User talk:Ukexpat/Archive 7

Regarding this edit summary: the relevant MoS guideline appears to suggest either is allowable when introducing a list of people. If you prefer "may refer to" I'm happy to leave it that way, mind. – The Parting Glass 14:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

how can i paraphrase the article to get it up on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by McVolt (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How can i do things to get my article up on wikipedia. How do companies like Sony or Dell end up getting their articles up McVolt (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)mcVolt

It appears that there was a wiki v.s. commons issue there (the local copy was deleted) - see that you've fixed it . Skier Dude (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The link to "most visited" articles is down in the welcome template I stole from you. How do I get it fixed? Also, the template was a topic of discussion on my talk page with many mortals humbled and awed by its grandeur. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I was scrolling your page, and I found two templates I admire:

1. This user doesn't believe in deities, myths, or superstitions.
2. This user uses the metric system . . .

Is it possible I could have the codes for those? Thanks. --DocDeel516 ^discuss 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All sidebar links on your user and user talk pages except "About Wikipedia" are non-clickable in my IE7 with MonoBook skin. I assume it's Jimbo's fault. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It works fine now. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

...for cleaning up my edits on Irimi and for the tutorial information. JT Pickering (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I much appreciate your comment, to the point of tears; I do try hard to get things right here in the face of much conflict, and the appreciation is useful to me. Would that there could be a definitive statement available somewhere, but there apparently isn't, and dealing with that uncertainty in that article, and elsewhere, generates more conflict than is strictly necessary. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 02:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Since you were listed on the Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers page as a general copyeditor, I was wondering if you would like to take a look at the article Enchanted (film). It is currently being peer reviewed. It would be great if we could get someone who hasn't seen the article before to copyedit it. Thanks, Ladida (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem the first paragraph, the quote, or the table of contents? I tried to model it after the 5 dysfunctions of a team by Patrick Lencioni and cite all the areas that could be seen as promotional. Could you please advise me about the best course of action to take.--Talentsmart2 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please move your editied version to the main page. --Talentsmart2 (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why it is so hard to correct an error. I was actually married to Richard from 1970 until 1976. I have forwarded my Divorce Certificate to my sister and she has also obtained my Marriage Certificate to produce as evidence. What else do we need to do? All I want is for the correction to be made. I have not lived in the UK for over thirty years, but most of my family are there. I look forward to finding out how this can be rectified and I can put it all to rest. Jewellie1 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm constantly redirected to the wp:ear page due to the blacklisted keywords. If you could help me with this, or give me some clues as to contacting somebody who is able to, it would be much appreciated, thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antmartain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Geez! I wracked my brains trying to accomplish a simple task of editing reference & you save the day. Eventualy, I'll get the hang of it. Pjt48 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm sorry about that. I only did it, because all of the text on the page was already directly quoted from the Ben Carson website, so I thought that it was ok to do. I added a couple paragraphs that were left off, to help the wiki page make sense. I tried to add the official Ben Carson site as a reference, but didn't understand how to do that. I thought that perhaps if the website was in the references, then it was ok to quote it. Thank you for the information, I will not directly quote sites from now on.

Ambrosia apples (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Given your suggestion of removing the hatnote for dismbiguation in Frank D'Angelo, should I also have Frank D'Angelo (disambiguation) deleted? Nothing links there...

Thanks for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexthepuffin (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply to my question concerning the above. I don't have a unified login . Do I really have to have one to vote? LouisBB (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages (69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Thanks for your help concerning the article that was deleted. I have redone the article, and I believe it can hardly be thought of as either over the top or egregiously an infomercial. Before posting it however, I'd like your sense as to whether it now passes muster. The link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LEMSpare/Stephano_Sabetti

Thanks much LEMspare (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nigel,

What should we do next? Mike seems unhappy with my source refs. There were none at all when I started last week. The article quoted web sites which are tertiary sources at best and unreliable. I have added source refs to support every statement in the article. What is wrong with my numbering system?

Look forward to hearing from you, William

Wfm495 (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Helping to sort my citations to WIKI style will be a great help - thanks. If you could put next to eachother refs (2 & 7) and ( 5 &10) I think that would also help a great deal. I won't make any changes until I hear from you. I am also aware my grammar and sentance construction is a little clunky in places.

Will Wfm495 (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the confidence-based learning entry was tagged for commercialization. I edited the site to remove references to any company and organization. I updated additional information since I am more concerned about the research and value it has in measuring how correct and confident people are in their knowledge. I noticed that Entheta posted a POV earlier which I responded that I would undertake a rewrite and since the additional warning on the advertising, I went in today to focus on methodology itself.

Can you please review my updates and to see at this point if it is acceptable to remove both the advertising warning and the POV. I will continue to work on updating the research in this field.

Thank you and looking for your advice in this area since I want to continue to improve this entry.

(Masterychef (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

You have done a really great job and in such a short time - well done and thanks. What is the next stage? William Wfm495 (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think FRANCE should be added to his "allegiance" before, and in addition to, USA, as I think he was intending to use MARENGO against British ships trading along the East coast of USA on behalf of France, then applied for an American Letter of Marque when USA declared war on UK. Many privateers held more than one Letter of Marque from different countries. Wfm495 (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Extract from the ship's log of Prince de Neufchatel, July to September, 1814, as printed in the Baltimore Patriot of 24 October, 1814 - In McManemin, John. Captains of the privateers of the War of 1812. Ho-Ho-Kus Publishing Company, 1994. www.1812privateers.org/Privateers/princecareer.html

2. Documents about Prince de Neufchatel in the possession of the UK National Archives - www.1812privateers.org/Privateers/princeINDEX.html

3. Drawing of Prince de Neufchatel in the UK National Maritime Museum - www.1812privateers.org/1812IMAGES/princedraught.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.1812privateers.org/Privateers/princeplan.html&usg=__snvLu9rvzXh5jpx5HTOW3DNoSRs=&h=589&w=1497&sz=186&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=s8KRhYLqwI1hIM:&tbnh=59&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dprince%2Bde%2Bneufchatel%2Bnational%2Bmaritime%2Bmuseum%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DG

I expect there are more but these are the best, and will do for a start

Will Wfm495 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PS I think there may be difficulty with the long site number 3 - I can't get it to work. Is it copyright protected?

Wfm495 (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is my favorite website and I finally decided to contribute to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverbritches (talk • contribs) 02:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

This was my first contribution and I can say that I have gained a lot of wisdom!

Thank you. Sachin Tewari Chhetri (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC).

Hello Nigel,

I don't know how to add the external links that I have chosen (see earlier entry above on your page). Could you possibly add them to the article? The third one may be problematic as it is very long.

Thanks indeed! Congrats on your star award.

William Wfm495 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why Wikipedia carries pages on Sony Entertainment Television for Asia, India, Portugal and South America. I was updating their presence in South Africa within that context. Are those pages similarly advertising? Can you please advise policy? Is it tone of article. thanks Byronafrica (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your help. I am reworking, shortening and changing the Contributions to a more encyclopedic tone. I asume what you mean by inline references you're referring to footnotes from the secondary, non-Life Energy Media books from Sabetti. I will insert the footnotes from the other sources. Finally, is it your opinion, as it seemed to be with Fughettaboutit, that I should not cite Sabetti's books as references at all? Should I just list them as Works? I can't thank you enough for all your help. LEMspare (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Hello, This is my first article and I'm a bit lost on how to move my article. I have created a subpage and I think I'm ready to move it to the main space area, could you please help me?? Here is the article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volvera215/Indenters Volvera215 (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of your friendly talk page stalkers, Ukexpat, I took the liberty of helping out directly - see Nano indenter for the mainspace result. Regards to you both, Bencherlite^Talk 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't in fact check to see whether you had already replied to Volvera215... I then saw that you had done (which reminded me to move the article to the singular from the plural, slapped wrist to Bencherlite!) Sorry about that, but hopefully it's all sorted now. Bencherlite^Talk 15:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I saw your comment on the help talk page about cite errors, so thought you might be able to help me figure out a problem we're having on Barack Obama. For some reason note 181 has an error note that I've never seen and can't locate elsewhere - "Error: too many #time calls." at the "accessdate" field. I've retyped it, compared it to similarly structured citations, and am really stumped. We use the "See also" structure other places in the article with no problem.. Could you take a look and see if you have any idea what's wrong - or can you direct me to someone who might be able to help? Thanks very much - this is rather weird! Tvoz/talk 23:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok - Bobblehead just posted that the problem is something to do with reaching a limit on #time - but I have to say I don't know what that means. Do you know if there's another way around this? Tvoz/talk 23:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Found the discussion at Template talk:Citation/core - and fortunately people who actually understand this are dealing with it - technical stuff is clearly not my forte. Thanks anyway, and nice to meet you! Tvoz/talk 03:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha you understood 1%? That's about .95% more than I did! Tvoz/talk 00:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment, I worked really hard on this first project and hope to continue to progress in writing articles. Thank you for starting the proces on getting my article in the "main" area. If there is anything I can do to improve my work please do not hesitate to let me know. Once again thanks. Best regards,Volvera215 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your kind offer of help. While i have used Wikipedia in the past, I am by no means an expert in it's use, so any help you can offer would be gratefully recieved. Thankyou for the basic changes you have made to the article already. Bluebellnutter (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! I've taken your constructive criticism, and I think I've addressed the issues. 1. I've greatly reduced and stated the simple, one or two sentewnce descriptions in Professional Development and Teaching Themes. I see now where the subjectification, even subtle references to "better approaches" may be seen as touting. 2. I've searched and found direct inline references for the articles, TV interviews, Radio Interviews, and articles written by others about Life Energy Therapy. 3. I've removed the registered trademarks.4. I've taken the notability issue to heart. It was noted that the articles had to be about Sabetti, not just mentioning him in passing to be considered valid references. I've seen and heard the interviews, and I can assure you each one of these articles concerns onlySabetti's work. Fughettabout mentioned this, I believe.5. I've removed Sabetti's books as references. They now only appear as Works. I must admit, and I thank you so very much for your help in getting me to sharpen this down, that many other articles I find in Wikipedia would never hold up to the level of rigorous scrutiny we're imposoing here. This high standard only serves to make this work better, so please don't misunderstand me. But I find countless articles that have no referencesa at all; they're allowed to "fly" perhaps because the names are better known.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your looking at the newest iteration. I've left the footnote sources in as references too. My understanding, from reading the citations page is that this is generally done when the articles apply to most of the topic, but a key to Sabetti's work lies in the interconnection between and among elements of the theory (thus wholeness). I'll take them out of the references section, leaving only the footnotes if you deem it proper.

As always, you patience and guidance is greatly appreciated, and if further work needs doing, I'll execute it. I don't want the article to get published and summarily trounced!!!! Ha! Site is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LEMSpare/Stephano_Sabetti LEMspare (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ukexpat, I just noticed that you have removed the heading "External links" and brought my earlier addition under "Further reading". This would not be unreasonable were it not that an "audio slideshow" cannot be read. I leave any handling of the issue to you. Kind regards, --BF 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

Hi, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and hoped that you could copyedit an article for me. I have been working on List of National Monuments of the United States and it is now at FLC, and the reviewers suggested proofreading. I would really appreciate it if you could please copyedit this article for me, and I'd be happy to help out with one of your articles in return. Thank you! Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, these have been requested but I don't know to add them. Couild you possibly add them? I would suggest "BACKGROUND " at the start. Then at the beginning of para 2 "His first command - privateer MARENGO" (may need shortening? Then at head of para 5 "His second command - privateer Prince de Neufchatel". Then before the last para "Prince de Neufchatel is captured" How should we break up the long quotation? Should this be shortened? I didn't add this. Thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your diligency for putting the link back but the actor asked me to delete because the links doesn't directly go to his bio and there's so much reroute to get to it via this link. The website is very finicky about using it without becoming a signed up member. Pjt48 (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Nigel for section headings and external links - looks better, Wfm495 (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, see my suggestion on John Ordronaux discussion, cheers, Will Wfm495 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Nigel I have added another sentance in the penultimate paragraph (capture of Prince) detailing other papers in the UK Nationl Archives. Could you add the ref number 14 at the end of it in wiki method? Thanks Will Wfm495 (talk)

I understand that the article is free domain. The IMB link now goes directly to Northup's file but as time goes on it seems to automatically revert back to the main IMB site and then it becomes difficult to find Northup's IMB bio. So, I say let the chips fall as they may. Thank you again for your diligence. The actor isn't going to be happy also with Wiki keeps taking his photo out of the article via wiki automated bot. I personally respect all the wiki's protective policies of credibility and legality but it does make it cumbersome to insert a measly photo to the article. I know this isn't your problem, but I thought I would share my frustration with someone. Having said all this--I do find the wikipedia utterly amazing vehicle for obtaining fast & fury information under the sun & above. Pjt48 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel I realise I am placing a lot of demands on you at the moment so please do not worry if there is a delay before you action anything! 1.Could you add another section heading before the fourth paragraph of "Second Command -" saying: "Battle with HMS Endymion"? 2. Are there sub headings that could be used to break up the text of the long quote describing the various stages of the battle? I can work out the names and positions of the sub heads if you could then apply them? I think that is a better idea than summarising the quote? Wfm495 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks for doing that,Nigel, Wfm495 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries was purposely sub-headed into historical time periods was because the page in its inception had gotten a lot of criticism for placing inventions prior to 1776 (pre-independence) as "United States" inventions when in fact, the United States did not exist before 1776. The page had been sub-headed by century, yet it was misleading since some of the inventions listed in the 18th century were not developed when the U.S. came about. Hence to satisfy the nay sayers, it was changed a long time ago to highlight the fact that inventions before 1776 were from the "Colonial Period" and not when the "United States" existed. --Yoganate79 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am truely grateful. Still learning the Wiki formatting requirements. Do you think the page is ready to go live? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nd84/leisurecorp

Best Regards

Nd84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nd84 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 February 2009Nd84 (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear JohnCD, Thank you very much for your correcting my article on Ashin. Wiki is still new to me. But I typed "Ashin Mettacarain" the Google search. I still do not see Ashin together with wiki. Why? If possible I would like to request you to help this article. Thanks. Regards, Baydawin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baydawin (talk • contribs) 10:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ukexpat, Thank you very much. But I still do not see my article on Ashin Mettacara. If I type " Aung San Suu Kyi" in the google search, I can see "Aung San Suu Kyi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Why? Regards, Bayda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baydawin (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you , sir. Regards, Bayda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baydawin (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, I am trying to implement suggestions of improvements following reassessment of this article. Now that the long essay has been removed, could you add a fourth external link: The battle with HMS Endymion in: Maclay, E.S., A History of American Privateers, New York, 1899 www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/life/war1812/privateer/endymion2.htm

Thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nigel - Many thanks for 4th external link. When you have some time could you look at copy, style, grammar, flow etc and the other comments made in the assessment? Many thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks Nigel. Two further issues:

1.The ref for last sentance under Battle with Endymion is my ref No. 4.

2. Please add another account of this battle in external links: Coggeshall, G. A History of American Privateers and Letters of Marque, Third Edition, New York, 1861. www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/life/war1812/privateer/endymion1.htm

Many thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel. I think we make a good team!!

Please could you change the ref. number at the end of the third sentance under Battle with Endymion from 13 to 4? The date given for the battle in Coggeshall must be wrong. All other sources give the date as 11 October 1814.

Thanks again! Wfm495 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed all the google refs to the above (army medic)? I am tempted to do a Wiki article about him because I think he must have been the son of the privateer, but had a very illustrious life of his own - many publications. Wfm495 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Class B - Amazing - thanks for your help!! Wfm495 (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this and thought i'd say something. These are articles being written by groups of students from the CIS department at the Univeristy of Strathclyde, however each account is only being used by one the editor of the group and not being shared. I'll read the link you've given us tommorow when i have time, but it seemed like account sharing was your biggest issue? I'm not entirely sure what the "situation" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem1 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - don't know many of these answers yet!! But the combination of the Ordronaux and Charretton genes seems to have produced a man with a good brain! Wfm495 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel - I'm off to bed now. Speak to you tomorrow! Wfm495 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel you must look at this site!!!! www.wikirage.com/wiki/John_Ordronaux/

Compliment or what?! Wfm495 (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello NIgel, I am having a break now. Could you sort my refs section and the numbering links? - I have added some new ones. -- that would be really helpful. Then I think we could consider full Wiki publication? Thanks, Will Wfm495 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, I have found the killer document that proves the relationship. It is now ref (x) and should probably end up as ref (2) if you could possibly re-number?

Thansk, Wfm495 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

DR O is ready to link and sort refs when you are ready! thanks, Will Wfm495 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your further copy editing, Will Wfm495 (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS I think the second sentance under Early life could be moved to a FOOTNOTE to avoid the clumsy brackets? What do you feel? Wfm495 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel - look forward to seeing the refs numbered and linked in proper Wiki method. One day I must learn how to do that!! Wfm495 (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Please check the website I cited. It clearly has a tribute to Beverly Eckert, Class of '69.

2. Canisius High School is a Jesuit all-boy school. There is a tribute on their website acknowledging her contributions to the high school, but it never refers to her as a graduate.

3. In the same Wikipedia entry, under the "Before September 11th" section, it correctly refers to Beverly attending and graduating from the Buffalo Academy of the Sacred Heart.

What additional references do you think are necessary to correct such an obvious error?

Sxrsxrsxr (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my previous entry should have noted "Beverly Eckert" in the title. Sxrsxrsxr (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights on the issue, but I am a bit at a loss on the conflict of interest and notability aspects. The organization I am trying to create an entry for is a non-profit professional organization for teachers of management. My goal was to put up descriptive information about the organization for those who might be interested in teaching and pedagogy in the management disciplines. I am not a paid employee, just a volunteer as are all of our organization's members and officers. Anyone who is in a position to write about the organization is, in all likelihood, a member. As to notability, how is that determined? I've seen Wikipedia entries on everyone and everything under the sun, many of which are of interest only to a vanishingly small population. Gary Coombs (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for your excellent work as usual. I think this is ready to publish - Would you action for us please? Thanks, Will Wfm495 (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am open to advice on how Wiki would title this - you decide! In Google he is usually referred to as Dr John Ordronaux - Will Wfm495 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nigel, Thanks for this. But it doesn't seem to come up if you enter "John Ordronaux" in Wiki's search engine which it should.

PS I have put text on my WFM495 user page - would you check to advise if this is suitable? Thanks Wfm495 (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel I have replied on my talk page Wfm495 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel I think we should alter the first sentance to something like: .....was a professor of medical jurisprudence, who was called up as a surgeon in the American Civil war, and who became a pioneering mental health commissioner and an expert in the relationship between State and Federal law."

• • • • • THANKS FOR NEW INTRO - Reads much stronger Wfm495 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also please see that I have added another sentance about his bequests in the into which needs a ref number...sorry! Still don't know how!!!

PS There is a STUB article on David Armitage Bannerman on Wiki which I want to expand. I have his unpublished autobiography.Wfm495 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

......is my relative , yes - Great Uncle-in-law ! I knew him quite well. I am sure we could make it Class C or B. Wfm495 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for redoing refs on my homepage! Wfm495 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel are you qualified to complete the checklist to meet Class B for this article - see discussion? Speak to you tomorrow!! Wfm495 (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There should also be a correction to the college attended. It should be "Buffalo State College" . Note the correction in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/pageoneplus/corrections.html?scp=7&sq=beverly%20eckert&st=cse and the tribute on the website of Buffalo State: www.buffalostate.edu Sxrsxrsxr (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of John Ordronaux (doctor) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Nigel, thanks for your suggestion. Compare it with mine would you please? Wfm495 (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC) PS The article is still not found by entering John Ordronaux in Wiki search engine. I feel "(doctor)' should be dropped, or unlinked in some way, after all the other article doesn't have "(privateer)" after it. Wfm495 (talk) 11:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Nigel I apologise for removing your suggestion - I was having difficulty in editing this page and needed to consult you but you were not online. Questions:

1. Will two hooks cause confusion to the judges? 2. Do you not feel that the hook must include mention of the privateer as this is what makes this man's life so additionally interesting, especially to Mil-Histers who know about the privateer? 3. Does the hook have to be verbatim the same as the first sentance of the article?

Sincere apologies for any upset Wfm495 (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Many thanks for your constructive comments and help as usual, Wfm495 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, I have constructed an external links section (of his books online) for this article on the article's disucussion. Is there any chance you could add it to the article? Wfm495 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• PS I have managed to add it myself! I hope I have done it OK and in time for the review?? Wfm495 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, thanks for that, but I felt the numbers were useful? Wfm495 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I like the "Net worth" addition!! Certainly makes the point! Wfm495 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi NIgel, This article is still not picked by either Wiki or Google search engines. Is there something that can be done about this? ThanksWfm495 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks . Strangely enough Google has had my WFMuser version up for days but I didn't create the link, so I don't know how it knewa bout it. As for Wiki searches for Dr O, I feel we should drop the "(doctor)" and pass both searches to a page exactly like the David Bannerman disambiguation page. Then list both JO's on equal status, with dates and occupations? Sorry to be such a nuisance and I am sure a solution will be found!! Wfm495 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect it still isn't right, as you only find Dr O if know to look for him down the look up table. Look at the way David Bannerman is handled. A Wiki search only gives you one option and directs you to a clear disambiguation page Wfm495 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This puzzles me. The current situation is not at all good as it favours one JO over another. How come a better solution was found for the Bannerman situation? Could you possibly look at it? Wfm495 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I perhaps didn't make myself clear - there are two David Bannermans (with almost the same name) and if you do a Wiki search only one option comes up so you are directed to a disambiguation page before seeing either article so that each is given equal weight. Wfm495 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation page needs to be moved so that it is the first page seen by any John Ordronaux search. At the moment the disambiguation page is effectively bypassed and is only read by chance? And the "doctor" suffix seems to be causing confusion rather than helping. Wfm495 (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am suggesting. The disambiguation page would be called John Ordronaux and would be the first page seen. Then you would be able to choose between John Ordronaux (dates) -Privateer, John Ordronaux (dates) Lawyer/Civil War surgeon., USS Ordronaux ( as you can over the two David Bannermans). Otherwise I think there will always be a tendency for uninformed readers to go straight to the privateer, and never know that the surgeon existed. I don't expect this to be done today, but who do we have to ask about this? It make common sense to me. Wfm495 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more it makes me feel that the weakness of the current arrangement is that you have to know that Dr O exists in order to be certain of finding out about him. No other information retrieval system that I have used puts different probabilites of discovering things of equal weight. Wfm495 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigel Wfm495 (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You managed it - well done - it is now right, thank you! Except, I think the text font could be larger on the disambiguation page as a lot of readers will be retired naval personnel who served on USS Ordronaux with poor eyesight like mine!! Wfm495 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The B rating from MIL HIST is obviously very pleasing, BUT I have added a note to Dr JO's discussion page agreeing that we need to find legal and medical history experts to beef up those aspects. Thanks again for all your help. Wfm495 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

MED, LAW and PSYCH have all rated C which isn't bad as I am well aware that we really need a specialist input from MED and LAW to assess Dr Ordronaux's contributiion in those fields. Wfm495 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Understood, thanks, Wfm495 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ukexpat, thank you for the info on policies, where to get help, etc. that you left on my talk page. I've been doing my best to find the appropriate guidelines before doing anything, but sometimes info is hard to find, so it's good to have that all in one place. Susan118 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi.. Just looking at the "J" page..

The running average example is defined as "4 avg\ v"

I cant find a definition of the symbol "\" anywhere... Is this correct, or should it read "4 avg/ v"

Cheers

Christopher

94.193.241.212 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, what to do about this? Wfm495 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel. I also think that this misses the point because Dr O is very clearly very well known, since almost all of his books are online, and his books can be found on bookselling sites at up to £3,000 each. So there will be lots of people looking him up in Wiki direct from google and via Wiki's engine. Wfm495 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, I have added a paragraoh to the article on Regimen sanitatis Salernitanum which needs to have the numbered ref added about the online version of Ordronaux's translation, if you could do that for me? Thanks, Will Wfm495 (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, I have added a phrase in the sixth para of the article on Dartmouth College which also needs the correct ref. Wfm495 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• • PS - Two more Nigel when you have a minute: !

Nigel - ditto fourth para of American Civil War - add ref please? Wfm495 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto first para of Episcopal Diocese of Long Island Wfm495 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you add "known for: capturing 30 British ships " in his fact box? - Thanks Nigel Wfm495 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, have a look at this would you. I added a mention as requested under the Orphan rule but it has been immediately reversed! Wfm495 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks as usual for your help today! Dr O is now B rate by MEDS which is nice. I will have to think about what to do next, but I cannot spend every day in Wiki, though it can become addictive!! Will Wfm495 (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am very concerned by the undoing by a user called soxon of our links from Diocese of Long lsland and Regimen medica. What do you feel? Wfm495 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I think it would have been better if soxwon had said "why not do it this way instead/" rather than just undoing our well intentioned suggestions. I have found this very off-putting indeed. It seems to me that we could add a "History of he Diocese" heading and put Dr 's endowment in there, possibly? But I agree with you about his translation of Regimen. It was probably the first Amercican translation and probably the most medically accurate and possibly the first to be done by a doctor. Wfm495 (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ukexpat,

Thank you for your warm welcome. The first message I got is from you! Well, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm glad that the little contribution we make helps someone know something they always wanted to know. I thank you once again, and please share with me, your recent postings, contributions to Wiki.

Cheers Thendral Thendral Muthusami (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On your main page how did you get that status thing that says "ukexpat is Online"? I want one! :) lol --Bo98 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The former User:HTHCSC, now User:Jm7195a, is still editing Hope Through Health without regard for COI concerns. I've templated him, but it's apparently still not getting through to him how serious we are about COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Prodding is a safe middle ground; the case for speedying is weak. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for noticing the edits from 207.244.185.23 and reverting them -- Chupon (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, I appreciate what you have done on the Episcopal site, thanks . I am still reeling from the un-constructive approach of an experienced user to a completely new one! I expect I will get over it! I can see you are busy with other matters!! Wfm495 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks Nigel. I am glad there is a definition for what that user did to me! Wfm495 (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you saying that my page be suggested for speedy deletion? My page is completely logical to a degree. If i curious mind is wandering if there is a word as crazy such as Splendiferiouslysupreamazinglyperfect? the answer could be yes.

If Nelson Antonio Denis is retained as the dominant name, and Nelson Denis re-directed to it, it would be much appreciated.

Nelson Antonio Denis is the proper name -- the name used before, during, and after his time in the New York State Assembly.

Thank you for your assistance.

MBernal615 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was clicking on Random Articles, and I find most of the time (8/10), boring articles/ articles with little or no information show up in it. Can Wiki do something to display selected or star rated articles to make a user stick around for more time? Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks Thendral Muthusami (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandezamora (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. Thendral Muthusami (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nigel,

Have a question - can we remove irrelevant links from a page? For example on this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pondicherry under SEE ALSO, they have added, Srinivasan which to my knowledge is irrelevant to Pondicherry. It's just a first name, common in India. Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks Thendral Thendral Muthusami (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There are at least 60 Time magazine covers being used on wikipedia, and 2 are being used to illustrate the article for Time magazine, so you need to get busy and tag the other 57 using the same rationale as you did for this pic.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thendral Muthusami (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, I suggest you could add the text, " An attempt to make a medically accurate translation was made in 1871 by American doctor, John Ordronaux" (ref link). Wfm495 (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigel. Are you OK. You said you were busy in the real world. Hope everything is all right? Regards, W Wfm495 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the bio page. Your work did 'clean it up' a lot, but perhaps a bit too much. After all, this bio is about a noted historic photographer . . . with emphasis on 'photographer.' I would like to include his WWI work for page visitors, especially the "Big Four" photo, which has national acclaim, and is shown on a few other pages in wiki. The 'Bremen' and 'Old Glory' are also very historic events covered by Jackson in addition to many noted 'personalities' or, 'movers & shakers' of that era including; John Wannamaker, A. Carnegie, Thomas Edison, J.P. Morgan, etc. You stated that there were too many photos for the size of the page. If I enlarged the page with additional details of his photographic work, would you agree that additional photos would be allowed? How much copy per photograph do you think would be acceptable? Not working within the limitations of wiki probably left a lot to be desired in overall lay-out of the page, but reducing his photographs to only three or four 'average' photos substantially reduces the overall impact of the page. Eliminating President Wilson and the King and Queen of England, in my opinion, makes the page quite mundane.

Your comments are gratefully accepted. Please feel free to contact me by email at: <e-mail redacted>

niteflyer Niteflyer (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I can include more copy about the subject as you have suggested, but I do have a question for you about listing the photographs. Is there a way in which meaningful photographs dealing with specific aspects of the page ie; "Early Years" "WWI" etc. can be specifically linked to the page so that, for example, "Bremen" photo can be seen when the page visitor is reading about the historic, tragic event can actually see the photo of the airplane in question? (not the other photos on commons -just the "Bremen" and the description? That would keep the page clean, and allow the photos to be seen at will. The exploded submarine "E-2", while not a great photo, is the only one that exists as are the photos of Thomas Edison inspecting the submarine (there are a total of four) that were taken candidly by Jackson. Photos like this would bring life to the page, in my opinion. Thanks,

Niteflyer Niteflyer (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if wiki has this type of link available, but it would result in a clean page. As you stated, 'interweave' a link following pertinent copy would allow me to load photos on 'commons' with necessary captions, so the reader would get the full impact of the article/photos simply by clicking an attached link. Like for example, the Great Depression - I have some wonderful photos (at least six) that really bring home the impact the depression had on real people. The same is true for WWI and is true for 'personalities' as well.I hope it can be done. Thanks for trying. Niteflyer Niteflyer (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The tag was added because of the Category:500 BC deaths found on the article's page. This is the first false positive of this kind I ever encountered. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ukexpat --

Last November I contributed an article on Gerald Epstein, which met with many objections and some encouragement from you. I have now recast the article, but don't know how to proceed. Should I put the new version on my user page, after deleting the old version?

David Hollidays (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[1] If you are referring to the two or three that I reverted, it was because whatever change that had been made corrupted the infobox entirely [2] [3] and I have absolutely no familiarity with microformatting or the template that was being changed. That was part of why I asked about the changes the other editor was making and whether there was a consensus, or for that matter, even a question posed at the given WikiProjects, for making the change. On the occasion that one notices the introduction of something like this with no community consensus to implement it, I saw no reason to try and fix something that is admittedly a "trial" with which I have no familiarity. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Like I said, I don't understand the particulars of this template and don't understand why the template is being inserted. I have concerns with that occurring, although they center around the lack of consensus or approval for a trial. There must be some other way to experiment with this than to change a number of templates in articles. I don't know or understand, or maybe even want to, the technical applications. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim Cotterill, an article that you have contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Esasus (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

-J JMesserly (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The party moved back to my place. -J JMesserly (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

  Hello! Your submission of John Ordronaux (doctor) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ukexpat,

I was wondering if you could have a glance over the new entry i would like to add onto Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ghmp/James_Rhodes

If you have a spot of time it would be great to know if you think this info can make it onto Wikipedia safely. Also if you have any tips on how to make it better they would be much appreciated!

I would like to eventually add images and a background information box but I believe i have to wait a while to add that, is that correct?

Thank you for your help in advance. --Ghmp (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Nigel,

Could you please help weeding out ad links from this page. http://searchcamp.in/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page http://searchcamp.in/wiki/index.php?title=2007 Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicia Weeder (talk • contribs) 11:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your speedy reply! I have birthdate date and place but not early life and education...would prefer to leave as it is. When you say it's not a good idea to add catagories yet do you mean the "Refernces", "External Links", "Discography" etc...? I'm not sure how to add an info box but I will have a snoop around and see if I can get my head around it! Thanks very much, --Ghmp (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a bit confused.... This isn't in response to the question I posed, is it? I'd asked if there was anyway to stop one person from continually editing my page and adding goofy information. --Dzieniszewski (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nigel. I did not notice the URL. You are right. So no beheading! (Thanks: Alice in Wonderland Queen) :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicia Weeder (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ukexpat,

Last Friday I entered a revision of my entry on Gerald N. Epstein, but have received no comments on it. I thought I asked for comments but apparently not. What have I done wrong?

David Hollidays (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've posted messages on Talk:Gerald Epstein and also on WP:EAR. Thanks. Comments on the first version appeared in hours. Since I entered the revision on Friday the 27th, I was expecting pretty much the same thing. I'm learning as I go along. David Hollidays (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)