User talk:Piledhigheranddeeper/Archives01

Some stuff simply didn't get archived.

Welcome!
welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan
Hello, and thanks for your contributions to the G&S articles. Did you do a Lexis search to find the legal citations? If you are a G&S fan, you might wish to join WP:G&S. One tip: When you add citations, put the citation after the punctuation like so: Here is a sentence. Let me know if you have any questions. I'm going to guess that you are a lawyer who has been associated with (or is a fan of) The Washington Savoyards. :-)  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anif declaration
I have tried to adddress your questions regarding the Anif declaration article, even so I did find them a little silly, I have to say. Hope you are happy with the answers, have fun, EA210269 (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

St. David's (Radnor) Episcopal Church

 * Just checking on what you think of the name change of the article. I'd personally prefer retaining Radnor in the title but haven't heard back yet on why it was changed.  Smallbones (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with you. I have actually heard people call it "St. David's (Radnor)", and that's the simplest form of the name that wasn't already in use. I'd also note that the "Wayne" appellation does apply to the postal address but, as the article notes, not all of the grounds are actually there. So yes, I'd support a return to the original title. (I've been on something of a hiatus, so hadn't seen the article until yesterday) --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll move it back to Radnor unless I hear from User_talk:Clariosophic. Thanks for your help/support.  Smallbones (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Comma after full date"
Re: your edit to ENIAC. This style choice seems unwieldy and, for my money, ungrammatical. Is there a guideline on Wikipedia mandating this usage? Robert K S (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW you might also want to note that dates are not displayed the same for all users. Depending on your personal settings, you may see the sentence rendered as "ENIAC was shut down on 1946-11-09 for a refurbishment and a memory upgrade..."--this is how I prefer full dates to be displayed.  In this instance it is clearer that the comma does not belong. Robert K S (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on your response, I'm not sure that it's clear to you that the format of date display is adaptive to the individual user on Wikipedia. Therefore usage of a comma after a date in Wikipedia cannot always be correct, even were it to be correct under certain display settings.  (I happen to disagree with that paragraph 10 you pointed out.) Robert K S (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK Rosemonde Gérard
(A DYK for Rosemonde Gérard was listed August 27, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.3.33.116 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

St. David's
Phd,

You've obviously researched St. David's (Radnor) in some detail. I ran across a ref to it in the 1907 book Historic American Churches (see biblio) of about 5 pages. You might take a look at this material to see how credible it is, but some of it (on pre-1715 history, the building process, Queen Anne's plate, and the Battle of Brandywine British graves, seems interesting enough to include.) My only question is on the credibility.

Thanks for writing such a nice article.

Smallbones (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallington, Nellie Urner. Historic Churches of America, Duffield & Company, 1907, pp. 73-78.Google Books Original from the New York Public Library, Digitized Feb 28, 2006, 259 pages.

Thure Kumlien
I noticed the article on WikiProject Wisconsin's new article list. I'm glad to see that you nominated it for DYK, because I was considering nominating it. Great job - it's an interesting read. I notice that you did not consolidating references in the article, so I did some consolidating. You can consolidate references by naming each one. So if you called the first reference Taylor89 (for example), you would create the first reference as. On the second and subsequent use of that same page as a reference, you would use the code. It keeps the reference list from getting unnecessarily complicated. I added a redlink in his article to the Hoard Historic Museum because I'm planning to write an article. I have pictures and everything. The museum's building is listed on the National Register of Historic Place as the museum was the house of Wisconsin governor Hoard.  Royal broil  04:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about templating you; I just noticed you've been around a while; all the more reason to expect you to know not to do this. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems odd that this is in reference to an article with just one footnote.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You added an assertion that something is incorrect. That kind of think if never appropriate without a source; it moves the article in the wrong direction, when what it needs is to be more tied to sources.  Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert Bealknap
Thanks for that! I'm not too good with the ol' sentence structure. Fancy getting a going-to-be-GA on your record? I recently expanded the Court of Common Pleas (England) article massively, all nicely referenced and, because it was written by me, all with awful grammar. If you could copyedit it I'd be most grateful :). Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a whack at it, as you asked, but it wasn't nearly as ungrammatical as you had me fearing. Are you a lawyer? (and, pardon my ignorance, but what's a GA?)--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a lawyer (yet, heh) just someone with an intense love of English history and law. GA=Good Article, an article classification of "gosh darnit, this is pretty good". Third highest on the scale, with first being FA (Featured Article, big thing with the intro on the top left of the frontpage). Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
for correcting Cow protection movement.  Docku: “what up?”  15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there!--Accdude92 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)