Herr Gruber (talk | contribs) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
I don't know any references, I'm just trying to get a non-featured article in line with a featured article. I'll just leave it then. But I will add that either way, "our" is still supposedly wrong because there's meant to be a third-person view on humanity, see [[Human]] and its talk page FAQ, so it should still be at least "the Earth's Solar System" or "the Solar System of the Earth" or "Humanity's Solar System" or whatever.--[[User:Occono|<font color="orange">occono</font>]] ([[User talk:Occono|talk]]) 21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
I don't know any references, I'm just trying to get a non-featured article in line with a featured article. I'll just leave it then. But I will add that either way, "our" is still supposedly wrong because there's meant to be a third-person view on humanity, see [[Human]] and its talk page FAQ, so it should still be at least "the Earth's Solar System" or "the Solar System of the Earth" or "Humanity's Solar System" or whatever.--[[User:Occono|<font color="orange">occono</font>]] ([[User talk:Occono|talk]]) 21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Mike Sparks == |
|||
As the page on sources notes, one should only use as evidence sites which have a reputation for accuracy and reliability, not sites which may theoretically have altered or forged any given document they host. A bare reference to the relevant source is better than a link to a site belonging to someone with a reputation as a crank and a liar. The section on Montague bikes I removed because other than the link to combatreform it's had no citations since 2009, which is a ''long'' time for an unreferenced section to be hanging around. [[User:Herr Gruber|Herr Gruber]] ([[User talk:Herr Gruber|talk]]) 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:11, 12 March 2013
Award
The Photo Barnstar | ||
For expanding and improving the astrophotography article. serioushat 00:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC) |
Barnstar
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
This Barnstar is awarded to User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr for their tireless efforts to improve numerous astronomy - related articles.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
Yes, someone pays attention. I've been impressed with your work on lots of these articles, especially the small efforts which take a lot of thought but aren't noticeable to the casual reader. (If you decide to move this barnstar to your user page you can modify the gender of the award if desired, with information on the Template:The Working Man's Barnstar page. Regards. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
Congratulations! | |
Thanks for all the work you did in making Reflector sight a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) |
You have made the article look really good. I'm proud to be a small part of the effort but you have devoted substantial work to these articles where I'm just a small time dabbler. I haven't reviewed criteria for turning a list article into a glossary article. But this article does have a number of links so I'd hesitate to move it. Perhaps it might be good to create a glossary article as a redirect to this one? Perhaps you could ask the question and post it on the article talk page? Keep up the good work! Trilobitealive (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Depth of Field (Binoculars)
I'm puzzled by your "You may want to inline tag the parts that seem incorrect". I was suggesting adding to the article. Thanks for responding, though ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your addition to talk started "People comparing different brands" and talked about "spin" which I assumed meant it was something about what other editors added (talk pages are about edits). If you are talking about "life in general" I can see that. If you want to suggest a modification you can always cite the sources that follow what you think should be added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Editing
I am a fairly congenial editor, but as this article and the robotics article are the two most important articles as far tas the robotics project is concerned, you need to understand that I am going to be somewhat more concerned over sweeping changes than other articles.
At the moment I feel you are more trying to push your changes onto the article rather than trying to work together on it. I have been here for some time, and constantly giving me links to MoS and explaining policy is not really necessary. Can we just try and work together for the betterment of the article? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's all and good and I try to be helpful... but when you say you don't understand how using a primary source can be OR[1] you show a little lack of understanding of Wikipedia, I therefor explaining policy. Editing articles is far bigger than two editors, there is community consensus on what is considered encyclopedic and it overrides anything agreed to (or not agreed to) on a talk page. And providing links to policy/guidelines explains to other editors reading the talk page what my rational is. In other words, you should not take this personally, make it about two editors, make it about me, or take ownership of the situation. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- So you really believe I said I don't understand how using a primary source can be OR? I said I didn't understand exactly why you considered it OR (or a primary source for that matter).
- OR is not about using primary sources, it is about unpublished material used by the editors of the articles. A primary source, such as research material by a scientist, can be used if it is a published paper etc.
- Using a ref from a published magazine, published book, or a published paper is not OR; whereas an editor seeing Fred going into Number 12 The Street and adding "Fred lives at 10 The Street" into an article without finding a published source is OR.
- In this specific example, Miessner, the book is a published source - published by D. Van Nostrand - and is not self published; so is not OR and is a reliable source. The quote is from [2], though I felt it should not be in the lead - rather either included in the body under history or added to the list of devices in the history section.
- Are you sure it is me that is having difficulty here? Chaosdruid (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry but you misunderstand what a primary source is, its not just "unpublished material". A published magazine, published book, or a published paper can be primary or secondary. They are secondary when they are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event i.e. a reliably written document (for Wikipedia purposes this means WP:RS) that puts forward supported original analysis. Per WP:PST: "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Read the sub-notes----> "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."..... "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." Policy: ---> Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." ....introductory paragraph to the section----> "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors......." Miessner writing on Miessner about his own work a year after he did it is a primary source. The original analysis "more practical applications" (implying this is notable) must be referenced to a secondary source (not to mention the fact that the other people in that statement have no references). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- So now you are changing the subject to primary source, when it was OR that you were first claiming, and then start going on about SYN ... and you can stop giving me links to policy that I already know well enough.
- You also seem to be confusing interpretation of a primary source (SYN) and quoting one directly; as you mention "interpretation" several times regarding primary sources. Of course a secondary source will give an interpretation of a primary, that is also mentioned in the policy to avoid SYN.
- Do not forget that the whole point here is that you claimed OR (when it was simply a primary source), there was no apparent interpretation (as it merely supported the date of Miessner's Dog), and most importantly that the text has already been dropped as far as I am concerned for it not being notable enough.
- As for you again claiming something about my understanding (which is clearly not true), I would suggest that it is indeed you who are making this personal. I fully understand what a primary source is, make no mistake on your assumptions about that point.
- I also understand what SYN, primary-tertiary sources, and what OR are. You are making baseless claims about my understanding when in fact it is your misinterpretation of my statements and events and your massive amounts of policy quoting that are getting us nowhere in this discussion. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think we have have reached the point of pointlessness. I can only go by what you say. When you say "In this specific example, Miessner, the book is a published source - published by D. Van Nostrand - and is not self published; so is not OR and is a reliable source." you seem to be misunderstanding Wikipedia's take on all this. A "reliable source" is a "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (it is a Wikipedia consensus construct) - Miessner on Miessner doesn't even pass "third-party". OR does not refer to the source, it refers to the sources usage. The source is being used for what? To establish Miessner did something at some time? When an Editor uses a source that way it is considered "original analysis" per WP:PST (i.e. there is no reliable secondary source to back up usage of that primary source). It ain't the "date of the dog" that is the problem, its that three inventors are lumped together in a statement in the lead with no reliable secondary source making this distinction anywhere in the article. That is OR, it is also WP:WEASEL per "we find" (who's this "we" we speak of?), and a WP:TONE problem per "we". It may be one sentence we both can agree should be dumped, but a major part of that lead is written that way (many unreferenced statements that are not covered in the article body, and even more "we" statements). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I also understand what SYN, primary-tertiary sources, and what OR are. You are making baseless claims about my understanding when in fact it is your misinterpretation of my statements and events and your massive amounts of policy quoting that are getting us nowhere in this discussion. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- A published paper can be a reliable source, even though it is a primary source, as it has been peer reviewed. The guidelines clearly state:
- "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." - When it comes to the 1916 field of radio control Miessner was indeed authoratative, with 200 published papers, and in 1916 he was "Expert Radio Aid for Aviation in charge of developing radio for aircraft" Purdue University biography
- "Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers" WP:V
- From these alone I can see that Miessner's book is a reliable source. The statement using that as a ref was "John Hammond Jr. and Benjamin Miessner who in 1912 created the Electric Dog as a precursor to their self directing torpedo of 1915"
- The page varies from edition to edition, but let us use the openlibrary.org version. "In 1912 the author, in collaboration with John Hays Hammond, Jr., developed such an apparatus, which was called an 'orientation mechanism.' It is more generally known now as the 'electric dog.' "
- Pages 198-199 go into detail as to how the torpedo is controlled using the "Electric dog" principle.
- That statement is thus correct, and referenced correctly - though there are no page numbers. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- The subject of the sentence in question is history so Miessner would have to be a "peer reviewed" "third-party" historian. Miessner is not a reliable source about Miessner place in history because he is Miessner. Miessner cannot be an authoritative (historian) in relation to the subject because Miessner is not a historian and it is not a peer reviewed historical document about Miessner, it is a document on an entirely different subject by Miessner. We can accurately cite primary sources that Tesla did something and Hammond did something and Miessner did something and it all would be original research because we don't have a reliable secondary source that it was significant historically. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- A published paper can be a reliable source, even though it is a primary source, as it has been peer reviewed. The guidelines clearly state:
Definitely not - the subject is not history, it is Robots - something which Miessner was indeed authorative on in the period 1912 to 1940. The context in which the sentence is placed concerns practical applications in the history of robots. Arguing that Miessner is not an "authoratative (historian)" is completely ass about face. He was "authoritative in relation to the subject (Robots)"
As for your claim that it would be OR because "we don't have a reliable secondary source" - that is blatant nonsense. The paragraph talks about practical applications of techniques, "... mechanical techniques developed through the Industrial age we find more practical applications...", and cites Miessner as one example of a practical application and the time the development was made - that has the ref given, which is reliable, and does not need secondary sources to establish any relevance as there is no claim other than it being one example of a practical application of robotics in a robot (self guiding torpedo).
It is for the editors of the article to establish context, not sources. Context places a demand on sourcing and here it is perfectly well within guidelines. The issue here is simply whether or not it is notable enough to be considered an important enough development to be used in the lead or body, nothing to do with OR, SYN, RS or any other issue. It should, if used at all, be in the "Timeline of robot and automata development" or in the History section, not the lead. As the Tesla torpedo development was 14 years earlier, and is already in the timeline, it is not the first application of such techniques. The self steering gives it autonomy, and so it should perhaps be considered as a possible candidate to be mentioned in the body of the article. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your just arguing to argue at this point. Given that your context (same as mine BTW) is notable "practical applications in the history of robots" then the sentence reads "I (a Wikipedia editor) see Miessner's work had notable practical applications in the history of robots (see, here is a ref that he worked on a form of robotics that I found by doing a little research)". That's original research. That has to be the opinion of the reliable author Joe Blow (a third-party individual) in his (hopefully recently written) book on Robotics (a secondary source), "not the opinion of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies, have been ill for over a week with flu and a related chest infection that finally put me in bed for three days.
- I am not arguing. If you read the first two posts you can see that you began telling me what I did and didn't know and what I was and wasn't thinking - That was how this all started. I would point out that you are still giving me unnecessary links to policy I already know, so it is fairly obvious that you are trying to continue something that should never have been started. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry you were under the weather. As to "unnecessary links", if someone says something contrary to guidelines or policy (or more to the point, asks me what I mean) I will always give a link to that guideline or policy. So.... "I said I didn't understand exactly why you considered it OR (or a primary source for that matter)"... I explained both. Primary "published source.... is not OR and is a reliable source"--- unfortunately wrong on both counts, it is specifically OR and un-reliable if there is no such interpretation in a secondary source -- Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves" (sorry, another needed link). I mean you may know these things, or mean something different, like you think there should be a consensus for more interpretation of primary sources, but that would be something to take up at the relative guideline or policy talk pages. Consensus can change. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Summer Science Program
Why the major removal of text from the article on the Summer Science Program? (March 6, 2012 revision.) Particularly the notable alumni section??? Woof (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- This is covered extensively at Talk:Summer Science Program, you may want to read that page and post discussion there. In a nutshell: a list of "Notable alumni" comes under the guideline WP:LIST, lists are an alternative article directory and "Notable" in its basic form means the person in question merits an article in Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Robot
Hi
Apologies for my absence for some time, mainly ill-health and family matters
I would like to collaborate with you on the Robot article if you have time. I am very concerned about the body of the article. Some sections are very badly written, lacking refs and more like a skeleton of links found in "Outline of ..." articles.
The real issue with the lead is that it was a summary of the body, but as so much has changed in the article over the last two years it is difficult to see how to rewrite it without first rewriting the sections in the body. There is that sub-page still waiting for suggestions/changes - I have done several but do not want to do this on my own, as that would not be consensus.
Of even more concern is the definition of a robot. Previously we used three or four definitions from various sources as they all varied. I am reluctant to use a dictionary definition, perhaps Websters, Britannica, Oxford, IEEE, and similar would be best. One of the ones used previously was:
- "A reprogrammable, multifunctional manipulator designed to move material, parts, tools, or specialized devices through various programmed motions for the performance of a variety of tasks" Robot Institute of America, 1979
As Wiki uses consensus, and no (wo)man is an island etc., I wondered if you wanted to collaborate? Chaosdruid (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am always willing to collaborate (and did). Wikipedia uses consensus but it does not use local consensus. So you would be better served posting suggestions/changes at Talk:Robot. I have it on my watch list. Also I am not seeing the point of Talk:Robot/Lead under discussion since it has no references to WP:RS. There need to be references to secondary sources on the subject before we can even begin to discuss consensus. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Nikola Tesla
Hi. I'm here to discuss the issue about last patent of Nikola Tesla. I believe that you read it wrong because you keep saying VTOL. However, the PBS website actually says V/STOL. If you realize your mistake, please undo your edits. If you still think I'm incorrect, please tell me why. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Nikola Tesla
Actually, you are incorrect. A VTOL is a subset of V/STOL, so both terms are correct. See last sentence of first paragraph on VTOL. This is because V/STOL is a term used to describe airplanes that are able to take-off OR land vertically or on short runways. See the word OR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Nikola Tesla
From thefreedictionary.com A convertiplane that can take off and land vertically or on a short runway. There's a "/" in between V and S for a reason. It's not VSTOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- You are still getting it wrong, "OR" means the plane does both, i.e a V/STOL is a STOL that also has a vertical component.
Ok i found my mistake
I misread it. It is a VTOL. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Tesla's Signature
I thought that individual words were not eligible for copyright. Also, it's not biased because Marc Seifer is a professor of psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Retiflector sight
I am an unskilled user and am not sure how to use Wikipedia. I'd love to converse with you directly, since I have a fourth figure to illustrate the retiflector sight but don't know how to add it.
If you don't mind discussing it, please e-mail me at rwhistler25@hotmail.com.
Regards,
Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswhis (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is my list of references to the retiflector configuration:
Sight Reference
Chrétien Fundamentals of optical engineering, by D.H. Jacobs McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc., 1943 OPL Notice Provisoire sur le Collimateur R.X.39, Société Optique et Précision de Levallois, Paris, Juin 1940 N-8 Handbook of Instructions with Parts Catalog for the Retiflector Gun Sight Types N-8 and N-8A, Tech.Order 11-35-9, USAAF, April 20, 1944
X-1 Bombsights - Type X-1 Reflex Sight, Tech. Order 11-30-74, USAAF, December, 1944 CAI Bourns/CAI product information, Optical Reflex Gunsights, Typical Optical Reflex Gunsights, data sheet CAI Product Information, Norsight Optical Gunsight Bowen Optical Instruments, Summary Technical Report of Division 16, NDRC, Washington, D.C., 1946, 494 - 498
NIFE A New Type of Reflecting Sight, J. Vogl and S. Täcklind, JOSA, Vol. 37, No. 12, 975-978, December, 1947
B-29 ... central station fire control system ..., Tech. Orders 11-70A-1 and -2, USAAF, 1945
As I said, I am not proficient with Wikipedia, and would much prefer that you edit the Reflector Sights article using whatever you wish from my input. I have a Fig. 4, illustrating the retiflector configuration. It is a subclass of reflector sights. I can e-mail this figure to you if I have your e-mail address. I can see no way to attach it to this message.
The interposed reflector plate does not provide any offset deflections to the line of sight. The retiflector is simply a reconfiguration of the components of a "normal" reflector sight that provides a more compact package.
Regards, Rosswhis (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, if the diagram is yours you can upload it to Wikipedia---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload. If it is from any of those post mid-1940s sources you could give it some "fair use" license, it would not suitable under a free use on Wikipedia since the cutoff is 1923 or older. You could put it up at a free Google website or Google Docs or some message board and let me know where it is. I will be glad to look through the material and take a stab at adding it Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at your various suggested methods of transmission, and, at 85, they are too complicated for me. As a alternative, I have set up a hotmail account FofBM@hotmail with a password of Retiflector1 and attached the text, diagram and references. Please feel free to do with them what you want.
- Ross
- Hi, got the document at the account. Thanks for going to the trouble to set it up. One problem... its an RTF file with no image inserted, just text. I think RTF only supports text. If there was an image you can probably get it to work by going SAVE AS....--->.DOC format, if this is Word, and re-sending the .DOC file. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have tried again, and I hope with success. I'm glad for the delay. With red face I must confess that I had a reference wrong. What I remembered as a Chretien design was actually Michelin.
- The refernce should be
- Michelin Fundamentals of optical engineering, by D.H. Jacobs McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc., 1943 page 242]and Michelin should replace Chretien in the text.
- I'm sorry to have been so hamhanded in all this, but I think it's done now.
- Got the document and it looks fine. Image is attached. Think you did fine sending this and the Hotmail is a stroke of genius.
- One of the challenges of an encyclopedia is categorizing things. Encyclopedias describe "things" and have to be broken down into logical articles and sections. Is something part of one article, is it part of another, is it the "same thing" or a "different thing". And sometimes someone comes up with an addition that says, "hey, you missed this part".
- So looking at the drawing you supplied makes it all much clearer and shows what needs expanding. From what I can see the Retiflector sight depiction shows it is not a new basic type, it is a collimated image turned 90 degrees off a 45 degree beam splitter. Same thing used in the first 1900 sight all the way up to modern HUDs. The optical path to get to that final arrangement may take a few twists and turns but it is the same end resault.
- The "part missed" is an explanation that mirrors can be used as well as lenses to create a collimator.
- "Retiflector sight" itself could be a stand alone article in Wikipedia... I will do that (with you permission to use the diagram)... and put it up some time soon. That article can then be linked to the related articles on the topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
I just wanted to let you know that your work on the Nikola Tesla article is appreciated. You have been very forthcoming in discussing changes with other editors, and you consistently balance the teamwork approach with a bold editing philosophy. Well done! – MrX 15:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks for the compliment. The article in question seems to be getting overall good faith editing, although whats added sometimes seems to need a "flip" end to end to bring it in line with tone. I hope I don't make people airsick with the flips ;) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikola Tesla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Stone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Newtonian telescope
Apologies for not realising that the script I was using didn't catch all the usages of "color", there, I'll have to watch that in future. But surely the article has sufficiently "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", given that Newton was English? --McGeddon (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if a concept has a nationality, another example is Newton's law of universal gravitation. There are specific Newtonian instruments where nationality might apply such as Newton's reflector or the Leviathan of Parsonstown but since we are outside specific things WP:RETAIN seems to apply. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Nadia Boulanger lead
Hi there,
I don't know if you're following the Talk:Nadia Boulanger page, but I'd appreciate your input on a question I have posed there following a recent addition to the article.
Many thanks, pgbrown (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, please see article and talk for addition. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar
The Space Barnstar | ||
For defending, improving, and creating content related to telescopes and astronomy - Congratulations. Fotaun (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC) |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For great contributions over many years in many areas! Fotaun (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thanks for your diligent efforts promoting sane editing and compliance with WP policies. Keep up the good work! Noleander (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC) |
ty for the compliment. Really didn't see the end result coming. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't know
I don't know any references, I'm just trying to get a non-featured article in line with a featured article. I'll just leave it then. But I will add that either way, "our" is still supposedly wrong because there's meant to be a third-person view on humanity, see Human and its talk page FAQ, so it should still be at least "the Earth's Solar System" or "the Solar System of the Earth" or "Humanity's Solar System" or whatever.--occono (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Mike Sparks
As the page on sources notes, one should only use as evidence sites which have a reputation for accuracy and reliability, not sites which may theoretically have altered or forged any given document they host. A bare reference to the relevant source is better than a link to a site belonging to someone with a reputation as a crank and a liar. The section on Montague bikes I removed because other than the link to combatreform it's had no citations since 2009, which is a long time for an unreferenced section to be hanging around. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)