User talk:Jheald/Archive 7

South Park (season 13)
Hey Jheald. I saw that you had voted at the South Park (season 13) FAC that you voted to support that article's FA if the image were included, and vote to oppose it if it were not included. I just wanted to point out that, as has been stated by the FA delegate, the absence or presence of an image is not an actionable way to vote, so your vote will likely be ignored as it stands now. The FA delegate has suggested I reach out to people and ask them to review the article's entire FA criteria. So, I was hoping you wouldn't mind taking a more thorough look at the article, with the whole FA criteria in mind, and perhaps revisit the FAC with any suggestions, comments or problems that you identify, then maybe revisit your vote? Thanks! —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Katie Morag
The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mairi Hedderwick
The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC
You might be interested in the request for comment that has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film. As many voices as possible are encouraged to be heard to gain a solid community consensus. The JPS talk to me  21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government
Hi,

I work for the GCSA, and ask if you could correct some issues with the above page (one of which was your edit). I believe this is the correct protocol for a non neutral party to get something fixed.

First, Professor Sir John Beddington is currently still the GCSA, not Bernard Silverman as stated. Also, Sir John was knighted last year, which isn't reflected. The correct name is as above.

The references are a bit out of date. You could use the following links if you wish: http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/chief-scientific-adviser http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/goscience/docs/c/10-1294-chief-scientific-advisers-and-their-officials-introduction.pdf

I apologise if I haven't followed correct etiquette. This is my first time in the editing side of the site. Let me know if I haven't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.46.8 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited the above, but it hadn't logged me in! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happydan.uk (talk • contribs) 15:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

God of Israel
Look, Jheald, a week ago I believe you and I agreed that the broken Yahweh article can be salvaged by being turned into the God of Israel article explicitly. This was a good solution, and all the page's problems seemed to go away. But then the "process wonks" stomped on it and reverted everything back to where things were broken. So there is no way at all that God of Israel is going to redirect to the broken Yahweh article, as it stands basically a dump of random material loosely related to ancient Israel, the Old Testament and Jewish theology.

As long as the Yahweh page remains a useless mess, there is no way anything should redirect there, because it will in no way be helpful to the reader. Pointing God of Israel to God in Judaism is a perfectly straightforward and satisfactory solution. --dab (𒁳) 12:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at God of Israel. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. If you have anything to add while blocked, post it here so it can be copied over. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec -- Unblock request I would have made)
 * I have been editing here for six years, with a completely clean block record, so this block really stings. I accept that, even though no warnings were issued and it never got near 3RR, there was a tug-of-war at God of Israel, and that is bad.  But I honestly don't know what I should have been supposed to have done differently.
 * This isn't the place to talk about other people's edits, but it seemed plain to me that the appropriate redirect for God of Israel (ie God as presented in the Hebrew Bible) was to Yahweh, which is where the content relevant to that topic is; rather than God in Judaism, which does not have content on that topic (it's an article about contemporary theological views of God in Judaism), and where attempts by dab to force the material into the article had been resisted and rejected by editors there. This has been part of a campaign by dab to force a break up of WP's discussion of Yahweh into two separate articles, one on God in the Bible, one on the historical worship of Yahweh as theorised by scholars.  After it was clear on the Talk:Yahweh page going back to November that there was no traction for dab's proposal -- the view was that it was useful for a complete article to cover both, as each shed light on the other, dab then (twice) tried to force his way by using admin powers to make undiscussed name-changes, to which (twice) I went down the patient route of starting an RM discussion, and (twice) his view was overwhelmingly rejected by consensus.  Yesterday he again tried to force his way by making undiscussed changes at Yahweh, trashing a lead which finally we'd been able to knock into some sort of shape, and the tug-of-war at God of Israel was part of this.
 * I tried as hard as I could to engage with dab -- on his own talk page, at Talk:Yahweh, and at Talk:God in Judaism -- to try to bring him to one of the talk pages and try to get him to discuss what he was doing and see of there was consensus for it first, rather than him trying again and again to just blast it through. Even though I was furious at what he was doing at the Yahweh article, I stopped at two reverts.  Finally he was at least posting on the talk pages, even if some of it wasn't very pretty, and I hoped discussion would unfold.  Until then it made sense to me to keep redirects, dab pages, etc pointing to where content actually was, rather than where it wasn't, and as yet there was no sign of support to put it.
 * Anyhow, this now appears to be moot, as dab has announced he is now "semi-retired". As this suggests the issues may not re-occur, and blocks are supposed to be preventative, I therefore humbly petition for this block to be withdrawn.  Jheald (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. See comments at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

John Ashworth (scientist)
Please see Talk:John Ashworth (scientist) -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Some assistance at WT:NFC please. Thank you. —Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Love Symbol Album
I have reverted your re-addition of the symbol to this article in three of the places. WP:NFCC #10c requires a separate, specific rationale for each use. Blanket rationales do not qualify. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Tahash Timeline
Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I read your response—owe you an explanation. No, you did not edit the article Tahash in the past.  I found your name and many others in looking over Project Bible, Project Judaism, Project Christianity and asked almost all listed contributors, in exactly the same wording I placed here, to render their opinions.  Your own expertise in scientific articles and consequently a reasonable expectation of intelligent disinterest from you in the subject of the article with its element of research in linguistics and etymology makes your input of value.  October of last year, when I first found it, after the into lead, the article first listed translations, primarily English Bible translations, in chronological order, followed by a detailed etymological analyis in chronological order.  It reached more than 233kb in length.  It was criticised as being full of Original Research and Synthesis, and as being incomprehensible.  One administrator DCC on the NoticeBoard said it was a "remarkable work" and that Wikipedia needed more articles like it.  Other editors strongly objected to its length, its difficulty of comprehension, its "book-like treatment" and its inclusion of any kind of an etymological timeline, and on these grounds rearranged the material and cut it back by more than 70%.  When I later revised the timeline and placed it at the end, immediate objections and reverts followed.  Hence, the request for response and opinions to obtain genuine consensus from the community.  Thank you for yours.  --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (See my talk page: "TAHASH ARTICLE REFERENCE INDEX.) --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Last Night
Good to meet you last night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Kosminsky (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You asked for it!
I tried to answer your question about how long it takes a random walk to hit plus or minus 20 (on average: 400 steps) and also started a sort of essay on probability notations. Feedback welcome of course! There's a link to the essay page and a page to talk it back on my user talk page. Richard Gill (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much indeed for your polishing of my typography! That's really important for an article like this. Richard Gill (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Asertu meaning Ten (Commandments)?
Your discussion on Asherah got me to thinking, but since this is drawn from my own knowledge of Semitic, and not a secondary source, I realize we can't use it: There could be a possible connection between her name, especially the Hittite form Asertu, and a Semitic word used for the Ten Commandments meaning literally "The ten". But as long as one is speculating about things that aren't recorded, one may as well propose that the Ten Commandments came first, and the goddess came later as a misunderstanding by neighboring peoples about the concept of the Ten Commandments...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

moral expectation
Hello-I reverted your additions on "moral expectation", although I expect it's factually correct. The source wasn't up to it. You might have luck with a Google scholar search. If not (if you can't access the journals, for instance), feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll try to source it better. C RETOG 8(t/c) 15:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. (At least, OK for now, I do see that it's used in lots of articles, but I'd feel more comfortable if it had a reliable sources discussion. But I'm not going to bother for now.) Hanks for the interesting addition. C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Promise
Hi James

Just wanted to thank you, (though I know this isn't why you do it), for the really stunning job you have done on the "Development" and "Character" sections of this page. Beautifully written, very accurate and wonderfully well referenced, (if you don't mind me saying so). Thank you for all the hard work. Really impressive.

I have some French national press cuttings, if that would be helpful.

Best wishes

Peter Kosminsky (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Did an AfD nomination happen?
Talk:Yahweh (Canaanite deity) Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Shoot To Kill
Lovely to see a page coming together on STK. I think the fact that Ulster TV refused to show the programme is important. I have some cuttings from the period but I'm sure this must also be referred to in some of the reference works. Also, the fact that Det Chief Superintendent John Thorburn, ex-Head of the Manchester Murder Squad and a winner of the Queen's Police Medal, had never agreed to talk to the press before we tracked him down might also be of interest. As a result, the show included entirely new material that had never been aired in public before. But the programme became so subsumed by the controversy over the depiction of Hermon - and the threat of his legal action - that these revelatory elements were all but obscured.

Some have said that the decision to transmit STK ultimately led to the firing of the Director of Programmes of YTV - John Fairley - some years later, so angry was the Chairman of the YTV board at the time, (though how you wd reference that I'm not sure).

Also, Dr Derek Paget of Reading University conducted quite an interesting interview with me for his book:


 * Paget, D. No Other Way To Tell It: dramadoc/docudrama on television, second edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press

which might provide some insight.

Best wishes

Peter Kosminsky (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad my contributions to The Promise, though minor, are appreciated - thanks. Happy to look at Shoot to Kill (1990 TV drama) in the next few days. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Finished now, I think. Sorry I've left you so many edits to wade through! Nothing major: I thought it was a very thoroughly researched and well-written piece and a most illuminating read too - well done! Headhitter (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased that my efforts yesterday have prompted such positive feedback and appreciative comments: thank you! Glad to have been able to help and I'm very happy with your re-edits. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please also to hear about tonight's DYK and glad that I don't have to stay up late to see it going live! Headhitter (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Promise, etc
Sorry, been a bit tied up lately, not least by being out of town most of last week. Hopefully I'll have a bit of time in the next few days to go over The Promise. Shoot to Kill is looking very good, although we could do with some detail on the follow-up discussion programme as per Shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. Dave Rolinson's an old friend (in fact, I supplied him the copy of STK!), so if you don't hear from him, let me know, and I'll give him a nudge (I think he may have been back home for Mother's Day). Nick Cooper (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Jheald, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Jheald/STK. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Zenith Productions
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK? nomination for Ivar Ekeland
Dear Jheald,

Perhaps you read the article on Ivar Ekeland too quickly?

The article Ivar Ekeland provides an in-line and on-line linked (p. 400) reference to Michael Crichton's book, Jurassic Park, which credits Ekeland (and Ian Stewart James Gleick) for the popular mathematics.

Another in-line and on-line linked reference to a cinema magazine quotes Jeff Goldblum as having read and then communicated with Ekeland (and Stewart Gleick).

Nobody is claiming that Ekeland's book was more important than Gleick's. Please accept Crichton's written word about its influence, especially after you verify the passage yourself. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 21:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick reply. I have revised the hooks, following Eppstein's criticisms.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Ekeland article's text now has a digression about James Gleick, which properly appears in the article on the Ian Malcolm character. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, David Eppstein gave a green check, but commented (correctly, even I am inclined to admit, now!) that you may have had a point about mentioning Ekeland's non-uniqueness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit. The picture looks better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Shoot to Kill (1990 TV drama)
Orlady (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! Headhitter (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Zkharya
I wonder if you have seen the addition made to the The Promise reception section by this user? Peter Kosminsky (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By Zkharya:

Never used this facility before. But re. your cutting my addition, neither I nor Cesarani are discussing the 'nuances' of the Balfour Declaration. He/I are remarking that it is not mentioned, once, in an entire series named 'The Promise'. Since he is virtually the only academic historian of this or any period who has reviewed The Promise, this is surely a valid observation. It might even be true to say that this summarises his central thesis, which is, as he says, that Kominski's work is 'An exercise in British self-exculpation'.

Further, given your close co-operation with Kominski, would I be altogether wrong to say that your cutting that observation by Cesarani serves an apologetic purpose on behalf of him and his work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also emailed Professor Cesarani about your continually editing out his more substantial criticism, and cc.d in Jonathan Freedland, who dismisses The Promise in conversation with Howard Jacobson on Jewish Book Week

http://www.jewishbookweek.com/2011/last-words.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that the article already references Howard Jacobson's view of the series, as presented in the article he wrote for The Independent.


 * As for Cesarani, if he feels he's being misrepresented then of course he'll get a sympathetic hearing, and I'm sure Wikipedia editors, including myself, will be very happy to correct anything he feels is wrong or could be better represented.


 * But while we're on the subject, there are a number of problems I think with your summary of his article, which you might like to reflect on. For example, saying "Above all, oil... was why the British beefed up the garrison" could be seen to be somewhat misleading, as you're conflating part of a sentence specifically discussing the situation in 1943 at the height of the war against Rommel in Africa with part of a different sentence discussing the situation after the war, where there were a whole series of geopolitical factors influencing British Foreign Office calculations according to Cesarani's article -- including regional policy; containment of communism; protection of the Suez canal, access to India, as well as overland and canal access routes to the oilfields;'

Exactly: oil, again. The factor the Cesarani specifically mentions during and post war is oil. So 'Above all, oil' hardly misrepresents, does it? It is the one key factor in overall British geopolitical strategy that Cesarani mentions twice, during and after the war.


 * 'and the perceived value of keeping a large redeployable force garrisoned in the region.'

Odd, because now you are introducing something Cesarani never says 'redeployable'. But none of this negates 'Above all, oil'. Since one cannot cite Cesarani in his entirety, and because you are policing how much Cesarani can be cited, what else can one do but edit him as much as possible without misrepresenting him?


 * 'So I suggest that the article's existing broader reference to "selfish geopolitical interests" may actually be a better summary than presenting it as being "all about oil".'

I didn't say 'all about oil'. I quoted Cesarani's 'Above all, oil'. But oil is more a regional, middle eastern issue, and did factor more in overall Anglo-Arab relations when it came to appeasing Arab nationalists, as Britain did do, by a) the White Paper and b) refusing to endorse or implement partition. Not something Cesarani explicitly says, except in his implication of Britain's breaking or perceived breaking of its promise of a Jewish national home. But, then, I only quote Cesarani's 'Above all, oil'.


 * 'Secondly, your gloss that the British had "rescinded" the Balfour Declaration -- a phrase that nowhere appears in Cesarani's article, and I am dubious would have been the British Government's view of its position.'

But it was the perception of Palestinian Jews, and the reason for insurrection. True Cesarani does not explicitly refer to its being broken. But his referring to it at all in the context of a Jewish uprising scarcely makes sense without its perceived annulment.


 * 'Thirdly the simple equation of the Balfour Declaration with a promise to create a Jewish national home'

Even if true, it is clear that Cesarani, who is an academic historian, does think the Balfour Declaration contained such a promise.


 * '-- the declaration was more nuanced than that, and there were a considerable spectrum of views even as to what "national home" was intended to mean.'

Nor went I or Cesarani into such a discussion. But such a promise there was, according to Cesarani, so far as the Jews were concerned. And a perception of its being broken leading to Jewish revolt.


 * 'This is why, as discussed on the article talk page, I am wary about throwing it into discussion without any referencing of those nuances,'

Haha. It is hardly a discussion of 'nuances'. You can't 'nuance' nothing. Academic historian Professor David Cesarani's chief point is that the Balfour Declaration is not mentioned a priori. It isn't mentioned at all. That for him is a staggering omission, and constitutes a major, perhaps the major, part of Kominski's 'massive distortion'. It is surely inseparable from the rest of his fundamental critique. And it is odd that you object so much, so much, to its being mentioned too.


 * 'but on the other hand I do not think that this article is really such an appropriate place for such a discussion.'

Haha. Of course not. You are acting as apologist for Kominski. That criticism, of omitting such a key piece of historical information and background from an academic historian, is immensely damaging.


 * 'I can see that there might be a case for expanding the footnote to give slightly more quotation from Cesarani's article, as we have done for some others of the quotes cited. But for the reasons above, in my view I don't think your existing text would do.'

OK. I'll work on it.


 * 'As for the main text, our aim in the reception section of such an article is to reflect the balance of all the mainstream published views, and I do still think that doubling or more the main article text'

'the main article text': you use words to suggest what you have left is so huge.


 * 'devoted to Cesarani is not proportionate -- a position that also seems to be shared by others on the article talk page, which is really the best place to discuss this.'

Yeah, well, as long as it doesn't just stay there.


 * Finally, I find offensive your insinuation that I have an interest in writing an apologetic for Kosminsky or his work.'

Yes, well, you would. I think it's closer to the truth than you would care to admit.


 * 'From the start, I've done whatever I can to park any views I may have of the subject or the series at the door, and to try to a straight down the line article in line with Wikipedia principles on balance and structure for such articles. My job is to be independent, not anybody's spokesman, and to be fair, reflective and balanced to the best of my ability.'

I don't believe you.

Cesarani's criticism of Kominski centres on that omission. It is not peripheral. And it is a significant omission, that only someone partisan would objected to be being mentioned.


 * 'That's what I've tried to do. I've also tried to bring in others, as reflected on the article talk page, to second-guess any udgements I've made.'

Cooper? He came out with nonsense.


 * 'If I have made particular calls, that is because they reflected my judgement, and nobody else's, as to the best way to embody WP's values and principles in the article.'

I.e. protect Kominski, and work damage limitation with regard to Cesarani's criticisms.


 * 'I'm quite likely going to be away from internet access for the next several days, but if you want to take this further I suggest the article talk page is the most appropriate venue for further discussion; I trust you will find further WP editors to engage with there. Jheald (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Briefly, 'above all, oil' is an appropriate quotation, since oil mentioned again by Cesarani, in 'a Jewish insurrection that threatened Britain's route to India, its oil supplies, and its entire regional strategy.'

You really want to dispute the Balfour Declaration 'viewed with favour' the establishment of a Jewish national home? My point is that David Cesarani certainly does, and he calls it 'a promise', with 'the force of international law'.

As for my 'rescinded'. Fair enough. I should have linked to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

You're right Cesarani doesn't mention the White Paper of 1939. But then, neither does Kominski, any more than he does the Balfour Declaration. Whose being rescinded by the White Paper of 1939 is why Palestinian Jews were fighting the British after the defeat of Hitler in the first place.

Another extraordinary omission in a supposedly historical drama.

You're right, Cesarani doesn't mention the White Paper. But he does say 'The paratroops were not sent to separate Jews and Arabs', contra Kominski.

By claiming that IS why British troops were there, Kominski actually omits why Palestinian Jews were up in arms in the first place.

As for your allegedly being disinterested. Well, I saw Kominski's personal thanks to you. Prima facie, it does look like there is a kind of relationship of mutual approbation, there, which elides any motive of mutual self-interest.

Not entirely unlike The Promise, Kominski and the British, as an act of self-exculpation, in fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper names
Welcome back! The practice I've been following is to adopt the style used for the relevant Wikipedia entry and by the newspapers themselves, e.g. The Jewish Chronicle, the Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

God vs god
As you can see, I think Cush is right this time. Maybe we could argue about 'the god/God of the Bible', although I think 'the god' should always be lower case, but "Mesha's stele referring to Israel's god' is surely correct, there's no Bible there. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Interview
Not sure if you have seen this:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xia56s_rencontre-exceptionnelle-avec-peter-kosminsky-createur-de-the-promise-vo_shortfilms

Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have responded to your question on my talk page. Best wishes Peter Kosminsky (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:FilipAndTal.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:FilipAndTal.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. damiens.rf 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK submission
Would Alt1 or Alt2 work as a possible DYK submission for Gottfried Schloemer of June 20? I don't believe there are any other claiments to either of these.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like nice improvements you have made to the Gottfried Schloemer article. Obviously you are a more experienced editor than myself.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to follow your suggestions on reference display improvements. I am going out to lunch now, however will continue on these improvements in a couple of hours. If you have any other ideas, you can leave here on your Talk Page and I will try to follow them.--Doug Coldwell talk 14:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * O.K. I bundled together what I could for Gottfried Schloemer. If others can be bundled, it is beyond my capabilities since it would be too sophisticated for me. Some references are used multiple times throughout the article and I cann't seem to bundle those. I can see it is an improvement to bundle references. Thanks for idea. Never came across this in all the articles I have written and I have written hundreds.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Send me an e-mail and I will send back an attachment of Popular Science cover page of May 1922.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jheald - send me an e-mail and I will forward what I have so far.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

David ben Yom Tov
On the subject of DYK submissions, I've passed the David ben Yom Tov article per the Swahili rule, but the DYK Police will require a ref immediately after the hook fact (it can be removed after the article has been on the main page). I trust you will attend to this. My personal thoughts are that there is no need to repeat the ref, but I'm in the minority on this one. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

TT-talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► duumvirate ─╢ 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for David ben Yom Tov
The DYK project (nominate) 18:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted
I reverted your changing of J. Milburn's AN3 closure result. You've been here long enough, do not edit other user's words. Syrthiss (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit warring on the edit warring page would indeed be disruptive. I recommend you self-revert.  If you have a problem with J. Milburn's closure, you can take it to their talkpage or ANI. Syrthiss (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * and yet, other editors are indeed discussing it there without modifying other editor's words or modifying the decision when they have no standing to do so. Syrthiss (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a novel interpretation. If J. Milburn had indeed blocked either participant, and wrote '24h' in the decision space, would you be able to change the outcome yourself solely by changing the text?  Would any admin?  Surely someone could take it to the blocking admin directly, or to ANI, or the blocked editor could post an unblock request.  I know some admins might reverse it without discussion, but I certainly wouldn't.  Until any of those things happened, the decision would still be as written.  ANI/AN3 are some of the few spaces (along with AFD, to some degree) where the header is part of the closing admin's text and not a reflection of what the participants in the discussion agree should be. Syrthiss (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions
Jheald,

You know how to really be a team player. Thank you for your work on Geomerics. I adopted the stub as a pet project after spotting it on the consideration of deletion page. Since its a middle-ware developer for a AAA game (Battlefield 3) I ventured to argue that its significant enough to help build into a stable page. Your recent edits have really helped piece the page together.

Thank you,

MichaelJPierce (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Abraham Baer Dobsewitch
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Abraham Baer Dobsewitch, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.berdichev.org/published_in_berdichev.html.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * False alarm. Both the article and the web-page were based on material taken from the out-of-copyright 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Jheald (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail
Hi James, I've sent you an email thru Wikipedia. Peter Kosminsky (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Reqdiagram request for Spin-weighted spherical harmonics
I have moved this request to the talk page. Mark Hurd (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Belated commentary
Please see some rather belated comments here: Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale guideline. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Now that WP:AAFFD seems to have settled in, I want to say a very heart-felt thank-you to you. During the talk that led up to the idea for creating it, as well as during the process of revising my first draft, your comments were consistently insightful, and you were always generous about listening carefully to arguments on both sides of the debate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yerushalmi Berakot
Hi, since you created this redirect, your comments are invited at Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 29. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing the vandalism in Nik Gowing's article. I saw the Oxfam bit when I added the ISBNs, and thought it was some actual fundraiser or something. I would have deleted that myself if I had known how it was meant. Some 'contributors' should take up a different hobby. 99.50.184.23 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ten Commandments
I just read through the talk page of the above. Can I ask, do you believe the article is being held to a religious rather than scholarly tone? That's my view. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

BBC balloon image
I thought the image showed the balloon more clearly than before. The newly uploaded version of the Computer Originated World does not need such a detailed fair use rationale, which is why I left it as it is. Cloudbound (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you'd prefer the original balloon image, please revert my upload. I still think the other image doesn't need such a lengthy rationale. Cloudbound (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nationwide chef
Does anyone remember the name of the French chef who sometimes appeared on Nationwide? Feelabelia (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, doesn't ring a bell. Don't think I can help you.  Jheald (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal abuse
You wrote in the talk section of heat what can only be interpreted as personal abuse ''People have gone through all this with you above. Is it that you can't read, or that you simply don't have the capacity to engage with what people have been trying to explain to you? Jheald (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)'' This abuse is in danger of becoming a pattern e.g. your contribution of 15 Sept.. The problem with this is that it makes me the subject of your contribution thus deviating from the aims of Wikipedia. I suggest you withdraw these remarks and cease this kind of contribution. --Damorbel (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Otium
This is my latest article. Feel free to make any improvements. --Doug Coldwell talk 18:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvements.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Expanded article. Any ideas for a DYK hook?--Doug Coldwell talk 11:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to try to turn this article into a Good Article. Any suggestions or help?Doug Coldwell talk 12:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made it more concise. Does it need more "fine tuning"? Good Article possibility?--Doug Coldwell talk 16:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa map
Thanks for the map, just what it needed. Where can they all be found? MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's the "Infobox ancient site" template that draws the caption from the map file name. It only affects two pages that use this template and map, but there are other maps with the same problem that I haven't checked yet. The solution is to add a caption that overrides the automatic one, but the template then inserts one above and one below. I've left a note to the editor who built it and hope to solve it soon. MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your thorough replies to my reference desk questions on likelihoods and conditional probabilities! Much appreciated. --NorwegianBluetalk 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

mos images fix
Thanks on that, that's what I was trying to say. And I'm not trying to say anything wrong on that specific image, only that already it is a far far better choice than the death/violence pictures shown later in the article as a lead image. --M ASEM (t) 23:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jackanory-1960s.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Jackanory-1960s.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Images missing detailed FURs
At WT:BRFA you linked to File:Spectre Apple II.png, File:Thief (Apple II game).png and File:Spellcasting 101 interface.png as examples. I noticed that none of the three images has a detailed fair use rationale for the articles that use them. I've not tagged the images, but someone else might (and at the very least it's good practice to get the FUR stuff right). Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Centiloquium
Hi - sorry about leaving the 'early'. I meant to change the text from early 10th to 9th century, because that is what is stated in the text you have as your reference. We have had a discussion on the Tetrbiblos page which had copied over some of the key points from your page - there it was noticed that the article stated 10th century but the reference said 9th century.

I'll leave that with you. -- Zac  Δ talk! 01:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding changing the name of History of Pottery in the Southern Levant to History of Pottery in Palestine
Hey Jheald, there is currently a discussion regarding changing the name of History of pottery in the Southern Levant to History of pottery in Palestine (which the article is currently saved at). Seeing as how you were the one to originally move the article name, I felt you might be interested in giving your thoughts. Drsmoo (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OSGB36 errors in geohack
Regarding Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates:

I've left comments on the talk pages of Dispenser and Kolossus, who are maintainers for geohack. If someone has a JIRA account on the toolserver, it would be great if they can submit an issue to track fixing this, and also bring this to the attention of Magnus Manske, who prefers JIRA issues to talk page entries: JIRA is at https://jira.toolserver.org -- The Anome (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)