User talk:Dfoley51

Dfoley51 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to XXX in science

Hi, I think it is not a good idea to change the Birth/Death links from XXXX_in_science to XXXX. With keeping these inside the "science" scope we can have a rather complete list of scientists' vital stats without needing to justify their notability in the "global" year sections. Please, reconsider your changes. Cheers! Awolf002 01:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know you removed 'red-links'. But it would be also possible to create a new XXXX_in_science page with a small set of sections and to add the person in question to the Birth or Death list. Thanks! Awolf002 01:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but why are you changing the perfectly good "pipes" for years? Does it make sense to you to read 'Gabriel Fahrenheit, physicist, inventor (died 1736 in science)'?? Not to me it does not! Awolf002 01:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was not clear enough. I'm talking about, as example, 1686 in science, where the text now reads as quoted above. No "red links" where ever a problem, here. I will revert these changes. Awolf002 01:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree on the importance of 'transparency' as an overriding goal. Many editors have followed the same way of linking years within the 'XXXX in science' pages, and (I presume) found this natural and useful. Please, do not change pipes to existing year pages in 'XXXX in science'. Awolf002 02:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year articles

Hi. I have noticed your changes from "b." to "born" and "from d." to "died" in the lists of births and deaths. While I support your changes, could you please comment which of the following would be better?

common year starting on Wednesday of the Gregorian calendar
common year starting on Wednesday in the Gregorian calendar

As of now I am planning and concentrating on adding detailed differences of the Gregorian and Julian calendars from 1583. I plan to do it until at least 1918 when Russia started using the Gregorian calendar.--Jusjih 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"On second thought the first option is the one you should use". I have asked the question as I have used the first option for a long time. Thank you very much for your answer.--Jusjih 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to tell you this....

...but the Wikipedia:Timeline standards specify that "b." and "d." are to be used on those pages, as opposed to "born" or "died". You appear to have already changed several hundred entries; they're going to have to be changed back. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On talk Wikiproject Years, the same question was posted was posted two discussions above your posting. The consensus was it was acceptable to make those changes. I think it reads better as died vs. d.Dfoley51 20:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no consensus; there was no response at all. Someone asked a question, but nobody responded. The confusion, of course, is that many of the pages you've edited already said "born" and "died", so we weren't being entirely consistent in the first place. But the standards document (Wikipedia:Timeline standards), which we follow on the days of the year pages (e.g. November 1) specifies "b." and "d.". Before you make any more changes, I strongly recommend that you ask for an opinion on Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, aside from the administrative question of how we format the born/died references, you've done some impressive work cleaning up those pages! -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Christoph Grosheim

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Georg Christoph Grosheim, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.italianopera.org/compositori/G/c218379E.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Georg Christoph Grosheim. Then you should do one of the following:

Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Georg Christoph Grosheim where we can find that note; or
Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Georg Christoph Grosheim.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! James084 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]