I strenuously object to deletion of a long morning's work without any discussion on my talk page or article discussion page and am appealing - if you paid any attention to the linked to Deepwater Horizon oil spill you would clearly see the context, as this alternative dispersant has been prominently featured in Congressional hearings. I was about to add Toxicity and Effectiveness sections, to match Corexit structure. Please restore the article at once. Thank you. Paulscrawl ( talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
13:15, 21 May 2010 JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Dispersit" (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject)
May I restore, or would you prefer to do so that I may avoid unwelcome Wiki war? Thank you Paulscrawl ( talk) 21:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced." -- President Barack Obama, April 2, 2010
True, but when they do ... Paulscrawl ( talk) 16:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was very surprised to see AI@50 deleted with nothing on my Talk page. I've been adding references to it as presented papers come online for four years now. The reason was "Nominated for seven days with no objection: Concern was: Non-notable conference)". It is indeed a notable conference celebrating the 50th anniversary of artificial intelligence in the presence of several of its founders, with dozens of DARPA funded presenters assessing the past and the future prospects of AI. Importantly, I've found a couple of highly authoritative references to the conference that falsify that reason and if you will kindly restore the article I will add them at once. See my my sandbox for details. Thanks! Paulscrawl (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Atama#AI.4050
Tried again:
Please restore deleted article so I may quickly add two needed academic references to establish notability of this important conference, cited in journal & currently leading history of the field. No response yet from another editor. Please see my Talk for details and link to my sandbox, with my rationale & fixes ready to plug in pronto. Thanks! Paulscrawl (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cgingold#AI.4050
I was on an unintended Wikibreak when you left a message about the deletion of this article, sorry about that. I see it has been restored already, which is good. At the time I deleted the page, the proposed deletion period had expired with nobody objecting to the article's deletion, and I do recall doing a quick search for independent sources to establish notability of the conference (which weren't present in the article at the time) and couldn't do so. Expired prods are generally a delete-on-sight thing but I try to do a little homework before any deletion and couldn't see a reason to not delete the article then. I'm actually a bit of a fan of Kurzweil, I've read The Age of Spiritual Machines and some of his other writings, so if anything I'm a bit biased toward the article subject, but procedurally I saw no reason not to delete. I'm glad you've improved the article since it was restored, well done and good luck on it in the future.
Oh, by the way, I added an oldprodfull template to the talk page, this lets future editors know that the article has already been through the proposed deletion process once and is no longer eligible for deletion without a proper discussion or other reason. Thank you. -- Atama 頭 00:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Article with no unrelated references and ambiguous title needs work to avoid nomination for speedy deletion for lack of Notability. I've been through that. I see you are working on it. See article discussion page for specific suggestions. Happy to help: if desired, use my Talk page; see archive for how I fixed one such. Would love to link to it when repaired. Regards. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clarabearasarah#Nokomis_3
Hi, Tom. I agree with you that editors new and old, but esp. new editors, can certainly use the help of citation templates Wikipedia_talk:Referencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates. I'm not so new but I use cite news and cite web templates all the time for consistency and am a recent convert to Wikipedia:RefToolbar 2.0 (cf. your suggestion on the sadly neglected Wikipedia:Areas_for_Reform] article, "Pop-up form enabling easy input of reference info"). A well-formatted reference has a longer lifetime, in my experience. I also think the metadata, or tagged fields, preserved by use of cite templates can be very usefully extracted by other tools -- the awesome [ Webchecklinks], for example, or a tool to intelligently export such field-tagged Wikipedia reference data to the proper fields in Zotero's citation manager (still looking for that holy grail).
An established editor of Deepwater Horizon oil spill is considering going to inline citation only for load speed. I think the loss to/of new editors, as well as useful reference metadata, would outweigh the advantages, but would like some hard data. I was intrigued with your cited experiment: "my sandbox page with single lines of text, with 1000 references. First, I did it with the template method. Second, I did it with the non-template method. Then I compared how long each page loaded. With the template method, it took 3 to 4 seconds to load. With the non-template method, it was about 3 seconds to load, maybe a TAD quicker. But what I noticed was this: the template page had 345K bytes; the non-template page had 245K bytes" Do those pages still exist, or can you easily retrieve them? If not, I can recreate them, I suppose. Thanks, I resonate with your POV expressed on both pages cited above. -- Paulscrawl ( talk) 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
...for the unbelievably long time it takes to load the article??
This likely connection was just pointed out in an edit summary by User:SlimVirgin. I rarely use a template when I create a citation, so I hadn't given it any thought - but it does make sense. If this is in fact what is responsible for the appallingly long load time, then I think we need to give serious consideration to converting all of the templates back to standard inline citation format. Cgingold ( talk) 14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Damn good. Now don't go getting a big head just because I said that :D MichaelWestbrook ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Awesome outline in your sandbox!! Now, we just need to squeeze it all into one article. I've written a section on the blowout preventer in User:Macquigg/Sandbox/Offshore_oil_spill_prevention, and also some suggestions for improving the existing Blowout article at User:Macquigg/Sandbox/Blowout_preventer. I think this should take the place of the section you have titled "Shear ram", since that topic is included in "blowout preventer". What I've tried to do is put here just the parts that tie in with your larger scope, and move to the Blowout preventer article anything else that will be of general interest there.
The part i'm suggesting for this article zooms in pretty quickly on the critical issue of BOP reliability, and human-factors failure. We could add one more paragraph to make the human factor clear, but that is where we have to be careful not to editorialize. Yes it was a technical failure, but one so simple that the technical explanation alone is not satisfactory. The technical problem was reported clearly in 2002, and hammered again in 2004. The deeper cause of the failure relates to lots of human and even political factors - the tendency to forget what can happen, when nothing really bad has happened in decades, the tendency to overshoot when making a political change from too much regulation to not enough, I could go on.
I guess we should wait for the verdict on this article before continuing our edits. --
Dave (
talk)
00:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was born and raised in New Orleans. My family... dad, uncles, etc., are fishermen. FYI. MichaelWestbrook ( talk) 02:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — DoRD ( talk) 20:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've answered you here. Fabius byle ( talk) 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — DoRD ( talk) 20:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
After massive and wildly premature "summary style" edits, I am rapidly losing interest in updating this article with the emerging facts from the Joint Investigation. I don't need lectures on Wikipedia style, I need fellow editors to discuss such cleaver-sized cuts, not scalpel-sized copy edits, here, and beforehand.
This is not yet history, this is news, like it or not. This article will be newsy for awhile yet. It will not resemble an article on WWI battles for a long time. Telling quotes and contextual explanation of technical terms used in testimony are highly appropriate at this time, if Wikipedia as a source for this ever-expanding news story is to be relevant. I suggest a sub-section for US Coast Guard/MMS Joint Investigation, which I can then flesh out as I have attempted to do, eventually to split into its own article, if need be. This is exactly what we see with the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which has a separate article for the Rogers Commission Report.
Don't kill history with premature summary edits.
Paulscrawl ( talk) 14:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
“ | The driller was outlining what would be taking place, whereupon the company man stood up and said, 'No, we'll be having some changes to that.' It had to do with displacing the riser for later on. The OIM, tool-pusher and driller disagreed with that, but the company man said, 'Well, this is how it's gonna be,' and the tool-pusher, driller and OIM reluctantly agreed. | ” |
— Doug Brown, [1] |
I don't doubt their good intentions or neutral point of view; I believe these summary style deletions are the results of their justifiable concern with the article size (see so-named Discussion section above) and Wikipedia's encyclopedic summary style. I've read it, I get it. But splitting articles is the way to address the former concern (let's start with Atlantis Oil Field safety practices and the explosion sections, and make provision via sub-sections for sub articles on the several independent investigations). Time will take care of the latter, when historical perspective is called for. Not yet: we are still living this news; it is not yet history, alas.
Today, it is all news and newsworthy quotes are apropos. There are many Wikipedia articles concerned with current events that will, in this very now, appropriately have telling, pithy, pertinent and even damning quotes which may eventually, with the hindsight of history, be deleted for summary style. Then again, good writers and readers and editors might agree that it is wise to retain or even highlight some quotes, as in the article linked above or to your right, for their historic interest and pithy summary. That's right, quotes themselves can be a summative assessment! At present, deleting really apt quotes would be premature here. This is like the Watergate hearings -- history in the making. Some quotes matter mightily. How about this one?
Paulscrawl ( talk) 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. -- I could work on a suitably detailed draft in my user space, if preferred, before creating a separate article for U.S. Coast Guard / Mineral Management Service Joint Investigation, summarized and linked to from here. What I can't do is waste my time and yours. Paulscrawl ( talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
. One sentence summary and link should do it for latter two.
... for the Aussie poster. I now wear it with pride. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Cited in Wikipedia. OMG. :) The Interior (Talk) 03:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvements! Basically all my archaeological reading is restricted to heritage-designated sites here in the USA (especially in the Midwest region), and I don't have a theoretical background at all; I wouldn't have had a clue where to look for general resources on a broad topic such as prehistoric warfare. That's why I just gave counterexamples of individual sites; they're the only way that I knew to disprove the broad statements that were being given. Nyttend ( talk) 02:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Prehistoric_warfare#Paleolithic 1Halpo1 ( talk) 07:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for reminding me of the Darwin Awards on Commons! Much obliged!! Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 00:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for the extensive reference material you added to the Kenneth Craik article. I never thought there would be that much available on him so it was a very welcome surprise to see it there. Your edits are a great example of what makes Wikipedia work so well, so thanks again! Spalding ( talk) 13:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello.
I've received a wiki newsletter about Zotero that I thought you should read. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2016-February/084840.html -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 23:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Please introduce yourself to the other GLAM Boot Camp attendees tonight! Dominic· t 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Paul, we met at GLAM Boot Camp a few weeks ago. I believe you brought up WikiProject New Orleans and your interest in revitalizing it. Would you still be interested in taking on that project? If so, let me know if there is anything in particular you would be interested in. WikiProject X can offer, in addition to the new WikiProject interface, tools to help with assessing articles and recommending articles in need of improvement. Let me know what you would be interested in, and I can prepare a draft and we can recommend it to the current participants at WikiProject New Orleans for adoption. Harej ( talk) 21:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I used to contribute a lot more to the RefDesks. Some of the behaviour of some of the regulars put me off. Now I've come back to it, a little. One thing hasn't changed: how rarely the querents return to say thank you, that was exactly what I needed to know. So your kind words re the Quran translations gave me heart. These little courtesies go a long way. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 11:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Many thanks for helping me find references. The Anome ( talk) 13:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC) |
Hi
Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.
You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a
voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.
-from Diptanshu.D ( talk · contribs · count) and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.
Diptanshu Talk 10:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for a good laugh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Paulscrawl! You created a thread called Delivered by
Muninnbot, an
automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
You swiftly found the painter John James Wilson in this resource for me on May 2. It was much appreciated. Could you tell me the method used as I would like to use it to locate other painters? BFP1 BFP1 ( talk) 07:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Paulscrawl! You created a thread called Delivered by
Muninnbot, an
automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
![]() |
Teahouse Barnstar |
This is for your valuable contributions related to teahouse. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 06:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC) |
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.
I strenuously object to deletion of a long morning's work without any discussion on my talk page or article discussion page and am appealing - if you paid any attention to the linked to Deepwater Horizon oil spill you would clearly see the context, as this alternative dispersant has been prominently featured in Congressional hearings. I was about to add Toxicity and Effectiveness sections, to match Corexit structure. Please restore the article at once. Thank you. Paulscrawl ( talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
13:15, 21 May 2010 JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Dispersit" (A1: Not enough context to identify article's subject)
May I restore, or would you prefer to do so that I may avoid unwelcome Wiki war? Thank you Paulscrawl ( talk) 21:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced." -- President Barack Obama, April 2, 2010
True, but when they do ... Paulscrawl ( talk) 16:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was very surprised to see AI@50 deleted with nothing on my Talk page. I've been adding references to it as presented papers come online for four years now. The reason was "Nominated for seven days with no objection: Concern was: Non-notable conference)". It is indeed a notable conference celebrating the 50th anniversary of artificial intelligence in the presence of several of its founders, with dozens of DARPA funded presenters assessing the past and the future prospects of AI. Importantly, I've found a couple of highly authoritative references to the conference that falsify that reason and if you will kindly restore the article I will add them at once. See my my sandbox for details. Thanks! Paulscrawl (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Atama#AI.4050
Tried again:
Please restore deleted article so I may quickly add two needed academic references to establish notability of this important conference, cited in journal & currently leading history of the field. No response yet from another editor. Please see my Talk for details and link to my sandbox, with my rationale & fixes ready to plug in pronto. Thanks! Paulscrawl (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cgingold#AI.4050
I was on an unintended Wikibreak when you left a message about the deletion of this article, sorry about that. I see it has been restored already, which is good. At the time I deleted the page, the proposed deletion period had expired with nobody objecting to the article's deletion, and I do recall doing a quick search for independent sources to establish notability of the conference (which weren't present in the article at the time) and couldn't do so. Expired prods are generally a delete-on-sight thing but I try to do a little homework before any deletion and couldn't see a reason to not delete the article then. I'm actually a bit of a fan of Kurzweil, I've read The Age of Spiritual Machines and some of his other writings, so if anything I'm a bit biased toward the article subject, but procedurally I saw no reason not to delete. I'm glad you've improved the article since it was restored, well done and good luck on it in the future.
Oh, by the way, I added an oldprodfull template to the talk page, this lets future editors know that the article has already been through the proposed deletion process once and is no longer eligible for deletion without a proper discussion or other reason. Thank you. -- Atama 頭 00:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Article with no unrelated references and ambiguous title needs work to avoid nomination for speedy deletion for lack of Notability. I've been through that. I see you are working on it. See article discussion page for specific suggestions. Happy to help: if desired, use my Talk page; see archive for how I fixed one such. Would love to link to it when repaired. Regards. Paulscrawl (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clarabearasarah#Nokomis_3
Hi, Tom. I agree with you that editors new and old, but esp. new editors, can certainly use the help of citation templates Wikipedia_talk:Referencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates. I'm not so new but I use cite news and cite web templates all the time for consistency and am a recent convert to Wikipedia:RefToolbar 2.0 (cf. your suggestion on the sadly neglected Wikipedia:Areas_for_Reform] article, "Pop-up form enabling easy input of reference info"). A well-formatted reference has a longer lifetime, in my experience. I also think the metadata, or tagged fields, preserved by use of cite templates can be very usefully extracted by other tools -- the awesome [ Webchecklinks], for example, or a tool to intelligently export such field-tagged Wikipedia reference data to the proper fields in Zotero's citation manager (still looking for that holy grail).
An established editor of Deepwater Horizon oil spill is considering going to inline citation only for load speed. I think the loss to/of new editors, as well as useful reference metadata, would outweigh the advantages, but would like some hard data. I was intrigued with your cited experiment: "my sandbox page with single lines of text, with 1000 references. First, I did it with the template method. Second, I did it with the non-template method. Then I compared how long each page loaded. With the template method, it took 3 to 4 seconds to load. With the non-template method, it was about 3 seconds to load, maybe a TAD quicker. But what I noticed was this: the template page had 345K bytes; the non-template page had 245K bytes" Do those pages still exist, or can you easily retrieve them? If not, I can recreate them, I suppose. Thanks, I resonate with your POV expressed on both pages cited above. -- Paulscrawl ( talk) 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
...for the unbelievably long time it takes to load the article??
This likely connection was just pointed out in an edit summary by User:SlimVirgin. I rarely use a template when I create a citation, so I hadn't given it any thought - but it does make sense. If this is in fact what is responsible for the appallingly long load time, then I think we need to give serious consideration to converting all of the templates back to standard inline citation format. Cgingold ( talk) 14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Damn good. Now don't go getting a big head just because I said that :D MichaelWestbrook ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Awesome outline in your sandbox!! Now, we just need to squeeze it all into one article. I've written a section on the blowout preventer in User:Macquigg/Sandbox/Offshore_oil_spill_prevention, and also some suggestions for improving the existing Blowout article at User:Macquigg/Sandbox/Blowout_preventer. I think this should take the place of the section you have titled "Shear ram", since that topic is included in "blowout preventer". What I've tried to do is put here just the parts that tie in with your larger scope, and move to the Blowout preventer article anything else that will be of general interest there.
The part i'm suggesting for this article zooms in pretty quickly on the critical issue of BOP reliability, and human-factors failure. We could add one more paragraph to make the human factor clear, but that is where we have to be careful not to editorialize. Yes it was a technical failure, but one so simple that the technical explanation alone is not satisfactory. The technical problem was reported clearly in 2002, and hammered again in 2004. The deeper cause of the failure relates to lots of human and even political factors - the tendency to forget what can happen, when nothing really bad has happened in decades, the tendency to overshoot when making a political change from too much regulation to not enough, I could go on.
I guess we should wait for the verdict on this article before continuing our edits. --
Dave (
talk)
00:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I was born and raised in New Orleans. My family... dad, uncles, etc., are fishermen. FYI. MichaelWestbrook ( talk) 02:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — DoRD ( talk) 20:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've answered you here. Fabius byle ( talk) 11:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — DoRD ( talk) 20:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
After massive and wildly premature "summary style" edits, I am rapidly losing interest in updating this article with the emerging facts from the Joint Investigation. I don't need lectures on Wikipedia style, I need fellow editors to discuss such cleaver-sized cuts, not scalpel-sized copy edits, here, and beforehand.
This is not yet history, this is news, like it or not. This article will be newsy for awhile yet. It will not resemble an article on WWI battles for a long time. Telling quotes and contextual explanation of technical terms used in testimony are highly appropriate at this time, if Wikipedia as a source for this ever-expanding news story is to be relevant. I suggest a sub-section for US Coast Guard/MMS Joint Investigation, which I can then flesh out as I have attempted to do, eventually to split into its own article, if need be. This is exactly what we see with the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, which has a separate article for the Rogers Commission Report.
Don't kill history with premature summary edits.
Paulscrawl ( talk) 14:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
“ | The driller was outlining what would be taking place, whereupon the company man stood up and said, 'No, we'll be having some changes to that.' It had to do with displacing the riser for later on. The OIM, tool-pusher and driller disagreed with that, but the company man said, 'Well, this is how it's gonna be,' and the tool-pusher, driller and OIM reluctantly agreed. | ” |
— Doug Brown, [1] |
I don't doubt their good intentions or neutral point of view; I believe these summary style deletions are the results of their justifiable concern with the article size (see so-named Discussion section above) and Wikipedia's encyclopedic summary style. I've read it, I get it. But splitting articles is the way to address the former concern (let's start with Atlantis Oil Field safety practices and the explosion sections, and make provision via sub-sections for sub articles on the several independent investigations). Time will take care of the latter, when historical perspective is called for. Not yet: we are still living this news; it is not yet history, alas.
Today, it is all news and newsworthy quotes are apropos. There are many Wikipedia articles concerned with current events that will, in this very now, appropriately have telling, pithy, pertinent and even damning quotes which may eventually, with the hindsight of history, be deleted for summary style. Then again, good writers and readers and editors might agree that it is wise to retain or even highlight some quotes, as in the article linked above or to your right, for their historic interest and pithy summary. That's right, quotes themselves can be a summative assessment! At present, deleting really apt quotes would be premature here. This is like the Watergate hearings -- history in the making. Some quotes matter mightily. How about this one?
Paulscrawl ( talk) 16:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. -- I could work on a suitably detailed draft in my user space, if preferred, before creating a separate article for U.S. Coast Guard / Mineral Management Service Joint Investigation, summarized and linked to from here. What I can't do is waste my time and yours. Paulscrawl ( talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
. One sentence summary and link should do it for latter two.
... for the Aussie poster. I now wear it with pride. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Cited in Wikipedia. OMG. :) The Interior (Talk) 03:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvements! Basically all my archaeological reading is restricted to heritage-designated sites here in the USA (especially in the Midwest region), and I don't have a theoretical background at all; I wouldn't have had a clue where to look for general resources on a broad topic such as prehistoric warfare. That's why I just gave counterexamples of individual sites; they're the only way that I knew to disprove the broad statements that were being given. Nyttend ( talk) 02:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Prehistoric_warfare#Paleolithic 1Halpo1 ( talk) 07:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for reminding me of the Darwin Awards on Commons! Much obliged!! Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 00:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) |
Thank you for the extensive reference material you added to the Kenneth Craik article. I never thought there would be that much available on him so it was a very welcome surprise to see it there. Your edits are a great example of what makes Wikipedia work so well, so thanks again! Spalding ( talk) 13:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello.
I've received a wiki newsletter about Zotero that I thought you should read. https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2016-February/084840.html -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 23:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Please introduce yourself to the other GLAM Boot Camp attendees tonight! Dominic· t 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Paul, we met at GLAM Boot Camp a few weeks ago. I believe you brought up WikiProject New Orleans and your interest in revitalizing it. Would you still be interested in taking on that project? If so, let me know if there is anything in particular you would be interested in. WikiProject X can offer, in addition to the new WikiProject interface, tools to help with assessing articles and recommending articles in need of improvement. Let me know what you would be interested in, and I can prepare a draft and we can recommend it to the current participants at WikiProject New Orleans for adoption. Harej ( talk) 21:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I used to contribute a lot more to the RefDesks. Some of the behaviour of some of the regulars put me off. Now I've come back to it, a little. One thing hasn't changed: how rarely the querents return to say thank you, that was exactly what I needed to know. So your kind words re the Quran translations gave me heart. These little courtesies go a long way. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 11:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Many thanks for helping me find references. The Anome ( talk) 13:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC) |
Hi
Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.
You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a
voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.
-from Diptanshu.D ( talk · contribs · count) and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.
Diptanshu Talk 10:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for a good laugh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Paulscrawl! You created a thread called Delivered by
Muninnbot, an
automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
You swiftly found the painter John James Wilson in this resource for me on May 2. It was much appreciated. Could you tell me the method used as I would like to use it to locate other painters? BFP1 BFP1 ( talk) 07:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Paulscrawl! You created a thread called Delivered by
Muninnbot, an
automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
![]() |
Teahouse Barnstar |
This is for your valuable contributions related to teahouse. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 06:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC) |
You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.