This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
OK, please really read MOS:IMAGE, completely. By forcing it to be a certain size you are forcing everyone to view it at your preferred size, which is 250. Now, that is larger than the default, but via your user preferences you can make it go larger, except here where you would then force those people to view it even smaller. What's more, is though you claim you want people to be able to read the inscription, I know I still can't at the 250 size you insist it be at. As in no matter what, you still will have to click on the image in order to read the inscription, an inscription that though interesting is not particularly pertinent to the biography of Haswell (everything about him is in the article already, though it does contradict what you wrote in the article to begin with). Plus, for most readers, forcing it at that size then extends the image through three sections, which includes forcing the portal link down into the references section. But, whatever, I'll remove it from my watchlist so you can own it, complete with using British style dates instead of US style M/D/Y as covered here. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I have replaced my earlier comment (see history if you must) with one more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.] You made a change to the page that I thought reduced its utility, so I reverted, explained why I thought the change was disadventageous, and asked for a specific explanation of your reasoning so I could consider your perspective. That is not ownership. As to the date issue: although born in America, he spent significant time in England, and perhaps served in the Royal Navy; his most notable achievement involved as much of the Canadian coastline as the American (If I recall correctly, DCB, using British style dates, is the only national-level biographical compendium to give him a full article); at the time he considered himself to be English even though he was serving in an American ship; as an adult he spent much more time at sea and in ports neither American nor English (e.g. Amsterdam, Surinam, Batavia, Canton, Rio, etc.) or in the navy, than on American soil. With this record, I can't agree that he is strongly enough associated with a single particular region to require a particular dating style to be used, and so I used my own style. You are, of course, free to argue to the contrary, as are others. As to the errors on the tombstone, yes, they are the result of family tradition from the time the stone was erected, decades after all of the named individuals died. If you have questions about the factual accuracy of the page, again we can discuss those issues. Agricolae (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
