User talk:Daphne A

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Melchoir 07:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thera eruption
Thank you for your compliments and help in making the Thera eruption as accurate as concise as we can at the moment. Sometimes I get a little too excited at the prospect of contributing to Wikipedia and hence leaving entries that need some editing. I've been interested in the Minoan eruption for a long time and would be interested in keeping contact as new developments arise (whenever that may be). Pryaltonian 05:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't read the Bietak paper, but I don't see why it shouldn't be included as a differing viewpoint from Manning's. Furthermore, Manning has already stated on his website that his book is outdated since the publication of Keenan's paper. Pryaltonian 18:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Instead of deleting old discussions from talk pages, you may be interested in How to archive a talk page. Melchoir 10:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fiction in solar eclipse
Hi, what's your problem with fiction in the above article? Is there any guideline prohibiting them? Adam78 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're very funny! You call me impolite when
 * You remove a part from the article without any explanation, justification, grounding or reference to the discussion page.
 * You leave my explicit question (above) unanswered (until I revert your change), despite the fact you must have noticed it since you've logged in.
 * When you refer to the discussion page, it turns out that it's merely your own personal opinion. I wonder: Where is the discussion? Where is the agreement? Where is the consensus?

My suggestion is that scientific references should be separated from references in the fiction (which are actual, not fictional references).

Adam78 15:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if I leave a message on your talk page, a reply to it is not a comment on the talk page of an article but a message on my own talk page, or perhaps on your talk page. These are the two options I've encountered in Wikipedia since I've been here (that is, for two years but a month).

I reverted your change on 11:41, 11 March 2006, that's true, but it was not until 13:53, 11 March 2006 (as shown by your timestamp) when you first answered to me at the proper place. So it's inappropriate to state my claim was untrue.

I don't know how long you've been at Wikipedia but you should know that others will only be notified of a message if you leave it on their talk pages. That's the safest and most usual way to contact others. Adam78 17:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation at solar eclipse
Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Solar eclipse. I have disabled your editing permissions for 12 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud 22:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Explain before
Re: Radiocarbon Dating

DON'T DELETE REFERENCES AND CALL IT CLEAN UP - EXPLAIN IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE AND WHY BEFORE YOU TRY IT. Jclerman 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Gillberg
Daphne,

I wonder if you could reply to my questions here? If we could agree on some basic facts, then perhaps we can move forward from there. --Denis Diderot 09:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't revert the article without discussion --Denis Diderot 09:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Daphne, I am still trying to catch up on these articles, after being asked to take a look. I see that Gillberg's Gothenburg study is well referenced, but the English-speaking reader is at a disadvantage. Are there not more sources in English? Your version of the Gillberg article was better written than the former, but it still contained violations of WP:BLP. If you can put up a version that doesn't violate BLP, that would help. It is impossible for others to sort out what's what without references, but if you will just reference the criticism, then the article doesn't need to be reverted per BLP. It appears to me that the references are available, but just haven't been added, but it's hard for an English-speaking reader to know what's what. Sandy 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sandy, thanks. Over translations themselves, there does not seem to have been any dispute. Also, see here for free computer translations; that should be okay for getting the gist (though it's not as good as human).  I suspect that the most important primary source is the letter by the members of the Ethics Committee, and there is a translation of that (referenced as Lundgren et al. [2005]) linked in the article.  The two BMJ articles help a little.  The Investigate article is also in English; that article has been criticised, but the Chairman of the Ethics Committee (Ove Lundgren) told me in an e-mail that the description of his actions was was good (a copy of his e-mail is in the Discussion).   &mdash;Daphne A 15:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Daphne, I just haven't had time to get through it all. Again, it looks to me like you have the sources:  if you just add them, that will help.  WP:MEDCAB isn't always timely or helpful (anyone can mediate a case -- even brand new editors to Wiki -- and sometimes they take a long time to take a case, and then the mediator disappears on you), and I didn't see that you had filed a case there ?  I'm trying to be a third set of impartial eyes:  encouraging everyone to reference their claims per BLP.  If you'll make your changes one at a time, it will be easier for a third party to understand them. Sandy 15:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Daphne,
 * I have replied on my talk page here. --Denis Diderot 07:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Vote
Hello Daphne, I'm afraid you may not fully understand the purpose of the Arbitration Committee. We do not, and since we are not experts on the subject cannot, decide what is and what is not NPOV. Rather, we believe that Wikipedia's systems of debate and consuensus will, in time, lead to NPOV articles. We only step in when certain users make healthy debate impossible. - SimonP 10:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)