 5", they certainly want biblical genealogy material, rather than stories about Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah and other irrelivant stuff in Genesis. I therefore requested that you change the Genesis 5 redirect from Genesis to Genealogies of Genesis. Greensburger 01:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plumbago - alternative meanings

I believe that your additions to the Plumbago article fit better in the diambiguation page. I will try and insert them there but I would appreciate your checking that I have the context correct. Mrs Trellis 22:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I overlooked the disambiguation link. Thank you for correcting my mistake. I added clarifying language on the disambiguation page. Greensburger 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:History of telephone

Replied there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rock-Ola

I see that you removed that part of the article. Unfortunately, the deletion discussion has already begun so removing the tag from the article wouldn't affect anything. However, it seems like the early consensus on this article is to keep. You may contribute to the discussion by clicking here. After about one week of discussion, a decision will be made by an administrator to either keep or delete the article. At that time, the AfD tag will be removed from the article by the closing administrator. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon microphone

You recently wrote in this article "Carbon amplifiers are still being produced and sold." Do you have a source for this statement? --Gerry Ashton 20:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A google search on "carbon amplifier" yielded more than 600 hits. Here are a few: http://www.comtronicsindustrial.com/vxi/tuffsetcarbon3.html (Carbon III amplifier)

http://www.globalsources.com/gsol/I/Mobile-wireless/p/2000000003844/3000000149681/sm/1001808663.htm (twin plug)

http://www.twacomm.com/catalog/model_30005.htm?sid=DA825E96852B4EFA5AEB2EE77662681F "cord for Everon, Blazer, Versa, 60V and carbon amplifiers" in catalog of Cisco and Lucent IP headsets. Greensburger 01:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, I never would have guessed these were still sold. Can you add a citation to the article? --Gerry Ashton 02:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It was also a surprise to me when I did a google search. Greensburger 02:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I created a baby stub for the article benzethonium chloride.

Free free to jump into the contributions with this benzethonium chloride stub. I agree with you that there are concerns about some types of chemicals. Good Luck. BenzethoniumChloride 06:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of WCI Communities Inc.

An editor has nominated WCI Communities Inc., an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCI Communities Inc. and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References for "Advanced Mobile Phone System"

Hi,references as well. Hope

Under his wing

Thanks for all your good work on the Thomas Edison article. I agree that flights of poetic fancy are problematic, considering that this article gets translated into so many foreign language versions of Wikipedia. I think that the article is in pretty good shape at this point, but still has some POV unsourced criticism and claims that others were the "true inventor" of everything most books and encyclopedias credit Thomas Edison with inventing. There are literally thousands of pages on this inventor in scores of books, both primary and secondary sources, so the era of unsourced material (of any but the most uncontroversial sort) is probably over. You might also find Nathan Stubblefield an interesting article. Edison 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simultaneous reverts on Edison article

We both reverted the article to fix vandalism, but I took it back to a version with more Wikilinks. What do you think? Edison 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to do the same, when I noticed you had already done it. Thanks. Greensburger 13:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patent Caveat

Nice article. Thanks--Nowa 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Bros Talk

It appears you responded to a comment about Jatho by copying and pasting comments I have previously made on the general subject. I think we agree on the issue, but it would be better if you commented in your own words. Comments over my signature should only be entered by myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DonFB (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just a guess...

Allo.
I imagine it was mostly a rhetorical question, but relating to your question here, the first thing that comes to mind is menu navigation. For example, say you want to reset the program (don't ask why; I have no clue). You press the 'home' button, and use the pointer to choose 'Reset'. But, wait, if there wasn't a hole there, then you'd need to physically remove the controller, reset, and then pop it back into the wheel, right? And the same might be true of other menu navigation within specific titles.
Not saying that is the reason (hence the 'fact' tag being very much appropriate), just speculating. :) Bladestorm 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to direct quotes

Greensburger, please do not change direct quotes from published sources unless you are correcting them for a misquote. Please see your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation_accounting&diff=next&oldid=146367319 in inflation accounting. If you are correcting a misquote, please say so in the edit summary. Thank you! --Foggy Morning 10:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Blaylock

Hi Greensburger. I've put a question on the Talk:Russell_Blaylock which you might want to answer. NCdave 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a follow-up there. NCdave 11:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to send you a private email, but your Wikipedia email address is not set up. Would you mind either setting it up or else sending me an email to which I can reply? Thanks. NCdave 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edison

Per your edit [2] in the Thomas Edison article, isn't it contrary to style conventions of Wikipedia to Wikilink the same term multiple times in an article? Direct and alternating current were both previously Wikilinked. Why do they need it again in this section? Too many repetitive Wikilinks make an article harder to read. Regards. Edison 22:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Vitamin D. Thank you. --Slashme 13:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again today, same issue, same article. *grumble grumble*. --Slashme (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

Placed warning on wrong user's page. Sorry about that! Into The Fray T/C 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on reverting vandalism to Joseph Henry

The headline more or less says it all! I have put the standard vandalism warnings onto a couple of the user pages. I imagine we'll need to request that this user (or users) be blocked shortly; they seem very persistent. Easchiff 02:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The coming of the personal computer

I have to disagree with you update to the Telex section of Teleprinter for a number of reasons.

First, I've never seen a situation where a "coming technology" displaced an existing technology. The new ("coming") technology has to actually be in place and operational and available. And, you added your opinion (with no citation) to the Telex section which I feel is inappropriate as you direct most of your comments to private line Teletype service.

Your timeframes are off by five to seven years. In fact, the implementation of business fax machines, in the mid to late 1970s, had a much larger impact to the decline in both private line and Telex service in the business community, the majority user of Teletype based services at that time.

E-mail Services emerged, in the 1980s and into the 1990s, after the introduction of business fax machines had already caused the decline of Telex and other teleprinter services.

Your second paragraph is an opinion piece and a request for the addition of the Bell function. I may be way off-base here, but I don't feel that WiKipedia should be the place for you to post your suggestions for the "Bell" function in e-mail and other computer fucntions.

Finally, Teletype is always spelled with a capital T.

Will you revert your errored update or should I do so?


No wait, someone already corrected the damage that you caused.

Wa3frp (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Revere's Ride

There is a lot of vandalism in Paul Rever's Ride's article. Please Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.198.7 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xisuthros is not Noah

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Xisuthros is not Noah, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Xisuthros is not Noah. slakr\ talk / 16:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hello Greensburger, see the discussion. You are welcome to join in there and add your own comments. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Alexander Graham Bell has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdchamp31 (talk • contribs) 3 March 2008

BOFD

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article BOFD, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cite error

Admittedly, I am not sure what exactly your problem is. I myself use {{reflist}} when adding a references list rather than <references/>. I'm not sure if that will make a difference, it might solve your problem. That is about all I can tell you. Sorry that I can't do better. :( Captain panda 03:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Coulter

Thanks for your interesting article on General Coulter. I made a few changes in format and links, and added a little more information. Feel free to add more specific in-line citations / footnotes, particularly since you cite two specific pages from reference works. An interesting story that you will appreciate—for many years, Howard Coulter, a grandson of General Coulter, attended the same church that I did. Mr. Coulter was quite aged, but he and I liked to discuss the Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg. He used to tell me stories of how, as a young boy in the early 1900s, he played on the old general's homestead, often running around the yard swinging the sword that Coulter had used at Gettysburg. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh flood myth

Hi, I've just been looking at this article. I greatly admire the work you've done, but the entire Alternative translations section seems to be original research. I'm assuming, for instance, that this is your own comment, not a quote: "Why most translators disregard the clear meaning of this sentence is not clear. Kovacs' translation implies that the flood hero's offering was at a ziggurat." Unless you can rewrite this so that it is based on reliable sources views, I don't see any alternative to deleting the section, sad as that might be. Doug Weller (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bell (footballer)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Alex Bell (footballer), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Alex Bell. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this move, and your message on the Bot's "user" page, you should never copy-and-paste content to another page on wikipedia, unless merging content, in which case you will need to provide a link to the original page in the article edit summary. For a move such as yours, you should always use the move tool, as this keeps the page history and therefore GFDL-required user attribution. When doing this, don't worry about delinking existing pages which link there-the "move" tool automatically creates a redirect to the new title. Hope this answers your question. - Toon05 23:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you should create disambiguation pages at Alex Bell (disambiguation) if there is already an article there which has significantly more notability than another instance, and seek consensus for a page move on an article talk page. - Toon05 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bootstrap (word origin)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bootstrap (word origin), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ros0709 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bootstrap (word origin) is the last vestage of material that has been rewritten as a proper article. Bootstrap (word origin) is therefore a proper candidate for deletion. Greensburger (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrapping

Further information: Bootstrapping

Hi Greensburger; thanks for the comment at User_talk:Nbarth#Bootstrapping – I’ve added a level 2 heading “Applications” so that the use of the term in various fields isn’t categorized under “straps for leather boots”, but otherwise it fine – thanks!

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbola

Greensburger, while you're quite right that a hyperbola is a conic section, as is an ellipse, what do you mean by "A hyperbola is NOT the apparent shape of a circle viewed obliquely from within it." Do you mean that it is false, or what? If you believe it is false, do you know what that shape is, if not a hyperbola? Do you publish in this area, and if so what do you say in your papers about how a circle appears in projection? (I do publish in this area.)

If you don't have any answer to the question of the apparent shape of a circle so viewed I suggest you revert those of your edits contradicting people who do. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally it might help if you notice that a conic section exactly describes the interaction between a circle, a lens, and a retina in the case where the lens lies on the normal to the circle through its center. Each point of the circle reaches the retina via a ray (a straight line) through the lens, modeled as a single point; the totality of rays then forms a cone with circular cross section. The retina is modeled as a plane cutting the cone; assume it does so on the opposite side of the apex (lens) from the circle, the normal optics of vision. When looking straight down at the circle the retina is parallel to the circle and therefore cuts the cone of rays in a circle. If you look up a little, the tilt of the retina cuts the cone in such a way as to make the circle appear elliptical; the greater the tilt the more eccentric the ellipse. At some angle the retina becomes parallel to one of the rays, at which point the circle now appears on the retina as a parabola (of course to see the whole thing you need a perfect 180-degree field of view; mathematics doesn't ask about the field of view of human eyeballs). Looking up further creates one branch of a hyperbola; the other branch results from the ray passing through the retina before reaching the lens, which of course does not happen in normal vision which simply can't see the other branch.

When the normal from the lens to the plane of the viewed circle does not pass through the center of the circle (the more typical off-axis case), the cross section of the cone of rays normal to the axis (the line through the lens and the center of the circle) is now elliptical. However conic sections do not depend on that particular cross section being a circle and they continue to produce ellipses, circles, parabolas, and hyperbolas with planes cutting the cone at various angles; furthermore the characterization of where the transitions ellipse->parabola->hyperbola take place is described independently of the eccentricity of the cross section of the cone (which is of course always an ellipse, never a hyperbola). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP phone

Changed it again, also removed a thing that mentioned digital photo frames being used as phones in some obscure way.Towel401 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthrex

What discussion? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselah

I agree that M's age needs to be discussed, but what's in the article right now is worse than useless - who's Robert M. Best? The rest of it touches on a few genuine scholarly speculations but not in an organised way. It needs to be done properly. PiCo (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find out much about it either. Wenham, in his Introduction to the Pentateuch, simply says that nobody really knows what all the extreme ages mean, although they must surely mean something. I just read something on the Web that pointed out that 969 is a "triangular number", meaning that it's part of the series you get if you add numbers in a triangular arrangement (1 on the bottom row, add 1 more to the bottom and 1 on top and the total is 3, add 1 more to the bottom, 1 more to the 2nd row and a new top row and the total is 6...) 969 is the 17th in the series: yes, but what the hell does it mean?
Someone wrote somewhere that the biblical authors wrote to reveal information, not to hide it. There isn't much point in writing something that nobody can understand. I think this is probably true, but only up to a point. Someone seems to have gone to great lengths to conceal elaborate puzzles in the biblical text - Genesis 1 culminates in the sanctification of the 7th day, and there are elaborate patterns of 7 all through that chapter - sentences made up of 7 words, or multiples of 7, for example. I can imagine - and this is just my own idea - an ancient scribe teaching boys the holy texts. What day is holy to the Lord? he would have asked them. The 7th, they would reply, that much being obvious. And then he would have introduced them to the "hidden" patterns. The patterns would, of course, not have been totally secret - the scribes would know them, and young scribes would be drawn into this world of secret knowledge - until some disaster happened, like the Exile, and the secret knowledge was lost, leaving just a bunch of mystifyingly long-lived patriarchs.
But anyway, I think the answer lies in ancient Hebrew numerology rather than in mistakes (missing decimal points, for example - and the people of the ANE used a number system based on 12, not 10, anyway - it has to do with counting fish, of all things, and you wish to know why I shall gleefully inform you). There's a book I haven't read, but it sounds good: Meir Bar-Ilan, "The Numerology of Genesis". I've only read a review, and I'm not at all sure how to get hold of it - Amazon? Or if you're attached to a university, tell the library to buy it, and then tell me what you think.
PiCo (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methusaleh

Hi. I deleted the section because it was poor - your attidude is that it's better to have something than nothing, mine is that it's better to have nothing than something that's bad.

The Carol Hill article you cited is actually quite good - but she's a geologist. Nevertheless, she's done a lot of reading of the right people and she names them in the article. If we could go to those sources and use them, we'd have something good.

Cheers

PiCo (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second thoughts - ok, I'll try a re-write myself, during coming days. PiCo (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third thoughts: Hill gives this interesting analysis of the "significant numbers" making up Methualeh's age:
(60+60+60+6+6)x60mos – 5yrs(60mos) + 7yrs + 7yrs
The point she's making is that this number, like all the numbers for the genealogies in Gen.1-11, is based on a hexagesimal system. What she doesn't really go into adequately is the meaning of these numbers - she does do it to an extent, but, but not really clearly enough. She explains that 7 and numbers based on 7 symbolise divine perfection, but she doesn't explain that numbers based on 6 symbolise earthly perfection. (Nor does she touch at all on the reason the numbers held this meaning for the ancient Hebrews, nor on the connection with Greek thinking about numbers - the Pythagoreans - and the connection of that again with a common culture in the ANE region, taking in Egypt and Mesopotamia as well as ancient Israel). Anyway, by stressing the 6-ness of Methuselah, the author of Gen.1-11 seems to be stressing that the age of the earth itself was now complete. This would coincide with one of the two suggested meanings of his name - "after he dies it came", or whatever tenses you want to put in there. The name and the age are saying the same thing - after Methuselah dies, the Flood comes and destroys the earth. (And a new divine age begins - hence the repeated 7s at the end, which symbolise the divine). PiCo (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best seems to belong to the school of those who believe the numbers are to be taken literally (i.e., they are describing real ages, even if, Best believes, errors have crept in); Hill is with those who believe the numbers are symbolic. We have to reflect both, and not declare that one or other is "true" - unless the scholarly community has reached a consensus or near-consensus, which it hasn't.
I think I lot of the things on the Methuselah page are very interesting, but perhaps should be transferred to the Biblical Generations article, if they touch on more than just Methuselah. Would you agree? PiCo (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dongle

Please explain why you characterized my edit to Dongle as vandalism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to remove red links and names with no link at all. I feel if there's no Wikipedia article, with sources to prove notability, then it's most likely spam or vanity. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


History of the telephone

Whooops! 'mybad!

On this edit I meant to say: "....for the benefit on the news media.....", -but I accidentally dropped the 's' off of 'news' giving the sentence an entirely different meaning! I obviously need to hire a new copy editor ;-)

HarryZilber (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warrant

Hello, my listed source for the information about warrants was the OED because I simply wanted to give a basic definition as the starting point for the Wikipedia article. I know about warrants from many sources both historical and modern. For example, you can read a reasonable definition in Black's Law Dictionary. There is nothing especially "English" about my definition and the OED description of a financial warrant does not differ substantially from that in Black's Law Dictionary, an American book that lists American legal precedents for its definition, for example, People vs Wood 71 NY 376. It's very simple: a financial warrant is an order to a particular person to deliver money to someone else at a particular time and it doesn't matter whether its in England or America.

I think your writeup in the article is reasonable, but rather too specific to the version of warrants being given out by California and ignores the more general definition of what a warrant is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing my point. My point is that the way the article is written up now suggests that a warrant of payment is particular type of financial instrument and the real meaning is more general. Also, in certain particulars the article is misleading. For example, the very first sentence reads "In government finance, a warrant is a debt instrument that instructs a federal, state, or county government treasurer to pay the warrant holder on demand or after a maturity date." A warrant is not a debt instrument, it is an order. Also, sentences like "Warrants look like checks and clear through the banking system like checks..." This is completely untrue. There is nothing in law that says a warrant of payment must "look like a check" or clear through the banking system. For example, if President Obama writes an executive order to Fort Knox saying "I order you to deliver 10 tonnes of gold to the International Monetary Fund in New York by October 30th, 2009." that constitutes a warrant of payment. It is not a check. It does not clear through a bank. The problem is you are writing up the article to describe California's warrants, not what a warrant actually is. I have no problem with you describing State warrants of payments, but you should make it clear that they are only one possible type of warrant of payment. Also, I think the leading sentences of the article are way too idiosyncratic. Historically warrants of payments have mostly been used to move money around in war situations, something that is completely ignored in the current article. The introductory sentences of the article should give the general meaning of a warrant in an appropriate historical context, not be tailored to the local crisis in California. John Chamberlain (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warrants and Debt Instruments, the difference

The glossary you cited me is not correct except in the limited sense that an accountant might treat a warrant as a liability. Neither cheques nor warrants create a debt in law. Both are types of orders. A cheque is an order to a bank by its account holder. A warrant is an order to an official by a higher official. In both cases if the instrument is not honored the only claim it enables is against to the recipient of the order. For example, let's say a bank refuses to honor a cheque. The normal course of events is that the check holder must complain to the writer and the writer of the cheque must sue the bank for failing to carry out the order. The same is true of a warrant. The warrant holder has no legal claim on the warrant writer that is created by the warrant, nor does the warrant holder have a claim over the receiver. Of course the warrant holder can always sue for non-payment for services or whatever, but the warrant is irrelevant to that action except perhaps as evidence the warrant writer intended to pay for the goods/services.

Here is an example: imagine the warrant holder dies. In that case the warrant becomes void because the order cannot be carried out. The warrant receiver has absolutely no legal obligation to pay the heirs of the holder unless the warrant actually says "pay John Doe or in the event of his death his heirs". This is completely different than a debt which would be inheritable.

An example of a debt would be a document that said "In consideration of services the State of California agrees to pay John Doe $1534 by October 31, 2009, signed by the State Treasurer". This kind of document would create an actual debt to John Doe and Doe would have a claim against the State of California. A warrant gives the holder no legal claim over anybody, neither the state, nor its treasurer nor anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response to the notice that the SEC has defined a municipal warrant as a debt instrument:

I am not sure to what you are referring. The only SEC statement I know about regarding these warrants was a press release by the agency (http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/2009-154.htm) in which they state they consider the IOUs securities. Nowhere in that press release does it say that the SEC considers the documents a debt instrument.

In any case what the SEC or any other executive bureaucracy says about warrants is meaningless in the face of the law. It is the law that decide what constitutes a debt and it is the court decisions which clarify those laws. I agree that a warrant may be transferrable by endorsement but that is different than being an inheritable asset. Either way it is irrelevant to its status as a debt. I was merely bringing up transfer as an example of the way warrants are different than debt instruments.

Evidence of indebtedness. One thing you (and possibly others) are confused by is the difference between a debt and "evidence of indebtedness", ie a liability. A warrant is "evidence of indebtedness" because it demonstrates an intent to disburse funds. For this reason an accountant may regard a warrant as a liability. Nevertheless a warrant is not a debt nor does it entitle the warrant holder to a claim on the issuer of the warrant. If a warrant is refused the holder can act legally against the recipient (ie, the treasurer), but can do so only by means of a writ of mandamus or other similar action. An example of case law regarding holder's remedy is State of Minnesota v Clark, 116 Minn 500. A writ of mandamus is necessary because the holder has no direct claim against the treasurer or the state.

To make it absolutely clear to you that a warrant is not a debt please read the Supreme Court case Raton Waterworks Co. v. Raton, 174 US 360. This is the controlling precedent for municipal warrants. Basically what happened is a territorial court allowed a warrant holder to sue a town for non-payment and the Supreme Court, properly, reversed that decision and ordered the court to dismiss. The reason why is exactly what I have said multiple times above, a warrant holder has no claim on the warrant recipient or the town that issued the warrant. If you read legal manuals about this subject they have the following syllabus for this decision:

"The holder of a valid warrant, having an adequate remedy at law, cannot maintain a bill in equity against a municipality for the specific performance of the obligation to pay contained in the warrant." (typical syllabus of 174 US 360)

A bill in equity is a financial claim. For example, if you have a non-performing debt the critical step to foreclosing on the collateral is to obtain a bill in equity from a court. If warrants were debt instruments a holder could obtain a bill of equity on refusal to pay, but as many courts including the Supreme Court have ruled, they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further update: I have looked up a legal reference that makes it explicit: warrants are not debt. I am writing this reference and a quotation into the article discussion (please see that page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meucci's 1871 caveat

The document was formerly listed at the U.S. National Archives:

Meucci A., Sound Telegraph, Caveat No. 3335, filed at the US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C. Filed on 28 December 1871; renewed 9 December 1872; renewed 15 December 1873; Located at the National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD, RG60 (Department of Justice), Year Files 6921-1885, Box 10, Folder 1

The next part of the puzzle is how to obtain a copy of it so it can be uploaded in the Commons for use within the relevant articles. For your reference, here's what a Meucci proponent, Shiavo, said of the caveat in specific and Meucci's affairs in general: 

"At any rate, the following facts should be made clear, once for all:
1.	In 1871 Meucci was not granted a patent, but a caveat, a kind of provisional patent.  
       Anybody could get a caveat, even if the invention was worthless.
2.	Meucci's caveat does not describe any kind of a diaphragm--none whatever.
3.	There is no United States Supreme Court decision either in favor or against Meucci, 
   and the reference in the October Term of the 1888 U. S. Reports (or in any other volume), 
    exists only in the imagination of some irresponsible people.
4.	In the thousands of pages of manuscript and printed records dealing with Meucci  
   consulted by me, there is no such description of the telephone as given in the Italian  
   encyclopedia. Least of all, is there any reference to any substance "capable of 
   inductive action" precisely defined. We have, of course, documentary evidence that 
    Meucci constructed an electric telephone with material capable of inductive action,  
   such as iron, as well as Meucci's description of the effect of the diaphragm on the magnet, 
    but Meucci never used the precise scientific definition quoted in the Treccani article. Least 
    of all in the caveat.
5.	The various detailed articles on the Meucci telephone which appeared in the 1880's in 
    American and British journals, such as the Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review of  
   London and the Electrical World of New York, with accurate drawings of the various  
   instruments constructed by Meucci, have no legal value whatsoever.
6.	The only court decision about Meucci's telephone in existence was rendered by Judge Wallace  
   of the U. S. Circuit Court in 1887 in the case of the Bell Telephone Company against the Globe  
   Telephone Co., Meucci et Al. That decision was against Meucci.
   I have mentioned the above facts so as to clear the air of all the nonsense that has been written and 
    is still being written about Meucci. As for the facts, the true facts, they will be found in the 
   following pages (of his book, Antonio Meucci Inventor of the Telephone)."

HarryZilber (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Hi again Greesburger: thanks for your comments just received. I intend to pursue the caveat as time permits, but obtaining a copy may involve paying a National Archives staffer to go into the file box and scan it for transmission -I'll have to see what type of charges are involved for that.
One other possible source for the document is the possibility that a notarized copy of it might have been deposited in one of the two other legal cases that Meucci was involved with (such as Meucci v. Bell, or Bell v. Meucci -just going by memory). If those Federal docs are viewable online then the caveat would be easy to access. What's really annoying is that other people probably have a copy of it but are unwilling to post it in the Commons.
HarryZilber (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Persistence pays off —an official copy of Meucci's 1871 patent caveat No.3335, is viewable online here as a .PDF document, on image attachments from pp. 14 thru 18. Some of the wording is difficult to read, but for the most part its a decent scan. Since its a U.S. Federal doc, its copyright free, so it will be good to figure out how to convert the images into .jpeg's or .gif's to add them into the Commons, from where they can be added to the Meucci article and others. The pdf file itself is easily downloadable onto your harddrive for safekeeping.
B.t.w.: a second copy was also on file at a different National Archives location in Maine, specifically at the National Archives and Record Administration, New England Region, 380 Trapelo Road, Waltham, MA, under Records of the Circuit Court of the United States, District of Massachusetts, "United States of America vs. American Bell Telephone Co. and Alexander Graham Bell," Exhibit from Defendants. However those N.A. copies are now moot since its viewable online.....
HarryZilber (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for doing the transcription and analysis of Meucci's caveat —that was a fair bit of work. One further significant point about the caveat is that in a number of places it refers to the sound conduction 'wire' in the singular, not plural case, e.g.: "......I believe it preferable to have the wire of larger area than that ordinarily employed in the electric telegraph, but will experiment on this. Each of these persons holds to his mouth an instrument analogous to a speaking trumpet, in which the word may easily be pronounced, and the sound concentrated upon the wire".
Since he was using a single wire as for sound conduction and employed glass insulator(s) for its user(s) to stand on, then, obviously, there was no return or ground path for an electrical circuit, and according to the known laws of physics, you can't produce a circuit carrying a modulated electrical signal in that instance. That fact has been reported previously a number of times by other reviewers. I believe I've also read somewhere that modern researchers trying to duplicate his results have never successfully built a functional 'electrical' (not mechanical) telephone.
Meucci advocates have to come down to Earth if they want to retain any credibility, and address these central issues. Its no wonder that none of them wanted to post the caveat on Wikipedia -they knew it wasn't a credible description of electrical telephony. To bulletproof the new Analysis section of the caveat so it doesn't get deleted under WP:OR, we need to add citations for those issuues. B.t.w. I've just added a new photo to Bell's article, and gained GNU licenses to a few others.
HarryZilber (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies and case law for warrants of payments

Regarding your last message... I have not read Minn v Clark. I just know it is cited as a precedent for holder's remedies on denial of a warrant. If the recipient of a municipal warrant (eg, a state treasurer or their agent) refuses to pay it then the remedy of the holder is to petition a court in the jurisdiction of the recipient to issue a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is an order by a court to a public official to do a duty they are required to do by law. The official can defend against this action by challenging the validity of the warrant. For example, if it is a state warrant and it is not authorized by state law or is non-compliant with state law in some way the warrant may be legally invalid. The official can also defend against a writ of mandamus by proving that compliance with the order is physically impossible. For example, if the treasurer has no money they can claim they are physically unable to comply with the order. If an official refuses to comply with a writ of mandamus the court can hold the official in contempt of court if the court desires and fine the official or throw them in jail. Other than this petition a warrant holder has no legal remedy for the denial of a warrant. John Chamberlain (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining 'See also's

I noticed that you have put the links

in the 'See also' section of Great Depression. I just want to let you know that the 'see also' section is for links that should be included in the article, but are currently not included. As such, any links that are already in the article should not be repeated in the 'See also' section. For more information about this, see Wikipedia:Layout#See also section. Thanks, LK (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I agree with your interpretation of the issue – I can see why it's necessary for important article links to also be in the 'See also' section. Rereading Wikipedia:Layout#See also section, I see that accommodation has been made for this concern, and so I fully agree with your edit. regards LK (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and notability tags, and the three revert rule

Notability tags (as has recently been confirmed) are not a WP:BLP issue, and should remain until the issue is addressed on the talk page or by the addition of multiple WP:RS that satisfy one of the notability guidelines. Also, please note the WP:3RR and do not continue reverting without discussion. Verbal chat 20:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that wikipedia articles are not a reliable source per our policies. This counts double for talk pages and IP edits. Verbal chat 20:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Russell Blaylock

An article that you have been involved in editing, Russell Blaylock, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Blaylock. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) , as you have to the article Russell Blaylock, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Verbal chat 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good source of historical telephony references and analysis

Hi Greensburger: In case you haven't come across it before, check out this Australian historian's website. Bob, a former telephone tech, has researched and written several articles on historical phones and inventors, include Mssrs. Meucci, Reis, Berliner, Crossley, Hughes and several others. The Meucci essay is particularly interesting for its detailed analysis of the 2002 HRes. 269 which promoted Meucci and slagged Bell. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sign-value notation

Hello! Three years ago you mixed two substantially different topics in one article, which was not rectified up to today. Further information: talk:Sign-value notation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RegisteredWarrantSample2.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:RegisteredWarrantSample2.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. --ZooFari 01:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi, Greenburger. I just wanted to stop by and gently request that you take the time to include an edit summary when you make changes to a page, especially when you remove large sections of text as you did here (and the majority of your other edits as well). It's considered good practice to use edit summaries because they helps others understand why you made the edit you did. I recommend that to avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, you enable the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option on the Editing tab of your user preferences. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Russell Blaylock. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your post on my talk page: WP:3RR is quite clear about what constitutes edit warring. You've made four reversions in less than one hour without once explaining your edits on the talk page, even after Verbal asked you to discuss. Given these circumstances, templating me for two edits explained on the talk page is inappropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the foot note #20 link on the docosahexaenoic acid page has been disabled.Was that an edit on your part?I think it is important that this link is available as it describes the DHASCO/ARASCO used in infant formulas.Could you let me know what has happened to this link?mikepesky 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepesky (talk • contribs)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Commercial and industrial loan, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.allbusiness.com/glossaries/wholesale-banking/4942140-1.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Commercial and industrial loan saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

You have been reported to the WP:3RRNB for continuously posting fringe material to Genealogies of Genesis. I have really tried to make it clear that you need to show that the material is relevant and regarded as notable by WP:RS, and it seems I have not done so effectively. DavidOaks (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have locked the article from editing for a few days. I strongly urge you to make your case at the talkpage and reach consensus before re-including that material. You are productively adding to the current discussion, but there is no reason that the discussion cannot continue without the edit war; perhaps your next step could be to establish the WP:PROMINENCE of the speculation. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My article on Distributed Operating Systems

Hi Initially there was no article on Distributed Operating System. So I took some time to gather information and published my article on Distributed Operating Systems. So heres my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_operating_system . Can you please suggest any further improvements to my page please. Sir I am asking you because you published on operating systems page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksudhir01 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Would you mind adding a comment to Talk:Westinghouse_Electric_(1886)#External_Link_with_historical_info_and_photos_of_Westinghouse_founding_and_founders so someone else doesn't delete it? Thanks. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

material deleted from Genealogies of Genesis

Hi. Regarding this edit, feel free to add your contributions to http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis. See http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Religionwiki:Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_about_controversial_material_and_original_research.3F. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Greensburger (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two merge proposals

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with Longevity. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Longevity myths, has been proposed for a merge with List of disputed supercentenarian claimants. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. JJB 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbola

Hi, I suppose the categories issue is a problem of your web browser, I see them normal in Firefox, Chromium and Opera. --KDesk (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg
Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected a mistaken rollback

I wanted you to know that, in the course of rolling back vandalism to the article Check 21 Act, I had mistakenly rolled back your version where you had reverted the disrupted editing by an IP anon. After I realized my error, I restored your version as the last one of the article. Just wanted you to know just in case you're wondering what happened when I made that mistake. →Lwalt ♦ talk 01:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Control of fire by early humans

Stop asking questions on the talk page that are impossible to answer when considering the subject matter of the article. The page is about evidence showing the earliest known instances of man-made fire by early members of Homo. There is no way to know how or why Homo erectus made fire so stop asking how or why it was done. There is no way that we as scientists can determine how or why a prehistoric hominid did anything so stop asking questions that can only possibly concern Homo sapiens who have a written record.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Booting lede

Nice work. Sorry for the rather snippy HTML comment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ELNO. The external links section is not the place for posting journal articles. Especially none review article from more than 5 years ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of Interest to you

I notice that you are a very big contributor to the project on the Telephone. I like you believe that Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. However, I thought you might be interested in seeing this corresponding article List of Italian inventions. It seems that the editors on that page seem to give credit to Antonio Meucci for inventing it. So there is a confliction. Should it be reverted? Yoganate79 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing will be gained by deleting Meucci from the the List of Italian inventors. He was in fact an inventor and had patents for other things. Meucci's attempt to invent an electrical telephone was a failure, but the same can be said of Reis. Meucci belongs in a list with the other telephone pioneers, even though he was not the inventor of the first successful electrical telephone. Greensburger (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking outside the navbox

Hi Greensburger: you might have noticed that I've been inserting this general Telecommunications navbox into a few dozens of (actually a few hundred) telecommunication related articles, to encourage readers to explore the topic's very wide scope -the template itself is a work in progress which will also later include more technical subtopics.

However, two telecommunication editors have taken offense to its use across the spectrum of articles covered by telecommunications, as discussed on this telecommunications project page, and one of them has suggested that articles with the navbox be reverted to remove them. I invite you to look at the discussion and contribute your voice if you feel the navbox serves a useful purpose on those pages. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin D

Can you provide a review article that states otherwise from "there is little evidence for effects other than improving bone health" per discussion here [3]? All the sources I have see say evidence is poor for supplementation other than for bone health. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I agree with Rhombus. The IOM statement that "there is little evidence for effects of vitamin D other than improving bone health" can be easily disproven by citing counter-examples, such as experiments that showed vitamin D is necessary for macrophages to create anti-microbial enzymes. That says nothing about effective dosage or optimal blood ngm/mL, but it does prove that the IOM overly broad conclusion is false. Therefore, the article should state that "some authorities claim..." rather than implying with silence that the IOM conclusions are undisputed. Greensburger (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ziggurat

You could well be right that there may be a place on Wikipedia for a list of modern buildings that have been termed ziggurat; however, it is inappropriate to place such a list in the Ziggurat article, especially when such a list is unsourced. The article is about ancient buildings in the Mesopotamian area, it is not about any and everything connected with the term "ziggurat". Possible approaches would be a List, such as List of works designed with the golden ratio or a Category, such as those in Category:Buildings and structures by shape. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection to Invention Of The Telephone

Hi Greensburger, season's greetings. Today Invention of the telephone was given semi-protection for 10 days. The admin who assigned it catagorized the issue not as vandalism, but as a 'content dispute'. However as I see it, if Meucci advocates keep insisting in their photo captions that "Antonio Meucci [was] the first to patent the telephone in 1871", that's definitely a categorical lie, opinion pushing and ongoing vandalism.

I recommend that when we revert those edits, we click on the 'Revert vandalism' button, so that 'vandalism' shows up on the history tab. In the future, after the 10 day period expires, I'll push for indefinite semi-protection of the article, and showing multiple instances of 'vandalism' on the article's history will help back up the request. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Greensburger: you can, if you prefer, type in 'revert vandalism' manually on the edit summary. A while ago I activated a Wikipedia gadget called 'Twinkle' which I believe adds a 'Rollback vandalism' link (or button, if you prefer), to an edit's 'Diff' page, to enable the quick rollback or undoing of single or multiple vandalism edits. This tool is available under your 'My Preferences' setting, in the 'Gadgets' tab at the top right, in the 'Browser' section. Look at the second to last item in that section, which should read: "Twinkle: a set of tools which automates..... vandalism reporting...... etc...". I actually have several Wikipedia tools active for my account, but I believe this is the one which creates the 'Rollback vandalism' link at the top of 'diff' pages. Its highly useful for rolling back numerous vandalism edits with a single click.
Additionally or optionally, you may need to also apply for rollback authority, which I recall doing a few years ago. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with "Immune system" article

Hello. As to article "Immune system", do you know how to move the table, now aligned right within the section "Layered defense", so that the text in the section's subsections can be positioned to the left of the table, not only either above or below the table? Kusername (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell

Discussion ensuing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell telephone controversy (update)

Hi Greensburger, Happy New Year!

In June 2010 you asked on my talk page for details on the Gray/Bell controversy article I had previously cited:

[You originally wrote:] "On May 25, 2009 you added a reference to an article by Meyer, Ralph & Carlson, Bernard on "The Bell-Gray Controversy" that links to "Invention & Technology" magazine, Fall 2008, vol 23, issue 3, page 14. I clicked on "Archive >" and got as far as the front page of that issue, but was blocked because I am not a subscriber. Can you provide a short summary of their one-page article? Greensburger (talk) 8:36 pm, 1 June 2010"

I briefly provided you some of the important details found in that article (which is not viewable online). You may also be interested in a somewhat similar, but far shorter article on the same subject, written by Prof. Meyer and Edwin Grosvenor on American Heritage, which is viewable via this link to the magazine's website:

Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I appreciated your comments. Like yourself at age 11 I used to take stuff apart to fix it, in my case mechanical alarm clocks. My mom put a stop to that after I finished a few projects but had parts left over. Nevertheless I persevered and happily ended up in aerospace, more happily with no leftover parts. I take a lot of satisfaction looking up to the sky and seeing some of my projects flying past. Since my Boeing plant was shut down I can now contribute to the public store of knowledge on Wikipedia. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Immunology

I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 09:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles and should be from the last 5 to 10 years.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 23:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chartelism

Thanks for the message, thats a good suggestion. I only specified the name of the emperor who introduced the system. Tina says it remained largely unchanged until the 270s, so listing all of them would have clogged up the article with excessive peripheal detail. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Don't cross the bridge until you come to it

The article Don't cross the bridge until you come to it has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOT#DICDEF

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Secret account 06:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I rewrote the article to explain the metaphoric meanings of the proverb. Greensburger (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings!

Happy children want you to be happy as well!

Happy children join me in extending the best possible Season's Greetings to you and your loved ones at this time of year, and if you don't celebrate the usual holidays (Diwali, Xmas, Hanukkah, Eid, Kwanzaa, etc....), then we will still wish you a Happy Festivus. All the best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divestiture of the Bell System

Hi Greensburger, if you're able to assist at the current discussion of Bell System divestiture you're input would be welcome. A proposal has been made to rename it to 'Breakup of AT&T', which doesn't sound right to me. Thanks if you can help. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 03:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Objective edits. Great work. Rothbardanswer (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the best article title for 'Optical telecommunication'

Hi Greensburger, there's currently an effort by another editor to move Optical telecommunication back to an earlier title, 'Optical communication'. Approximately a month ago I asked for discussion on retitling it as a telecommunication article since it deals only with technology, not with the social science of communication, which is the way Wikipedia treats that subject. As there was no objection to renaming the article to 'Optical telecommunication' I proceeded with the move. Yesterday another editor decided that 'communication' is a better descriptor and tagged it for a move back to its old title, which I've opposed with reasons. If you'd like to join the discussion please feel free to do so. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sciatica

Per the ref quoted it can also be from the L1-L4 nerve roots which are not siatic but still, at least for L2/3, go to just below the knee.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Micro entity status

Actually, it's not a joke (I am referring to this edit summary). See 37 CFR 1.29 at: [4], page 75033. --Edcolins (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits! Perhaps, we should simply have an article named Large and small entities in patent law to discuss all these "schemes". What do you think? Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Edcolins (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elements

Hi

You added to iodine that there is a treatment with non-radioactive potassium iodide. This is not 100% right. Natural potassium is quite active so it is radioactive!

The addition to the molybdenum page is OK, but the ref looks really weak, do you have a better?

Thanks

--Stone (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Discount window

An article that you have been involved in editing, Discount window, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Logie Baird

Please can you explain why you have re-introduced a sizeable amount of entirely unreferenced information into this biography? GiantSnowman 14:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with WP:BLP? It still applies to the deceased. GiantSnowman 15:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add ref name Santoro

see
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macrophage&diff=prev&oldid=575823975
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macrophage&diff=577238908&oldid=576896974
thanks --Frze > talk 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Russell Blaylock for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russell Blaylock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Blaylock (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debits and credits - Business Transactions

Hi there,

I'm trying to get a discussion going to clean up the lede section on the Debits and credits article. Since you've paid a fair bit of attention to this article, I'd like to get your comments over on the talk page, if you're interested.

Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:CellTowersAtCorners.gif or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1904

Is this seriously a 1904 reference [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Weeping Eczema for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Weeping Eczema is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weeping Eczema until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any modern refs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Weeping Eczema, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PABA and Serum. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jean-Claude Bragard

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jean-Claude Bragard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. --Finngall talk 00:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Secure cryptoprocessor. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- intgr [talk] 12:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss with me?

Hi there,

I wanted to see if you were still an active Wikipedia editor and to invite you to discuss the renaming of the article Evidence of common descent. See: Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Article_Title and Talk:Evidence_of_common_descent#Requested_move_5_March_2016.

Cheers! A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Hi Greensburger I have asked that a page you made Centrum ovale be moved to Centrum semiovale there are refs available for this name - also could find no refs anywhere for the two parts - do you remember where you found these? Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the page is in Gray's, but as you can see from talk page there is this use of semiovale instead. Having looked there are refs to centrum ovale infarcts - think semioval center would be better moved to centrum ovale. Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Robert Lyster Thornton, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=hb767nb3z6&chunk.id=div00119&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Robert Lyster Thornton saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Greensburger. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Greensburger. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:RobertLysterThornton.jpg

Notice

The file File:RobertLysterThornton.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rufus L. Porter

Notice

The article Rufus L. Porter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

we have no sourcing that gives significant coverage of this poet

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]