User talk:SimonATL/Archive

USMC Portal help

Someone has decided our portal deserves to be deleted. Could use your vote here. If there are others you know that can give us a vote please put the word out. This is just like when they had to defend the Corps against Truman in 1949. Thanks in advance.--Looper5920 11:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

TR Article

Hello,

I noticed that you have done some work on the Theodore Roosevelt Article. This is more of a technical question than anything. I tried to add the Category: Deaths by cardiovascular disease, but when it entered edit mode the Category section wasn't there. Perhaps you have more experience with this type of thing than I. Can you help?

Regards,

Michael David 13:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi there, thank you very much for putting the finishing touches to the article about the Battle of Ong Thanh.Canpark 17:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canpark (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Jesus vs The Christ

Hi Friend,

I talked with a few other people who study Christian Science to come up with some edits. The two points that we wanted to include were that Jeses was not the sum of the Christ and we couldn't find any references in Eddy's writings about the Christ coming to other worlds. We would love to have a futher discussion to find a compromise you feel comfortable with.

Simplywater 06:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term "man"

Hi,

Your edits are great but please note that the term "man" has sexist connotations nowadays (outside of CS discourse). Consequently I think it should be avoided where possible. I also think that "Eddy" is not a very courteous term for a Victorian lady :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.198.192.221 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Elliott Roosevelt

Dear Simon

Thanks for uploading that picture of ER with his children. You look as though you may have an interest in the Roosevelt family. The husband of one of my great aunt's had a brief and slightly implausible correspondence with FDR about his (ie FDR's) father in law. Looks like some relatively happy memories of a man now remembered chiefly for the illness that appears to have killed him and / or the early promise that seems, in terms of any public career, to have gone unfulfilled. It's sad when a man is remembered chiefly for the manner of his death, especially when he appears to have died from a condition that carries now even more of a stigma than, I think, it did in the nineteenth cenutry. Anyhow, much as I instinctively recoil from today's celebrity culture, I put those inherited letter online when I found them just the same, and I linked them to a genealogy page of mine. The links to the genealogy page have, I think, long ago perished (due to complications following a change in webhost on the part of my cousin whose web page it is). But in case of interest, I seem still to have left the letters 'up there' at

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~chgenealogypages/Roosevelt%20Letters.htm .

Best wishes Charles01 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Roosevelt

Are you referring to these edits by any chance ([1], [2])? Can you please tell me for example how you know that "Ted" was "a soldier's soldier"? Or that "U.S. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall saw in Ted the kind of intelligence and aggressive instinct that would be needed as a new generation of young Americans, by the millions, went off to war largely untested by combat."? We are writing an encyclopaedia, not a Mills and Boon romance novel. No offence, but please familiarise yourself with e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:Reliable Sources etc etc etc. and then we can discuss it again. Those edits were blatantly your POV and had absolutely nothing by way of citation to back them up (not that such intrinsically POV material can ever really be sourced anyway). Any reasonable Wikipedia editor will remove this sort of nonsense on sight, as I did. I defy you to find any experienced editor who would do anything but giggle at that kind of prose, and I mean no offence by that, you are obviously invested in the article and no doubt have a lot to offer. But not with that kind of material. Badgerpatrol 12:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I hear Barbara Brandt is now personally calling TRA members to beat the bushes for people to actually come to the Boston meeting, pleading that there are not enough reservations and that without much more participation the thing will be a financial disaster, much like Atlanta. The last profitable ($30,000) annual meeting was in DC in 2005. Have a great time! And convey my congrats to Michelle Bryant on the great job of membership building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedhead (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Gary Null controversy, 11-10-07

As a military man here is an explanation I am sure you can appreciate to explain why Gary Null receives so much criticism. "You know you're over the target when you get the flack." Larry R. Holmgren 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Well, it is good to leave some something of the Eddy/Quimby discussion on the Eddy page, but move a long discussion to another article. I looked at other biography sites, and felt that the purpose of the site was to focus on one person and not let any one issue dominate the article. However, an article titled Eddy/Quimby comparison or something like that would be different. Thanks for all the work your're doing for Wikipedia. yes, I often forget to signSimplywater 07:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Consequences of personal attacks

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to end up in the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

Consequences of personal attacks

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to end up in the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedhead (talk • contribs) 02:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Science Project

Hi, Thanks for your message. Yes, I would be interested. It won't be easy, though, I'm afraid, because of the lack of objectivity I see. The only response I've gotten has been the same long message added both to my talk page and to the talk page of List of former Christian Science churches, societies and buildings that I started, It reminds me of the logo that the Monitor used to (or may still have) on its Home Forum page: A picture of a sundial with the the saying, "I record only the sunny hours." I'm not sure where we go from here. I have come across a few projects with very few members like the one for Category:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perhaps we could use that as a pattern. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Poppy Harlow article

I have been friends with Poppy since middle school at Blake. Just an FYI her legal name is Katherine. Katherine "Poppy" Harlow. I didn't want to edit it without mentioning to you because it looks like you have kept pretty good watch over the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.93.235 (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)