User talk:EEye

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Newone 10:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Links to drgenescott.com
I can tell you are making some definite improvements to articles on Bible versions. Thanks for these! I also noticed what seems to be a campaign to spread links to the Bible exhibits at drgenescott.com. May I ask how you came to decide that these are valuable links to add to these articles? Specifically, are you in any way affiliated with any of the activities of this ministry? (Wikipedia policies ask editors not to post links to websites with which they are affiliated.) While I do appreciate that the pages you're linking to are free of advertising, on the other hand it is my impression that Eugene Scott spent around 50% of his on-air time asking for donations, so it doesn't have the odor of a public-interest scholarly website either. Do you share any of these reservations? Thank you for the further information. Wareh 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no affiliations to Dr Scott (or indeed any other Bible-related campaign). I deliberately linked straight to the pages for the Bible collection rather than Dr Scott's home page (which in any case does not appear to have a link to the pages for the Bible collection). I felt that these pages were useful because they are relatively up to date and (unlike others) have useful pictures. Frankly this is a better set of pages than any from the more prestigious library/museum websites that I have found so far. I have been unhappy about so much material coming from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. A lot has happened since then. Indeed there are even developments since Herbert's catalogue, and Scott's pages contain statements that lack the right degree of uncertainty. I still hope to find better material for the external links sections. Probably I should have chosen different pages from the bible-researcher.com website, because the Kenyon articles, for all their virtues, are also very old.EEye 01:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer. Wareh 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

References and sources
Who gets to add the warning "This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources", and who decides when the warning can be removed? A lot of the articles that I worked on should have had that warning when I started, and may still need it. On the other hand, I hope that Early Modern English Bible translations is close to the point where the warning can be removed.EEye 02:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone can add such a warning. And anyone can remove it.  I'll try to explain what would be considered good reason to do so, and the right way to do so.  First, what does it mean?  In principle (unlike other encyclopedias, whose expert authors usually do not feel the need to footnote everything), everything in Wikipedia that is not common knowledge should carry a reference to a reliable source.  Probably the best way to see what the ideal looks like is to browse featured articles on a topic that interests you.  Look at the source code if you don't know how footnotes work.
 * You mention Early Modern English Bible translations, so let me comment on it in more detail. First of all, you mention on the talk page that much of it is based on EB1911.  If this is so, to the References section I've just created, insert the template  .  If the authoritative but non-obvious statements in the article (the sort of stuff that's not common knowledge & would legitimately cause a reader to ask, "And what's the source for that?") are generally from the two referenced public-domain sources, then you'd be ready to remove the template from the top of the article.  (I have also had to deal with the annoyance of editors' flagging statements that are verbatim from EB1911 with "citation needed.")
 * By the way, the section entitled "Further reading" implies that this is useful bibliography, but not that these sources were consulted by the editors who wrote the article; ideally those two categories should be kept separate. Since you're involved with this article, perhaps you know that some of these items really belong in "References."  (If so, the references to them should really be footnoted.)
 * The tag has been there for a while, and you say you've improved the article significantly. (There may still be citations not covered by the References section though; you'd know better.)  If you feel the tag is ready to go, delete it, but mention on the talk page your rationale for believing that it does not apply.  If anyone disagrees, they can try to explain their views on the talk page.  Continue using the talk page and seeking consensus; it's a much better method than throwing warnings, reversions, etc., around with no explanation.  It does save time and help the article in the long run.
 * By the way, the tag or  is often better than a blanket banner like this, because it flags an individual statement as in need of citation.  But the banner is appropriate for an article that seems to be lacking necessary citations throughout.  Wareh 14:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking again, I see that you did use Herbert as a reference. So move his name (and any other books you or others used in this fashion) to the "References" section.  Feel free to leave your references in parenthetical form (I assume the "#" is correct - i.e., to the section numbers of the book, not page numbers).  And of course, include these valuable references in your determination of whether the tag at the top is ready to go--as I'm guessing it is.  Wareh 14:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, and your feedback in general. I was trying to follow practice in other articles, but I can see that they were not always good models. Although the articles I have worked on clearly need further work, I think they are now no longer seriously misleading, so I will take time to examine more material before the next major editing session. The # in the Herbert references indicates the number of the item in his catalogue. Although the hash symbol used in this way is considered American, which I am not, it seemed like a good idea here (cf. Gene Scott's pages); without it, the numbers might be taken as page numbers. EEye 20:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Taylor Hobson
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Taylor Hobson, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Taylor Hobson seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Taylor Hobson, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the delay -- I was out of town yesterday and away from the Internet. I've created a sandbox page for you at User:EEye/Sandbox that contains the deleted material.  I'm going to quote something you wrote on my talk page: "I did include links to the current Taylor Hobson and Cooke Optics websites, both of which include extensive company histories."  I wanted to mention that neither of those sources would be particularly useful for bolstering notability in Wikipedian terms.  What a company says about itself has conflict-of-interest problems -- what someone else says about a company does not, and is of more use as a reliable source.  I hope you find this of some use.  If there's something further I can do to be of assistance, just leave a note on my talk page and I'll see what I can do.  Accounting4Taste: talk 05:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Lens2a.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lens2a.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have resolved this issue for you. Since the image was derived from an image on Commons, which was released under the GNU Free Documentation License, the new image must be released under the same license, or a compatible license. I added the tag for the GFDL license. I presume you are OK with this.--Srleffler (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the new image has scaling problems. The new text scales differently than the old when the image size is adjusted. I don't know enough about svg to give you any advice on how to fix this. Perhaps DrBob can help. He made the original image.--Srleffler (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

August 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ark of the Covenant, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 00:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the point. The TV programme that I named is the source. Should it have been listed among the references instead of in the text? If it helps, I could give the IMDB reference for the programme. I made it clear that Wyatt's claims are not universally accepted. By their nature, the claims are unlikely to be published in a mainstream professional journal. EEye (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

January 2018
Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page SSD (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should: We only use one (blue) link per entry. Widefox ; talk 22:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
 * Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
 * Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
 * Only add a " red link " if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
 * Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
 * Do not insert external links or references

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of common EMC test standards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electronic ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_common_EMC_test_standards check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_common_EMC_test_standards?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St Ethelburga's Bishopsgate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barking. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)