User talk:Alan Peakall

Write to self to test signature expansion Alan Peakall 17:47 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC).

I have previously created Nigel Lawson and Rogernomics prior to logging in and made a number of link fixes factual corrections and suggestions through talk pages.Alan Peakall 17:51 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

Hello there Alan, welcome to the 'pedia! If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

- I'm glad you enjoyed the Ibn Battuta article, Alan. I certainly enjoyed writing it -- quite the astonishing character, Mr. Battuta was. -- Paul Drye --

Degenerate matter now makes much more sense. Thanks for your answer. --AN

-

Hello, Alan. I've only just seen your comments on Harold Wilson. Not being an economist, I'm not sure how he ranks among specialists in that particular field, but I do know that his academic prowess at Oxford was legendary. I feel also that he was an "intellectual" as distinct from, say, a "clever man" - despite the image of ordinariness that he tried to cultivate. I've heard him called "one of the finest minds of the century" on more than one occasion - all the more tragic that he should have suffered such a mental deterioration after his retirement. --Deb

Re: Common Agricultural Policy
So why should a link to minimum price go to price control? Please answer at Talk:Common Agricultural Policy :) -- Sam

Hi Alan, I've opened the discussion page on ideology. I took the liberty of posting your message to me and my reply there. roan 08:50 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

I don't like the Pol Pot article. It's vague, fragmentary, and could almost be said to have been designed deliberately to hide the Communist genocide of several hundreds of thousands of people. --Ed Poor

Thanks for taking the trouble to revert Nigel Lawson...


 * No problem. As you might guess from the history, I wrote a stub to replace the Nigella-fixated vandalism, not realising that there was a pre-existing article. Once I'd spotted it I reverted to your version. --rbrwr

Alan, I have answered your question on my Talk page. David 20:43 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

I need support in trying to keep football at football. They want to move it to soccer, please see talk:list of footballers. Mintguy 10:05 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know enough about how zoologists or botanists uses the term "subspecies" -- is it the same as "variety?" Is a "subspecies" of a particular animal the same as a "population?" Offhand I would guess that what physical anthropologists call "populations" of humans may correspond to what zooligists call "subspecies" of an animal. I think the real problem is not the gulf between scientists who study humans and scientists who study other animals, but the gulf between scientists and laypeople. Scientists see "species" (and necessarily "subspecies") as statistical phenomena whereas many laypeople see species (and race) as fixed things. Slrubenstein

-

Good catch on General relativity. In the future if you are pretty sure of something, just change it, and leave a note if you want a second opinion. --AN 18:21 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

-

See response on the Mugabe talk page to the questions that you had raised.

172

I can't remember if the decomposition was to turn the sphere inside-out, or to create two spheres of the same size as the original. But I am pretty sure a nice sliced-sphere picture was on the cover of SA. (See User_talk:David_spector.)

I honestly hadn't thought about it but I suspect that either South Africa decided not to re-apply or did and was rejected. I have a hunch that it was the latter. I'll see if I can get some information from the Commonwealth Secretariat to see if they know, or else check with the South Africans themselves. Thanks for the observation and the praise. I was appreciated. wikilove. FearÉIREANN 17:39 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm so glad to find someone who appreciates the Jennings (novels) series. Even though they're about public schoolboys, they've given me and my sisters a lot of laughs over the years. Deb 19:41 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I knew, and still know, virtually nothing about Buckeridge. How come we haven't got an article on him yet? He sounds an interesting man. Deb 19:12 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I reviewed the tangle of changes in concentration camp, looks like yours got in OK, haven't been mangled. My last edit was just to the Gitmo para; I was originally going to delete it summarily, but Google showed a thousand indymedia-type pages calling it a concentration camp, so it's now worthy of mention. Stan 20:47, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I must be better at NPOV than I thought. In real life I am very much anti-Tory. I make it well known to Tories who come to the door at election time that I have no intention of voting for them (without being rude of course). Still I have more time for Tories than I do for Creationists! :-) Mintguy 16:29, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BTW, the electric organ references weren't actually jokes, that's what ichthyologists call them, and at some point I was expecting to write the article on the physiology of the various kinds of electric organs, since they've been studied a fair amount. Stan 18:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wason test.

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

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


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

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

Williams revolution
Hi Alan, can you remember what caused you to originally create the Williams revolution article? Was it a requested article? Was it linked somewhere? I'm sorry that it's such a long time ago, but there is a discussion currently going on based on the observation that the term is apparently not used in the scientific literature or anywhere on the web other than wikipedia - it looks as though we invented it! - Samsara 16:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your edit creating the article is here. WAS 4.250 19:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply, yes, all the content has been merged into gene-centric view of evolution. Maybe you could just vote on the article's fate: . Would be nice since you created the article and it seems courteous that your voice should be heard. Thanks. - Samsara 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Darian calendar
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Darian calendar, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Martian calendar made up by some non-notable individual on their website. Not even remotely notable & lacking any third party sourcing

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  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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of John Smith (name) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Smith (name) 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 Articles for deletion/John Smith (name) 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. Beerest355 Talk 01:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of William and Mary for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William and Mary 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 Articles for deletion/William and Mary 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. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)