User talk:David Kernow/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:David Kernow. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Thank you, Sam!
David Kernow

pic vote

You left two votes at the negative poll for Fidel's pic (Talk:Fidel_Castro#More recent lead image). You're only supposed to put in one. Could you with draw one? DirkvdM 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for my misunderstanding the poll; I've now removed one of my votes. Thanks for your message! David Kernow 18:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, SqueakBox 18:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Partido Ortodoxo

Apologies in advance: I've just recreated the redirect Partido del Pueblo Cubano > Partido Ortodoxo then realised I'd forgotten to check the speedy-deletion log. The latter is an alternative and more generally used name for this Cuban political party and I've now created the stubbiest of stubs for it. Hope that's okay.

David Kernow 13:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. The reason they were speedily deleted is because they were redirects to each other, which doesn't really work. Unforunately, the article as it stands is really a substub, and violates my personal editing commandment (which is far from policy). Is there anything you can say about it? Is it a major party? Is it viewed as left or right wing? How long has it been around (even approximately)? Even one more single sentence would improve the article substantially. -R. fiend 14:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've now made Partido Ortodoxo a little less stubby, though I see I must've been timed-out whilst doing so (I am User:212.84.100.45). I hope others will take it on from there as, though I am interested in it, my knowledge of Cuban political history is thin.

The thought occurred to me to create a Cuban politics stub category, but the process is (understandably) less than straightforward, so I have not started it. Perhaps you or someone you know might want to do so.

David Kernow 16:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That's substantially better. The difference between a stub and a substub can be small, but important. Now let's hope someone adds more to it. As for making a cuban political stub, well, I've never made a stub category, and haven't been keeping track of who does that sort of thing. I've turned it into a cuba-stub though, assuming a it will more likely be expanded by those interested in Cuba than those interested in politics in general. -R. fiend 16:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hubble Deep Field

I have replied to all your comments on my talk page. Regards, Majts 06:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Majts' talk page:

My replies in BOLD Majts 06:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article. I notice you reverted some work I put into it, on the grounds that it "seemed to damage [the] prose". So I might make more worthwile Wikipedia edits in future, I would appreciate your comments on the following from the article as it now stands:

Context: This article was Wikipedia's front page featured article last Friday. This means that it has been peer reviewed and perfected by numerous contributors and read by thousands. It is therefore safe to say that any major problems with this article have been addressed. I have never contributed to the article.

Conception ¶3: "the then director". You don't share my feeling that this reads clumsily? In any case, no timeframe has been established before these words occur in the sentence, so when "then" is read it has no point of reference in time. Hence my moving "in 1995" before the "then" and consequent removal of the superfluous "the". Perhaps the whole sentence should be rewritten.

I think that the sentence in question is of the callibre that I would expect to read in the highest quality press, e.g. The Economist. I am so surprised that you have raised this as a problem, I am wondering if this is a British\US English difference. As for the timeframe, 1985 is established in the sentence after the comma, why does it have to established before?

Conception ¶3: "a 'typical'". I agree my offering of "an agreed" in lieu is a substantive difference. However, the scare-quotes around "typical" indicate that a little more explanation is required, so they may then be removed. How about the following? :

A special Institute Advisory Committee recommended that the WFPC2 be used to image a patch of sky at a high galactic latitude that was agreed to be unremarkable, using several optical filters.

"agreed to be unremarkable" sounds mangled. By using "to be", it somehow implies that the area of sky is complying to the committee's wishes. If you really want to get rid of the quotes then I would suggest the word ordinary or just get rid of the quotes, the sentence still works without them. But I personally think the use of scare-quotes is perfectly valid.

Target selection ¶3: Superscripted external link at end. In the other Wikipedia articles I've read thus far (admittedly a small fraction of the total on offer) I don't recall finding external links superscripted and thereby interrupting the regular line-spacing of the article. Have you?

No opinion either way, I never noticed the irregular line-spacing until you pointed it out, although I would expect this to have got picked up during peer review if this had been a problem.

Observations Photo caption and ¶3 rewrite: With the photo caption as it currently stands, the final two words of the section, "CCD detectors", are once again orphaned on the left-hand side of the article. The final sentence of the section, ending with those words, is relatively long. Surely neither ideal?

The layout looks perfect in my web browser, so this is something to do with your screen resolution. I run at 1024x768 resolution

My method, for featured articles or articles that I consider of great importance is to make my suggested changes on the article's talk page to see if I have consensus before being bold.

Thanks,
David Kernow 04:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and considered responses to my inquiries. I would still question "the then director", "'typical'" and the length of the last sentence in the Observations section, but in light of your pointing out the article has been featured and therefore well-reviewed, I will leave it as is. Thanks also for the reminder about different resolutions (mine is 1152 by 864 but reduced by bookmark sidebar).

Best wishes,
David Kernow 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for being so friendly despite me reverting your work. In many ways you were just unlucky with the timing as the article was linked to from the main page the day before. So it had many eyes watching it, reverting all the vandels, etc... If you feel still any changes will make the article better then go ahead and make them, I won't object or revert again. Regards Majts 14:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Castro

Hello. I note you have recently reverted this article to include a comment about Castro's father, so I'd be grateful to know your response to Irrelevant / POV comment? Thanks! David Kernow 01:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You can edit out/rephrase that if you want, I was mainly concerned with other parts of the article. Thank you. CJK 01:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Chat

I've been looking at my watch list and I see that you've been messing around with some of the my articles, such as Tommy Olivencia, Tito Lara and my 300th article Jerry Rivera. Who do you think you are? Just joking, I think that you've done an excellent job and I wanted to thank you. Keep up the good work, I can see in your contributions that you will be an asset to the Wiki project. Take care Tony the Marine 06:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks Tony, for your generous comments. I came by the articles on Tommy Olivencia et al as part of the Disambiguation project, thought they were well-compiled, so decided to add the wikifications etc. Glad to see them appreciated; hope you don't now feel burdened because some appear in red...

Best wishes, David Kernow 18:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Fowles British/English

I see you reverted my edit making John Fowles British rather than English. I don't dispute that he was English, but isn't that somewhat too specific. England is not considered a separate nation/country. Yes, Fowles wrote novels in the English language, but so did Mark Twain yet he's an American novelist. Fowles was a British subject who wrote novels, ergo, a British novelist. Am I missing something? BTW, it still appears as "a English novelist". Cheers JackofOz 12:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I think I changed Fowles' designation from British to English as an afterthought, having in the next sentence indicated that Essex is in England. (I didn't realise it was a reversion.) I really don't mind which it is, so have reinstated British once again. Hope that is okay. Apologies for the typo I overlooked.

Best wishes, David Kernow 13:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

IU Page

Thanks for the Indiana University page. It is bad enough that Indiana University of Pennsylvania has sweatshirts that say "INDIANA" much like IU, but then add "University of Pennsylvania" in fine print.

Isaac Stern article

Re your removing the {{musician-stub}} from this article, I feel it is a stub as (with the exception of mentioning Carnegie Hall) nothing particular is said about his career before 1979 or from 1980 until his death. That's a period of 63 or so years! What do you think? Best wishes, David Kernow 14:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

While the article certainly has room for expansion, (for example adding a complete discography, finding a representaive picture or two, etc.) it contains all the essential information about him and it's slightly more than a stub in length and content. In other words in the context of the WP 1.0 calssification scheme, it's graduated from a stub article to start article, but there is still Class-B, Class-A, and ultimately Featured Article status to reach. The article has reached the end of the beginning, but it still has a long way to go before it reaches the beginning of the end. Caerwine 16:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of wisdom, Caerwine! David Kernow 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please use preview

It is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks! Regards, howcheng [ t  c  w  e ] 01:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reminder, howcheng. Unfortunately Wikipedia's recent refresh/upload difficulties have made me start using the "Save" rather than "Preview" button too often. I will work to undo this habit. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Priscilla Davis nn-bio

Hi, I have removed the {{nn-bio}} from Priscilla Davis, since a google search reveals enough non-wikipedia mirror content. See [1] & [2] for instance. If you still have reservations, nominate it at AFD if you think it does not meet the criterion at WP:BIO.(I think it does). regards, --Pamri • Talk 06:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Pamri. I placed speedy-deletes on Priscilla Davis, Andrea Wilborn and Stan Farr as together with T. Cullen Davis they seemed to be forming a self-referential circle with no outside encyclopaedic interest. T. Cullen Davis was the one article that seemed to have wider encyclopaedic interest, so I left that intact. I see now that MacGyverMagic has converted the Priscilla Davis et al articles into redirects to T. Cullen Davis, a far better solution. So I will now visit his/her talk page to thank them in turn! Best wishes, David Kernow 03:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad I could help. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

ID

Can you explain your ratonale for the move at Talk:Intelligent design? Thanks. Guettarda 22:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see the entry I made here. Best wishes, David Kernow 22:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you still need to make the case to the active editors on the page if you want a conversation that can result in consensus. RM isn't like VFD - the conversation takes place on the talk page. Guettarda 22:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I have done as you suggest. Thanks, David Kernow 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Guettarda 22:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi David. Seeing your edits at Intelligent design movement and remembering our debate on the issue at Talk:Intelligent design, I think we settled on intelligent design not being capitalized, as it's not a proper noun. That's why I standardized to the lowercase usage in the Intelligent design movement article. Agree? FeloniousMonk 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure if a consensus to use lowercase was (or has) been reached, but I don't mind. Looking at the past hour's history, I apologise in case my most recent edit appears to revert yours; I was called away, returned much later than expected and forget to check if anyone else had contributed in the meantime before submitting my revision. Oops.

Thank you for mentioning your approval of my other contributions; I hope a few extra wikilinks and the like might make the article more straightforward for less US-savvy (pardon, U.S.-savvy!) readers. At some point I intend to return to review the other sections in similar vein – and also the main Intelligent design article.

Thanks and best wishes, David Kernow 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, your copyedits are top-notch. Thanks for taking the time. FeloniousMonk 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear David!

Szervusz Peda!

I have added Arthur Koestler's original Hungarian name, Kösztler Artur, to the beginning of this article. Nagyon köszönöm for pointing out this omission!

Egészségedre!

David Kernow

I would like to say you I'm very hopfully for change the wiki's article Arthur Koestler. Sorry for my bad english (grammar), I'm not very good in grammar in use (without in speech). I learning the Universty of Debrecen the Department of Engilsh American Studies site: ieas.arts.unideb.hu (without www) so if you would like to visit please use "copy and paste". Thanks forewer and have a nice day! Pénzes Dávid

Copernicus

There's a rambling semi-coherent reply to your query at my Talk page. It's amazing that Wikipeida turns out so many really good articles; but then most things are less controversial than Copernicus and Galileo, and have fewer random hacks thrown into the articles by somone who passes by with a birght idea or a nationalist grievance. Dandrake 02:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Copied from Dandrake's talk page

"Look at the history of this article, and you'll find that its previous wording was not a matter of casual ignorance; it's the product of years of more or less bitter edit wars between German and Polish factions...

Thanks for taking the time to warn me about all the time and energy that's been expended on this issue; I am aware that it has been (made) and probably forever will be an issue. I suspect (and imagine you have already experienced) that not only is consensus impossible as regards stating some kind of nationality but also impossible as regards how to handle this lack of consensus. Given a 'nationality-free' version of the article, do you think the Wikipedia powers-that-be would consider (for example) barring any editor reported as adding an explicit mention of nationality from editing the article for a period of time – or, if they persist, barred permanently from editing it? Thanks in advance for your thoughts. David Kernow 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the available tools are too clumsy. Remember that someone can walk in off the street and make any change and never be seen again. Of course, you can revert that. And people who have a Wikipedia identity may drop in and change things, and you can revert that, with an eye out for edit wars. But the Wikipedia structure can't do much about limitedly obnoxious people; it can only take very slow and cautious action against monsters; and it may not always get that right.

Once upon a time I subscribed to the Wikien-l mailing list, and I saw a number of complaints and counter-complaints there about people who were abusing articles, and I don't have a good feeling about Wikipedia's ways of keeping order. With that and my experiences on my pet page, Galileo, I get the impression that there really is nothing to do except keep eternal vigilance if one cares enough; otherwise, try to avoid the subject. You've started in the right directon with comments in the Talk page and in the source text. BTW here's a habit I've learned: when an old familiar bad change is made, compare the versions using the History feature; and note that the contributor's name is accompanied by a link to "contribs"; follow that link, and see if this lloks like a one-time poster (or a vandal) or someone who might be serious; handle your reversion accordingly, since people who come back and see that their stuff has been reverted may get resentful, but most posters never come back. This is a nasty bit of manipulative politicking, perhaps, but as Madison said (very approximately), if men were angels there'd be no need for politics. Dandrake 02:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"BTW here's a habit I've learned: ... This is a nasty bit of manipulative politicking, perhaps..."

Doesn't seem a nasty bit of politicking to me, but a wise move... if anything, it might prevent an otherwise ill-advised revert that might look like the nast bit of etc etc. Thanks for the method. I'll keep the article on my watchlist for a while at least, if nothing more then just to see how regularly the nationality ding-dong occurs these days. I know it sounds like censorship, but, if possible, I wonder how effective the automated removal of words such as "German", "Germany", "Poland", "Polish", etc might have! Best wishes, David Kernow 04:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Depression

About your recent edit to Depression. Disambiguation pages have their own style guidelines, which include having minimal descriptions for each entry (just enough for a reader to detemrine which page they are looking for), and no excess wikilinks (one wikilink per entry is the general rule). More information is available at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), and I'm always willing to discuss disambiguation.--Commander Keane 13:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, Commander. I've now dewikified the page but left the descriptions for Clinical depression and Depression (mood) intact as I feel something like them is necessary to indicate the distinction between the two meanings. Hope you approve.

Best wishes, David Kernow 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Psychiatry Page

Good edit on the psychiatry page, when I have more time (and more knowledge... I'm only a 1st year psychiatry resident) I plan on doing a major revamping of that page. You've put it along in the right direction. djheart 15:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement! In case you happen to read this, it would be great if you could find a moment to edit it at some point, as someone like yourself could indicate how to bring it up to date. Even before then, I agree it could benefit from some more work. I am thinking of adding more about ICD-10, for example, as I believe this is used in Europe as much if not more than DSM IV.

Best wishes, David Kernow 20:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Shanel – long time no Solar System? Another Wikipedia user saying thanks for spotting and reverting a vandal's 'contribution' to their user page. Salut! David Kernow 00:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Your're welcome! I plan on finishing up the references for Solar System soon. I'll probably be on Wikibooks tomorrow, or the day after. :)--Shanel 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Papin's and Leibniz invention of the steam engine

Thank you for responding to my request for sources and references as regards Newcomen and Savery using Papin's work. As what you provided amounted to 58Kb in size, I've taken the liberty of breaking it into sections as per Material from Wikipedia user Dr. Gabriel Gojon. (You may have seen the warning the Wikimedia software issues when editing pages greater than 32Kb in size.) If most (or all) the material came directly from the internet, it might be easier and preferable in future simply to provide URLs. (They could also become external links in articles.) Furthermore, if any of the material you provided is copyrighted, Wikipedia may not (yet) be permitted to carry it, even as subpages of a talk page.

I am intrigued by the material you provide, but think it may better inform the Newcomen steam engine article rather than the Thomas Newcomen article, probably as the source material for a subsection or subpage of its own. There is no claim in the Thomas Newcomen article that Newcomen or Savery invented the steam engine, but rather that they developed a steam engine. (In case you are wondering, I did not write or modify this phrasing.) Papin is acknowledged in the Newcomen steam engine article and the removal of the water-wheel he used is offered as the key development introduced by Newcomen. How controversial this may be I do not know; perhaps this is the point of departure for the subsection/subpage suggested above. But whatever the controversy, I feel it would be better part of the Newcomen steam engine article rather than the Thomas Newcomen article. I hope I am not missing the point of your material.

Best wishes and thanks again, David Kernow 00:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and all your help. I will honor your suggestion about the Newcomen article. I especially appreciate your hard work breaking the information regarding Papin. Nicely done!

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 16:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)