User talk:Tim Ross/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Is Comprised Of

I'd be interested in your theory for what's grammatically incorrect or substandard about "is comprised of" (versus "consists of"). That's a new one on me. Thanks. McTavidge (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to respond, McTavidge. I've been on vacation for a few days. Here are my thoughts on the subject. Tim Ross (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Most current, American, English-language dictionaries allow the use of is comprised of, although most (virtually all, I suspect) include a warning that such usage is considered informal or substandard. Few American newspapers allow this usage, and I am not aware of any print encyclopedias that do so.

Many other words and usages are similarly treated in American dictionaries, for example "ain't" and "snuck". These give a nice, warm, down-home feel to writing containing them, but that is not the desired goal for an encyclopedia article.

I will insert some quotations on the subject, below, from reputable internet sources, along with a couple of first class books which cover the topic.

"...these errors reduce our vocabulary. Comprise is not a fancy synonym for compose; it is its own word, deriving from the same root as comprehend. Furthermore, comprise and compose have been two distinct words for millennia. Attempts to conflate them are plainly wrong." [1]

"Comprise traditionally means comprehend or contain, not constitute. In other words, a zoo comprises animals — it's not comprised of them (though it is composed of them). Avoid the phrase is comprised of." [2]

"The phrase "is comprised of" is always wrong. No matter how many times you see it in print, you should not pick up this phrase for your own writing. ...Just remember this rule: The whole comprises the parts; the parts constitute (or make up) the whole." [3]

"Comprise means "is made up of" or "consists of." The whole comprises the parts. Compose means "make up" or "make." The parts compose the whole.

• Incorrect: The rock is comprised of three minerals.
• Correct: The rock is composed of three minerals.
• Correct: The rock comprises three minerals.
• Correct: Three minerals compose the rock.

If you are confused, just say, "The rock is made up of three minerals," or "Three minerals make up the rock."[4]

"3. (informal, traditionally considered incorrect) To compose. See usage note below.

• A team is comprised of its members.

Usage notes

The most recent usage above, whereby the passive form effectively means “the members comprise the team”, is informal and traditionally considered incorrect. It is an increasingly accepted usage according to the American Heritage Dictionary. However strictly speaking, a team comprises its members, whereas the members compose the team. There is no need to use comprise in place of compose. With regard to journalistic writing, the Associated Press Stylebook does not allow for such a substitution." [5]

"compose, comprise, constitute

...Comprise means to contain, to include all or embrace. It is best used only in the active voice, followed by a direct object: The United States comprises 50 states. The jury comprises five men and seven women. The zoo comprises many animals." [Goldstein, Norm (ed.), 2004, The Associated Press Stylebook, p. 55]

"Comprised of is a common expression, but it is always wrong. Comprise means to contain. The whole comprises the parts and not vice versa." [Bryson, Bill. 2002. Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words, Broadway Books NY, p.45]

Wow. Thanks. Usually when you have this kind of exchange on Wikipedia (about usage, that is), you get junk as a response. This was the real deal. McTavidge (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an excellent explanation. If you want to see the pro-comprised-of case, I have fixed enough instances of "comprised of" to have attracted a fair amount of flak on User_Talk:Giraffedata. People who are used to a certain usage have a hard time giving it up.

Another good argument against "comprised of" is simply that at best, it's new. Though it's been a common error (a mishearing of "composed of" and "comprises," I assume) for centuries, it has only recently been described as anything but an error by any authority. When I first realized the phrase didn't make sense, I went to the American Heritage dictionary, and it was unequivocal: it's an error. That was 1985. Given that a lot of people who learned to write in 1985 are still around and reading Wikipedia, and it costs nothing to appease them, that seems like a fair reason not to use the phrase. Bryan Henderson (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the kind words. Tim Ross (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work.JenaSt5044 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

images of Philomycus

Hello Tim, William Greene Binney (1833-1909; U.S.A.) (He was a son of Amos Binney Amos (1803-1847; U.S.A.)). If images from his book are made by W. G. Binney himself so we can widen license of images of Philomycus from {{PD-US}} to {{PD-old}} or better to {{PD-old-80}}. Thank you for cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Snek. Yes, the illustrations are all by W. G. Binney, himself. The outer and inner covers state as much. Actually, I've used his images for quite a few North American land mollusks. Is there a simple way to change the licenses? Tim Ross (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have changed the license manually for 25 images from Binney, William G. (1878). The Terrestrial Air-Breathing Mollusks of the United States and Adjacent Territories of North America. I suppose that there are no other images from his book. --Snek01 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you got them all! Thanks very much for doing the hard work. Tim Ross (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have added links to Binney's books to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods. Those scans of whole books are in low quality, but at least there is possible to full text search. --Snek01 (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Most useful. Thanks, Snek. Tim Ross (talk)

Donald Anderson (malacologist)

I just added "Donald Anderson (malacologist)" to the list of researchers on the Mangarevan Expedition. He's the only one without a biographical entry. If you have any sources on him, would you be able to create an entry for him?Joel (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That will be a challenge I think, Joel. I have no references at hand that would lead to a satisfactory biography. A quick Google search turns up a few possibilities that might be used to cobble together a stub of some sort. I'll put it on my to-do list, but can't guarantee that I'll be able to come up with anything. Tim Ross (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it. I was pleasantly surprised to see that someone had created an entry for his colleague Yoshio Kondo.Joel (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just gave it a try, Joel, but didn't succeed. As far as I could determine, Anderson (along with Yoshi Kondo) was one of Cooke's helpers at the Bishop Museum, and signed on for the expedition. He seems to have had a successful trip, and found a new snail that was eventually named after him, Anceyodonta andersoni. The story ends there, though. I can't find out if he ever did anything else of note, or what happened to him. Sorry.

If you should run into any decent leads, let me know and I'll be happy to pick up the pencil again. Tim Ross (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Lake George State Forest

Thank you very much for noting this problem. I believe the contributor who added this text (and created the article on copyright in Florida) may be gravely misunderstanding statute, believing that public records are public domain. I have blanked it pending investigation and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Remaining_older_issues.2C_consolidated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad the issue is in competent hands, Moonriddengirl, and am happy you were able to look into the situation. Tim Ross (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad you looked into it. :) Given the article on copyright in Florida, there could have been many more articles of issue to follow! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

More updating: this question may prove to be far more complex. :) Evidently, the right to reserve copyright has been successfully challenged in Florida's District Court of Appeal, a challenge that has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida. I've requested feedback from our attorney. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Population of Tallahassee, Florida

{{helpme}} The population figures for Tallahassee and the local metropolitan area are reasonably well known. The U.S. census figure was 168,979 in 2007 and the size of the metropolitan area was estimated at 352,319 in 2008 by the Texas A&M Real Estate Center. Populations are presented in the article in its introductory paragraph and infobox.

My problem? Three editors, User:Kueldude, User:Robbiemcbride and User:69.246.160.112 seem intent on substantially inflating these values: 1 2 3, etc. Most often, the references to the correct data are left, as if they supported the inflated values, although the dates are sometimes changed. No citations supporting the larger numbers are ever provided.

I have attempted to communicate with Kueldude (User_talk:Kueldude#Tallahassee_population) and with 69.246.160.112 (User_talk:69.246.160.112#March_2009), to try to resolve the issue, but without success; and have brought up the issue at on the article's talk page (Talk:Tallahassee,_Florida#Tallahassee_population).

I don't want to get into an edit war, but I am very unhappy to see clearly false information - important information, at that - being presented in the article. I am also not certain that the three users involved in changing the population figures are really three distinct individuals, but have no way to check. I would be very grateful for help and/or advice with this problem. Thanks Tim Ross (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs showing the edits? (See that link for how) Thanks,  Chzz  ►  10:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is the latest edit of this sort from each of the editors I mentioned, Chzz. Hope this is useful. Tim Ross (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From 69.246.160.112:[6], From Kueldude:[7], From Robbiemcbride [8]

Tim -- the usual procedure to follow in a case like this is to give the users formal vandalism warnings on their talk pages. It can be a little frustrating when the users don't seem to be paying attention, but escalating it that way often does eventually get their attention, and even when it doesn't, it provides an audit trail that makes it easier for an administrator to intervene later. I've applied level-1 vandalism warnings to each editor's talk page for a start. If it continues, you can add level 2 warnings and so on. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Tim, and for adding the warnings. Tim Ross (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback permission

Hi Tim. I have granted you rollback rights. You probably know this already but I'll say it anyway. The rollback button is only for blatantly unproductive edits such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users. Basically, if an edit, no matter how wrong, could possibly have been made in good faith, don't use rollback. If you want to test it out, I'm sure you can find some users up to no good over at recent changes. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm most grateful, Fuhghettaboutit, and will use the privilege with care. Tim Ross (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tallahassee Florida Population

Dear Tim Ross. I have been changing the Tallahassee Florida population to the correct digits. You are changing them wrong. Here is proof that my edits to the wikipedia population is the CORRECT TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA POPULATION http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/pcbsa45220.html

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kueldude (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kueldude. You are, I believe, confusing the population of the City of Tallahassee (see the article's first reference, here) which calls up an Excel spreadsheet for the 2007 US Census, showing a population of 168,979) with that of the "Tallahassee Metropolitan Area", which covers much more than just the city, and for which the 2008 population is estimated by Texas A&M, here, as 357,259.

Your latest edit, here, claims, quite falsely, that the U.S. Census number for 2008 is 357,259. It is not, and, in fact, I do not believe that the data for that year are even available. In any case, the reference applies to the 2007 census and the value of 168,979. Equally false is your claim that the A&M site shows a Tallahassee Metropolitan Area population of 425,309. As noted above, that figure is 357,259, so your source for the 425,309 remains unknown.

The basic issue here, Kueldude, does not involve two editors arguing about who is right and who is wrong. That is the usual order of business at Wikipedia. It does involve what seems like falsification - in this instance, as noted above, you are claiming that reliable third parties such as the USCensus and TexasA&M are the source of your numbers, when, actually, they are not.

I will, shortly, revert your edits for these reasons. It would be a good idea to have some clear support in the form of good citations if you wish to make further changes to the population figures for Tallahassee.

(And one final note: It seem likely that you are also User:69.246.160.112 and perhaps even User:Robbiemcbride, as well. If so, you might wish to read WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. Although one is allowed to have alternate accounts at Wikipedia, how these are used can be rather strictly regulated.)

I will be happy to converse further with you about any of these matters. Tim Ross (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tim Ross. I just wanted to let you know that I am not either of those two users. My Name is Edward Hardy , not Robbie MCBride. And that is not my IP address. Just wanted to let you know so I wasnt blamed for other people's edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.160.112 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well sure, Edward Hardy, no problem. You might want to take a look at your signatures here, though. Since you didn't choose to sign your communications above, the SineBot did it for you. The first one uses User:Kueldude and the second has you as User:69.246.160.112. In any case, I'm fine with whatever you wish to call yourself. Tim Ross (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay , well It seems that I have a diffrent ip address since I got a new latop , Yes that is my IP address but I am not robbiemcbride.

Your NPWatcher application

Dear Tim Ross,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join #wikimedia-npw.

SoWhy 20:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Table trouble

{{helpme}} I am not at all skilled in the use of tables. Would someone who understands table syntax please take a look at Greg Evers, and see if they can straighten it out? Using Safari on my Mac, at least, the article is not readily legible unless one is using a fairly wide page. Otherwise, the first four (narrow) tables form a cluster, and try to center themselves on the page, overlapping the infobox. The later tables behave more reasonably. Thanks. Tim Ross (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having a look at it. One wonders whether the information in the four narrow tables would be better displayed in some other format - or deemed merely clutter (I don't know much about US politics, I'm afraid). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's that done (-> bullets). See what you think; the other two tables may need tweaking, though the bulleted lists should keep them away from the infobox. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! It looks great, now. Thanks. Tim Ross (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Malacology Barnstar

Wow thanks. Did you create that yourself? It's very nice! I am still away on vacation/fieldwork and am mostly inactive because of that, but will be back by next week. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That was my own, best-level graphics, Invertzoo. Thanks. You certainly deserve the star.

It seemed time for the mollusk people to have their own. You might wish to pass it around a bit, especially to the non-gastropod folks, who I haven't worked with too much. Tim Ross (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Eckstein

I only just began his article, so cool your jets! Jesus. -numbaonestunna —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numbaonestunna (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Herminia Naglerowa

I just started the article like 10 minutes ago. Gimme some time here!radek (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Were you aware, Radeksz, that when you publish a Wikipedia article, it is immediately listed on Special:NewPages, where reviewers check to see that it meets some of the basic requirements for articles? Such articles are also, at that time, available for anyone in the world to read, with the assumption that they are, indeed, finished publications. For those reasons, it is a really good idea to write drafts in your own "Sandbox", then, when they are finished to your satisfaction, go ahead and publish them. That way will save both your time and that of the reviewers. Thanks Tim Ross (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Tallahassee , FLA

Hello Tim Ross. I saw some other people changing the population to RIDICULOUS population. But on May 25 I went to the Florida Capitol during visiting hours and I did the elevator to the top floor thing and there are poster boards around the top and there is one board that reads the Tallahassee 2009 population with is new. I can always go back and get a pic of it if you would need one for proof. But that all I got to say. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GatorSlayerFSU (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, GatorSlayerFSU. I'm happy that you are interested in working on the Tallahassee article. One of the basic features of Wikipedia is that you need to provide reliable, third-party, published sources for information in Wikipedia articles. In the case of population numbers, this almost always means census figures of some sort, either national or local, or sometimes values derived from original census figures, but statistically manipulated to show special features. I'm afraid that a poster in the Capitol does not qualify as a "reliable published source". If you are seriously interested in adding those numbers, however, perhaps you can ask around the next time you are there and find the source of the poster, which is presumably a legitimate, published document of some type. You might wish to learn more by checking at WP:RELIABLE and WP:REF. Tim Ross (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Links within references

{{helpme}} Is it an acceptable practice to add a link within a reference? I have just done so in this article, for Henry A. Pilsbry - the article's second reference. If the practice is okay, I will probably add others. Thanks. Tim Ross (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. I never seen Internal links on authors before so I assume it shouldn't. See WP:REF Antonio López ^(desu) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Antonio, for your advice on links within refs. Since you didn't seem entirely certain, I tried pursuing the topic a little further on my own. The first place I went was WP:LINK. After hurting my eyes reading through the details, and not finding the information I was seeking, I could not help noticing that the second reference under WP:LINK#Notes did have a linked author. I guess the practice must actually be acceptable. Anyway, your help is appreciated. Tim Ross (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(Above comments are/were at Polygyridae and User talk:Antonio Lopez.)

Tallahassee Population Changes

Hey Tim , I was wondering if I can change the population of Tallahassee , because I just passed over emporis.com and Tallahassee's population went up , here is the link " http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=city&id=102379 " , just thought I'd check in with you first , thanks. GatorSlayerFSU (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you would certainly be within your editorial rights to change the numbers, GatorSlayer, since you have a reference. It would be a good idea, though, before you make the adjustment to the figures, to find out where Emporis obtained the information. I doubt if Emporis either counted people or performed the necessary statistics to made a legitimate population extrapolation, and they may not qualify as a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as needed here, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. I do note, though, that the Emporis numbers (171,922/352,319) are not especially implausible in comparison with those in the article (168,979/353,425), and that they even show a decrease in the metro number. Anyway, thanks very much for asking my opinion. Tim Ross (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tim Ross. Thanks for replying. I am going to see if I can find where they found the numbers. I do see where the metro pop had strangley decreased.

Thanks , GatorSlayerFSU (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Tim , just found the correct 2008 Population at census.gov , bcuase of it , I am going ahead to change it because you can't get more correct then the U.S Census Bureau :) http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=tallahassee&_state=&_county=tallahassee&_cityTown=tallahassee&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph 69.246.160.112 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, although you might want to mention that it's an estimate from the Bureau, rather than a count. Tim Ross (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames

A tag has been placed on List of Goud Saraswat Brahmin surnames, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. SRINIVAS 12:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As reviewing administrator I did not delete the article for it has meaningful content. However, such lists need to be sourced, or they cannot stand. You indicated it was moved--where did you move it from--this has to be specified, according to our rules for copyright. Please fix up both of these problems, and I advise you to do this very quickly, before the article gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process. DGG (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It was moved within Wikipedia, DGG, from List of GSB surnames. I didn't think that the original title was very useful, and I changed it to a redirect. Sorry if I didn't follow proper procedures. In any case, I have no real knowledge of the subject matter. The article originator was actually User:Gautamgoa1984. I'll put a copy of this correspondence on his talk page. Tim Ross (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Shorty.shamkhi

Hi Tim, I've deleted both of Shorty.shamkhi's articles per G10 rather than the G3 you tagged them as. It's worth remembering that if an article is an unsourced attack on someone flagging it as {{db-attack}} puts it at the top of the speedy deletion queue. ϢereSpielChequers 13:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged for the advice, WereSpielChequers. I'll remember it. Tim Ross (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Succinea concordialis

Hello Tim, is Succinea concordialis valid species or a synonym? What is its relation to Succinea forsheyi? Why is, for example, Succinea forsheyi often mentioned as separate species and Succinea concordialis is not mentioned at all by various internet pages? --Snek01 (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Snek. I believe that the two taxa are synonyms. At least Hubricht thought so. S. concordialis may well be the junior name. Tim Ross (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. Thanks for your response. You answered very briefly so I am not sure what you mean. But concordialis is older than other synonyms mentioned in the article Succinea concordialis. I can change it according to your advice. Feel free to add synonyms directly to the Succinea article and I will follow that. --Snek01 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear that I've always found the succineids to be a difficult group to work with, Snek, and as a consequence, my knowledge of them is limited. I've now checked through what literature I can readily access, though, that might relate to your question, but no clear answer showed up.

You're right, of course, that Gould's 1848 Succinea concordialis predates Lea's 1864 S. forsheyi. Pilsbry considered the names synonymous, under S. concordialis. Hubricht, in his 1985 "Distribution" paper, does not list S. concordialis except as a synonym of both forsheyi and unicolor (and, perhaps, others as well).

I'm willing to hypothesize that Hubricht found the taxon Succinea concordialis as used by Pilsbry and others to be too broad to be useful. He may well have a paper out there discussing the issue, but I don't have it.

I'm sorry that I have no more information. Tim Ross (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, updated, thanks for the reference. --Snek01 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Soft Solutions

Thank you Tim for your support. In a matter of fact, I'm a new to Wikipedia; I tried to remove as much as possible of the problem. Please check the REUTERS article in my references, it contains a section entitled "ABOUT SOFT SOLUTIONS". Does it help in any way? Thanks again,

Ziad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziadtauk (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's looking a good deal better, Ziad. Keep up the good work. Tim Ross (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tanna Island Photo

Tim, I removed the photos because of concerns over possible issues with placing them in the public domain. If the kids were wearing their school uniforms or western clothes etc I would have been confident to leave them there.

regards,

Hullwarren (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Font colors question

{{helpme}}Can someone tell me if there are any specific restrictions on the use of red or blue fonts? I've encountered at least one article that uses those colors to differentiate members of different U.S. political parties, resulting in the misleading appearance of links (or non-links). Thanks in advance. Tim Ross (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It might not answer your question directly, but MOS:COLOUR offers some guidance on the general topic.  Skomorokh  22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the guidance in the MOS, like everything on Wikipedia, there are no 'rules' as such. The idea is to allow any changes, and if others disagree with the changes, discuss them to reach consensus. Hence, if you thought it was a good idea to highlight something in bright yellow on an article, and you thought that it would not be controversial, then you could just do it. If someone objected, they could undo your change, and then we could all discuss it. If it's a suggestion that you are uncertain of, then suggest it first on the talk page. All things can be resolved in this manner.

As a general note, I think it is fair to say that the community prefer to 'keep things simple', wherever possible. Wikipedia is much more transportable (to mobile devices, for blind readers, reading into databases, etc) if the text is as plain as possible. Thus, as a generalization, coloured fonts should be used very sparingly on articles.

If you want to discuss further, please either leave a message on my own talk page; OR talk to us live, with this or this.

Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  23:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Skomorokh and Chzz! I feel much more comfortable dealing with this now. Tim Ross (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cargo cult problem

No problem. I missed it myself for quite a long time. Someone has recently tried to add it back in, but novels just can't be used for statements of fact like that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Notables

The problem with that approach is that:

• Wikipedia:BLP issues make it sensitive (for the living people)
• The sources are not in the school article. The sources need to be copied over and put in the school article.
• The blue-linked articles may not even say that, or they may be unsourced too
  • Fot instance the bit about going to Glass High in this article Connie Britton is unreferenced

Please do not restore long unreferenced lists of people to school and place articles. It is okay for the lists to be worked on in the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I must disagree with you, WhisperToMe. I don't like "notable lists" in general, and would happily support their wholesale removal if there were a consensus in that direction. But, as far as I know, no such consensus exists, and sweeping them out on the basis of a lack of individual references seems merely to be a roundabout and inappropriate way to accomplish the same end.

I specifically disagree with you that sources already cited in the biographies of listed notables need to be repeated in a "notables" listing. This clearly is contrary to the general usage, and would lead to unnecessarily long and cumbersome lists of citations. Yes, if an important fact is not covered in the individual's biographic article - for example the lack of a connection between Connie Britton and E. C. Glass - then a ref should be provided. Otherwise, a blue-link is sufficient.

I do not understand the point you are making with your mention of Wikipedia:BLP.

May I suggest that it might be more productive for you to correct listing deficiencies, or at least discuss their existence in talk pages, then to delete notables lists. Tim Ross (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Philip Embury

Hi Tim,

Please spare Philip Embury. All my plagiarism is from a public domain source as you will see if you follow the reference link. And please don't fill up my talk page with speedy deletion notices. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You may well be right, Bob. However, please note that you do not get to make that decision. Please actually read one of the several deletion notices to see what you should do, instead. Tim Ross (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Spinning (IPO)

Tim Ross, would you give me a break??? I am in the process of creating a NEW listing for SPINNING (IPO), and so by what rationale do you pop an unreferenced tag onto the article within FIVE minutes of my placing the initial listing?????? It is preposterous!! I received a special written request by a Wikipedia editor to create a Spinning (IPO) page where none exists, and I find it strange to the nth degree that I am tagged while in the initial process of creating it????

BiographicalOmissionsCorrected (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello BOC. Perhaps you were not aware of it, but when you create a new article, that's exactly what happens. The article is placed in front of the public as a Wikipedia document, where it is open for every sort of comment, criticism, or amendment. For that reason, most editors do their work in their own "sandboxes", creating the article when the work is done. You might wish to consider using that approach, too. Tim Ross (talk)

Ok, my fault, I guess, but I've created other articles in the past, without that kind of quick reaction. Anyway, I see your perspective and will consider the sandbox for future articles. As it stands, I've already placed two references to what, for the moment, will be a stub pertaining to Spinning (IPO), and hope to continue the article later. You might wish to consider removing the non-reference tag, I will leave it to your discretion for now. Thanks.....

BiographicalOmissionsCorrected (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

On another matter, Tim, with respect to editing of MEG WHITMAN article, and reference number 11, "DIRTY DOTCOM DEALS....", I have been unable to get the proper URL http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Dirty-Dotcom-Deals-May-Doom-Whitman-Campaign-jw.html to show up. Instead, I get a constant message that the link does NOT exist, yet it very certainly does exist. Is that something you can rectify? The original reference was removed accidentally by editor GLANE (sp?) who subsequently apologized for that, but somehow I cannot get the Wikipedia cite text code to link to the article any longer. Again, if possible, please rectify.BiographicalOmissionsCorrected (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Thanks. I removed the tag and checked the references, both of which worked fine for me. You may just have encountered a momentary glitch at that site for some reason. Tim Ross (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, you weren't talking about the refs in that article. I'll look into MEG WHITMAN now. Tim Ross (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is okay, now. Tim Ross (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope this meets with your approval ?

Formative stage life in Florida
Museum of Florida History
by User:Tim Ross, c.2008

Pls fell free to edit it at will it is located in Paleo-Indians article... Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks for asking. I deleted the attribution, though. One can see that with the media if desired.

Integrated recovery

{{helpme}}I would appreciate some advice/assistance with a recently created article, Integrated recovery. I reviewed it on new-page-patrol, and found enough problems to recommend a speedy delete on several different grounds. Since the most serious was copyvio, I used that. I now see that the author immediately deleted the notice, and more-or-less fixed the copyvio problem. I still think that it warrants a speedy, but don't want to seem as if I'm attacking the author or the article, and would really like to have someone else check the article out. Thanks Tim Ross (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the article. What you can do is PROD it. There is sufficient grounds for deletion. Not only that, there is no references and in my opinion, sounds like an advert. BejinhanTalk 11:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It does not meet any speedy criterion at the current state although the creator seems to have a COI with the subject. I suggest you try to talk to the creator on their talk page and explain our guidelines on both COI and notability to them. If they are unwilling or unable to fix the article and your tries to fix it were equally fruitless, use WP:AFD. But as an article about a probably non-notable concept it meets no speedy deletion criterion at the moment, so you have time to try and communicate with the user. Regards SoWhy 11:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Once I've achieved a nice calm viewpoint, I'll begin as advised - contact the author, try to explain some of the problems, and see if we can fix them. Tim Ross (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)