This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see you've been working hard on the Arthur Berry article. There is a wiki style for adding references - take a look at WP:CITE and WP:CITE/ES. It looks hard work but once it's done if you add another source or reference then wiki will take care of the renumbering for you. Sophia 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I've added the image you uploaded into the Arthur Berry article. Details on image syntax can be found at WP:IMAGE and WP:EIS. Typically the format...

[[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|Your comment here!]]

is used, this produces what can be seen to the right. Note that by viewing the code of this page (by clicking "edit this page" at the top of the window, you can see that I placed the code for the image above this line, as this makes the image display to the right of the current paragraph.

I hope this has proved of some help to you. If you wish to reply, you can click "edit this page" and edit it like an article. Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tidles (~~~~). Thanks! -- Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to Deskana for spotting the uploaded image and placing it for me; extremely kind of you. I hope it will be accepted under the category of fair use. Peter morrell 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. I just thought, incase you didn't realise, that I am the person you have been conversing with over email! -- Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 19:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Last evening I uploaded a photo of Berry from a book cover, but it has not yet appeared. Can anyone please assist in its eventual appearance on the article? thanks Peter morrell 05:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean Image:A_berry.JPG? I suggest reading the fair use tag closely here- this photo cannot be used for identification of the person in question, only "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". You can use WP:IMAGE or WP:EIS to place the image in articles. -- Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 10:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Deskana, in which case I will soon add a short piece discussing that specific book and then use the picture! Peter morrell 07:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be having difficulty recieving my e-mail. I can get mail from your account, but you don't seem to be getting my replies. Is this a problem with a supanet spam fliter? -- TimVickers 18:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter, You may want to consider redirecting your user page to your talk page. This is what I do since I am not a big fan of user pages. The advantage is that you name will not appear as a red link. The red link gives you the look of someone that does not know the ropes and has only been editing for a short period. i don't think this is a good refelction of your contributions. Another possible solution is to use [[User talk:Peter morrell|Peter morrell]] as a signature. No big deal, just thought you might be interested in other options. David D. (Talk) 18:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the page you can see a preferences option. Here you can customise your signature to anything you like. I think you must currently have the default signature. Make sure you have the 'raw signature' box ticked too.

Alternatively, if you prefer to leave the siganture the way it is now, you can redirect your user page to your talk page by adding the following 'wiki markup' to your user page: #redirect [[User talk:Peter morrell]] . i hope this is helpful, David D. (Talk) 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Next step is to cut and paste the following:

[[User talk:Peter morrell|Peter morrell]]

Into the window above the box you just ticked. Then you should get a blue link for your signature that directs people to your talk page rather than your user page. i remember when I first started here I was confused by the signature stuff too, either we're both dim or (this is my favoured reason) it's not so intuitive. David D. (Talk) 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter, it looks good to me. Only the new signatures will have the new format. The old ones will remain red since you have no user page. If you want the old ones to be blue too, as well as direct to your talk page, you will have to create the user page and do the redirect as I described above. David D. (Talk) 19:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Somebody objected to the bit about homeopathy increasing in popularity and being recommended by doctors. I checked the references and one did not refer to homeopathy at all and the other only mentioned alternative medicine in general. Is there any good data anywhere (preferably on a disinterested website) about the rates of usage of homeopathic remedies?-- TimVickers 21:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I found some references, but no clear figures on whether homeopathy usage is changing. At the moment I have changed it to simply saying that alternative medicine is popular and referencing a study in the US and one in Europe. It's first-world bias I know.-- TimVickers 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem,Peter. Hope to see your additions to the Counterculture article. Founders4 09:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

Nice additions. I did tighten things up a bit, especially with respect to multiple references to time. The first sentence seemed a bit overworked, so I dropped "perhaps in a hidden or dormant state" since this seems somewhat an extraneous thought.

Where you list "ethos, hopes, aspirations, wishes and dreams," I dropped "wishes." Seemed like too many very similar elements, and you might consider eliminating one more, perhaps "hopes."

Also tightened up the other section paragraphs as well in order to integrate what they say with your additions.

In any case, see what you think. Founders4 10:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

I'm hesitant to comment too extensively on your recent additions to the "Counterculture" intro, as I don't want to cramp your style. However, one trick to keeping the tone of Wikipedia articles encyclopedic is to keep most of the writing in the past tense; you will notice that most of the article consists of statements about what happened in the past.

Brief exceptions to this "past tense" rule are fine, as long as they serve to define a term or succinctly explain something. But it has to be kept brief in order to avoid too significant a digression into philosophizing.

With this in mind, some comments on your most recent edits:

-"Although distinct countercultural elements can be discerned in any society at virtually any time, usually as minor undercurrents, here the term counterculture refers to a time period when these forces grow into a definite movement and become numerically much more visible."

With the addition of a new parenthetical clause,"usually as minor undercurrents," the sentence becomes a bit overworked. Also, "numerically" tends to detract, rather than add, to your meaning because some forces to which you refer cannot be measured numerically. In any case when you say such forces "become much more visible," that covers it pretty well. Since most good editing follows the "less is more" philosophy, I might suggest the following:

"Although distinct countercultural undercurrents can be discerned in any society at virtually any time, here the term counterculture refers to a period when these forces grow into a definite movement and become more visible."

Please note that in this suggested edit, I eliminated words that do not add signficant meaning ("much," for example), since brevity is the key. When sentences become too wordy, or they become overworked, readers lose patience.

-"Countercultural movements can remain 'dormant for so long, only to explode at a given time,' [1] when a critical mass has been reached and then suddenly they seem to erupt onto the scene as if from nowhere: 'Social movements don't erupt from individuals, and individuals don't have ideas that are solely theirs. We are all shaped and influenced by our social conditions; our sense of what's possible and what we do about it is shaped in action with each other.' [2]"

These quotes are interesting, and it might be possible to include them in another part of the article without running the danger of philosophizing. Perhaps a separate heading entitled "The Philosophy of Counterculture" with an introductory sentence in the past tense, though to retain encyclopedic tone and keep reader interest, this separate heading would have to come much further on in the article. In the intro, I think it's too much.

-"A counterculture movement then seems to encapsulate the ethos, hopes, aspirations and dreams of a distinct proportion of the populace for the time period in question; it is thus a form of zeitgeist."

The addition of "zeitgeist" here is great. It adds a concept and allows readers to pursue a new line of inquiry if they wish. In keeping with my previous suggestion, I might try to simplify the sentence:

"A counterculture movement encapsulates the ethos, aspirations and dreams of a distinct population during a specific period of time; it is thus a form of zeitgeist."

Please note that I substituted "a distinct population" for "a distinct proportion of the populace" because the latter requires further definition as to which "populace" we might be referring. The former is general, and more brief.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I haven't changed anything yet; wanted to communicate with you first. My intent here is to inspire effective, lean writing that doesn't depart too far from an encyclopedic tone. When you write about the Celts and their counterculture status with respect to the "Holy Roman Empire," you'll need to keep this in mind. My editing may be bold, but other editors here can be ruthless!

All my best. Founders4 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are completely right, sober reflections triumph! please implement your imporvements, best Peter Peter morrell 23:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for being open to considering some alternatives. I notice that the most recent changes add more words, and you retain some of the problematic sentences, so I may not be communicating effectively. Some specific problems:

-The first sentence now incorporates a much longer list, " values, beliefs, attitudes, behaviour and/or norms," and thus becomes overworked. Since "values" are somewhat inclusive of "beliefs" and "attitudes," I think the latter two can be dropped. Also "norms of behavior" might work; I'll try it out.

-The second sentence is now pretty cumbersome, "Although distinct countercultural elements can be discerned as undercurrents in any society at virtually any time, here the term counterculture refers to a time period when these forces crystallise into a definite movement and become much more socially visible." I would suggest instead, "Although distinct countercultural undercurrents exist in all societies, here the term counterculture refers to a period when such forces become more visible." I'll try something like this out as well, though of course it may have to be further integrated into the paragraph. BTW, I don't know that "socially visible" works; how is this different than simply "visible"?

-As I've mentioned before, I think the next two sentences need to move to another section dealing with "counterculture philosophy." Otherwise the intro moves beyond defining terms and waxes too philosophical. Personal expounding runs counter to the mission of maintaining encyclopedic tone.

-The last sentence now reads "Often being a generational phenomenon, a counterculture movement then comes to encapsulate the ethos, aspirations and dreams of a social world for a certain time, and can thus be seen as a zeitgeist." "Often being a generational phenonenon" is rather awkward passive phraseology. Also I'm not clear on how a movement "encapsulates" something. And the term "a social world" does not create a clear image in my mind. I'll try something else, not sure what at present.

Hope this process isn't too discouraging. Usually I just edit rather than explain myself, but you seen to want to become a serious editor. I might suggest, if you haven't already read it, that you take a look at Strunk and White's THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE, which has now been a classic for generations of aspiring writers.

Toward excellence in writing. Founders4 09:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, did as you suggest; please tell me what you think. What I usually find is that this collaborative process ends up producing a better result than any of the parties could have achieved as individuals. Your addition of "zeitgeist" is a case in point. "Counterculture" as "a manifestation of 'zeitgeist' would not have emerged without your contribution, and I think it's very good. Thanks! Founders4 10:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

A few thoughts.

ZEITGEIST

One interesting thing about the Zeitgeist that prevailed during the mid-1960's is that it was a worldwide phenomenon. In the People's Republic of China, for example, the Cultural Revolution began in 1966 when Mao encouraged teenagers and very young adults to pretty much take over the country--with disastrous results. Perhaps 30 million people died of starvation and abuse during this period.

Simultaneous with this development in the PRC, the U.S. counterculture really began to take hold. I first attended Berkeley in 1964 during the "Free Speech Movement;" participated in the creation of the very first "hippie" event at San Francisco's Longshoreman's Hall in January, 1966; was called down to the Oakland Induction Center to serve in Vietnam in May, 1966; planted trees, grass and shrubs at the inauguration of People's Park on April 20, 1969; and was appalled to see a good friend, Alan Blanchard, permanently blinded by buckshot when Governor Reagan sent troops into Berkeley on May 15, 1969.

During this entire period I was extremely critical of the older generation whose responsibility it was to run the U.S.--President Johnson, Secretary of Defense McNamara, President Nixon and then Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, seemed to me to be villains. Yet I have to acknowledge that, compared with Mao, the leaders I so reviled were actually quite competent. The simple fact is that they realized THEY COULD NOT ALLOW THE NEXT GENERATION TO TAKE OVER PREMATURELY! Reagan, especially, understood this, and however much I objected at the time, I have to acknowledge that his screw-ups were minor compared to Mao's.

PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF COUNTERCULTURE MOVEMENTS

This actually could use an entire page of its own, with a link to the "Counterculture" page. I'm sure a lot has been written, some of which you introduced this week. Would be very interesting to me to see this issue discussed and developed.

CELTIC COUNTERCULTURE

Just read the Wikipedia article on the Celts and found it very informative. The book I mentioned previously goes much more into the battle that prevailed between the individualistic Celts and the much more regimented Roman Empire, with the centralized Roman Catholic Church slaughtering several million Celts and prevailing over the Celtic Churches. I hope you will be able to relate some of this historical base when you write your piece on the roots of U.K. counterculture, since Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and the Isle of Man were places where remnants of Celtic culture survived and inspired some aspects of the 60s counterculture.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Founders4 10:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

Walter here, a very nineteenth century name handed down from my father and both great-grandfathers. My descent is typically American: English, Irish, Welsh, German, Ashkenazie Jew, Native American and American Black. My wife is Chinese, though the aunts on her father's side have reddish hair inherited from a Portuguese sailor who hooked up with one of the grandmothers in their native Macau. So my kids literally have everything.

Sorry about the brutal editing, though I'm pretty even-handed and submit my own stuff to the same scrutiny. What I don't catch, others will, so we Wikians tend to discipline ourselves after a while.

I'd like to provide an e-mail address, which will facilitate our communication. It's kensingtonguy4(at)yahoo.com. As you move forward with your writing, I'll be very curious to see what you come up with. Founders4 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Great additions to the "Counterculture" bibliography. Would really like to read some of these. Founders4 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I cut the @ symbol from the above address so it won't get harvested by spam e-mail 'bots. -- TimVickers 23:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		The extent of your expert contributions is amazing. Keep up the good work! TimVickers 02:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tim and Peter, I am wondering if you could both inject a second opinion with respect to an ongoing discussion at the Stephen Barrett page. I have chosen to seek your opinion since you both represent differing views with respect to alternative medicine but are both reasonable editors, as proven by your excellent collaboration on the homeopathy page. I would like you to focus on one paragraph only. It is in the Licensure_and_credentials and reads as follows:

• Barrett's critics cite that he failed part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them as evidence that he cannot claim to be a medical expert. [1] When Barrett retired in 1993 about 81% of physicians were Board certified according to the American Board of Medical Specialties. (PDF).

There are two schools of thought here: The first is that the latter sentence is relevant to whether Barratt is a medical expert. It is verifiable data, no claim is made that the data supports the views of the critics or not, that is up to the reader.

The second is that the latter sentence should be removed since it seems to be original research.

There has been much discussion on this topic both currently and in the archive, one of many sections in the archive is here. I feel the discussion has reached a stalemate, although, possibly an injection of new ideas could lay this to bed so we can move onto other parts of the article. Thanks for your time. David D. (Talk) 17:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for leaving the message. David D. (Talk) 15:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Peter. I fully understand why you do not want to be involved and agree. People like Barrett have a very narrow understanding of issues that require greater awareness and knowledge. There are a number of anti-quackery editors involved with this article who are constantly trying to remove information not favorable to Barrett. It is only by having uncontrovertible proof that it can remain and even then. All the best and keep up your good work in the homeopathy article. One day science will catch up as they discover that there is more to matter than is known by science today. NATTO 03:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter, sadly your analysis is correct. Science in itself is only a tool with it's limitations. It is a valid tool as long as it is used properly. There are those in search of dogmatism that have made it a religion in the same way that they have used other religions in the past to negate true awareness and spiritual growth. Stay above the fray Peter :-) NATTO 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You say you are historian of homeopathy. The science of homeopathy, Vithoulkas chapter 9: To be sure, Psora, Syphilis and Sycocis are major influences which are seen in daily practice. The whole chapter discuss the advantage of miasms, so I don't understand your remark or source you used at classical homeopathy. -- FredRoter 16:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see homeopathy being wrecked after your hard work. Good luck; I'm gone from WP. See [2] Gleng 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. I got the Tim Marlow pic by going to the site on the external links, and finding a picture. I saved it onto my pictures, and then uploaded it onto wikipedia. A tuotorial should help. [3] October 2006 User:Midnightblueowl

I did add the copyright when uploading the image. I am fairly new to uploading pictures so maybe that was a mistake but I don't really know. [4] October 2006 User:Midnightblueowl

Please see the Augustus John discussion page regarding your charge of vandalism. JNW 12:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am glad that you are happy with the outcome. Best of luck in your future endeavors. JNW 20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the barnstar. I heartily agree with your rewarding one to Celithemis, who stepped in with such cool-headed finesse. Under the heading of what I learned: that we all can be sensitive to criticism; to take perceived slights neither personally nor seriously; and finally, to have fun doing this, because a little ways down the road all the brilliant corrections, additions, and subtractions we make will be reversed and erased by someone else, anyway. Best wishes, and keep on contributing. JNW 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

After looking at The Convalescent and The Precious Book, I thought that even though they're both lovely, they're fairly similar poses, so I went with one of the cat pictures instead to show a bit more of her range.

To justify our claim to use these copyrighted images as "fair use," there should really be text about them -- some kind of commentary or analysis. I'll make a stab at it when I get a chance. —Cel ithemis 03:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thurgatonpriory1726.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. ( Talk) 11:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This does not really have anything to do with tags, it's just that the image's description page currently does not state who created the image, and where it is from. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect. Thank you. -- Fritz S. ( Talk) 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding all these new articles. Two quick suggestions - it's helpful to add a stub tag to the bottom of short articles that are just beginning, and also it's generally frowned upon to paste large blocks of primary source text into an article. A couple of these new ones seem to be nothing but a block of primary source text from this 1853 guidebook. In general, this is the sort of thing that might lead other editors to simply nominate the articles for deletion. Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know! -- Dmz5 07:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

hello, I am Pernambuco, I have made some edits on Classical homeopathy and also have worked with Debbe (she is another user and a practioner of C.L.) but the article needs a lot of work, and I mean a lot, so if you want to come back and help, that would be very good, thank you in advance Pernambuco 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, correct, I wanted to reply on your page and not mine, I just forgot. But by the way, i agree with a lot of what you say, I have had the same experience, but I will try to make it better and see if the strong headed "pigs" like you say will accept it sooner or later, I hope so because if not then it is just a big waste of time Pernambuco 14:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I put some advice on uploading images on my talk page in response to your question. I see that you've uploaded images successfully, and I think the only thing you need to know is that under Licensing (use the dropdown menu), simply choose something like "You created this yourself and release it into the public domain" (not the exact phrasing, but you'll find it). That should solve all problems. Macspaunday 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, long time no talk. I moved away from homoeopathy and I've been burying myself in science stuff for a while, I hope you are doing well. I'm writing to you as I am currently a candidate for administrator and think the perspective of people from outside my subject area is vital if I am going to serve the wider community effectively. If you wish to comment, the nomination page is here. Thanks. TimVickers 06:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. TimVickers 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the heads up. Yes, that is a very funny (and very accurate) piece. The person who wrote it obviously has spent time in Berkeley and knows the scene well. Apostle12 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Hockerton, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/NTT/Hockerton/index.html. As a copyright violation, Hockerton appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Hockerton has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image 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) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Hockerton and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Hockerton with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: 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:Hockerton.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Jerry 19:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed your edits on some of the homeopathy pages. I'm drafting a wikiproject on homeopathy here. Are you interested in helping out with the draft before it goes live? If so, please jump in. Abridged ^talk 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am quite quite sorry you won't be joining. My intent was to move away from any debate about the scientific merits of homeopathy (and edit wars based on the debate) to just improving the articles. Right now there aren't too many articles, and many subtopics (like miasms for example) just redirect to the main article when they should have an article of their own. I have done a few biographies so far--Robin Murphy, Luc De Schepper, and improved Nash. Please put the group on your watchlist anyway, and consider reconsidering. Abridged ^talk 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, here is your formal invitation to the group so you have a link to the non draft page:

You are invited to join the Homeopathy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Homeopathy. Please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Don't delay---the first 25 members will receive this beautfiul toaster  !!!

Abridged ^talk 19:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

it looked a bit or/personal essayish to me. (see WP:NOT#OR) note the term doesn't occur in the 2nd 2 refs, i can't acess the 1st one. can it be substantiated that the term is widely used is widely used in this sense? thnx, ben   ⇒ bsnowball  17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

still no evidence of the term being used in the way you describe it, tho i note the term itself is used (google) can you find usages of it? also appears to come under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms   ⇒ bsnowball  13:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

address the problems i've noted above at the article please stop messaging me with every new quote, it's annoying. you add references etc to the article to establish that the term is used as you describe it, then we work out whether the tag can go.   ⇒ bsnowball  14:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

have taken article to afd for further dicsussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fragmentalism please discuss the matter there. also please remember to assume good faith. fwiw i noticed the article at User:AlexNewArtBot/PhilosophySearchResult looking for articles to fix up, it was one of several i tag as nn. thx   ⇒ bsnowball  15:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter - I removed some links on the graffiti page that refer to what I thought were commercial organisations benefiting from supplying graffiti advice or tools. You subsequently removed the edit and made the comment that one of the links was not commercial. So, is it appropriate to remove the other links but leave the non-commercial link?

PS: we seem to share an academic background.

Regards - Alan

see also

see diff

Your three favorite artists do not belong in the see also of graffiti any more than the other artists in Category:Graffiti artists do. Leave 'em out, thanks for your contribs. ∴ here… ♠ 05:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting the links to other related entries in graffiti? they are connected graffiti persons already with pages in wiki. Therefore, they are related to the graffiti article. BTW they are not "my favourite artists" as you choose to imagine them to be, merely related graffiti articles. If you actually looked at them you would see this.Peter morrell 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are related to graffiti, just like the 10s or 100s of other artists listed in Category:Graffiti artists. Would you propose listing them all? Why these three? ∴ here… ♠ 06:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, what then do you propose? maybe another category should be made listing graffiti artists? do you think that is good or not? I am happy either way. I'm not especially precious about the changes I made so I shall leave it up to you. Hope that's OK. thnx Peter morrell 06:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The category exists, it is called Category:Graffiti artists, which is linked in the section. I'll re-remove them, thanks for your responses.. ∴ here… ♠ 06:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant page would be Shakespearean authorship question, because it might balance the Cervantes theory there. But I'm not going to add the link myself because, as you will see there, links to newspapers are not usually added, since there are so many detailed sources available about Shakespeare. I leave it to you whether to add the link or not: I don't edit that page, myself. qp10qp 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image...I did not change the image, I merely restored the image that had been removed at 14:42, 2 July 2007 by user:208.222.71.16 thank you Peter morrell 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I wasn't insinuating that you had, but over the past week or so, there have been several attempts at loading copyrighted, non-free or unsuitable images (including one of Adolf Hitler!), so I just wanted to point any future editors who may consider making a change to read the earlier discussions. You did the right thing in replacing the image as you did, and thanks for that. Regards, Lynbarn 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes he does have a glass eye- it's referenced to the Guardian I think. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right! The only reference to it that wasn't on a blog or similar site was Times Atticus which is really just a blog in the Times. I think until we can point to a more reliable source we'll have to leave it out. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure! Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the article Profession, I note that you have tagged its content as requiring references for verification, when in fact all of the article is now sourced from third party sources namely Perks, R.W.(1993): Accountancy and Society and Holm, Ivar (2006): Ideas and Beliefs in Architecture and Industrial design: How attitudes, orientations and underlying assumptions shape the built environment. Do you require every sentence to be cross referenced with sources? If so, I would be happy to comply. -- Gavin Collins 11:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I am re-writing the homeopathy article and I have been unable to find any good pictures to use in it. Please take some pictures yourself and upload them to Wikipedia (Or E-mail them to me and i'll upload them) so that they can be used in the article. If you have any bottles of homeopathic remedies, that would work well. Be sure to take a picture of them on a white background with high quality though. Any other pictures that you own would be good as well. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have finished my draft of the Homeopathy article. The draft is a rough approximation of what it should be like. It obviously has some flaws in it's format and wording right now but they will be kinked out within the next couple of days. Right now what I want is for you, if you're interested in helping to improve the article, to come to the articles talk page. There we will all discuss the article and how it could be improved before we replace the current homeopathy article with it. In order for this to work we need to follow a few rules. The first rule, the most important rule, is that no one but me can edit the rough draft. Do not edit the rough draft. This precaution is used to prevent edit warring and loss or addition of information that might not be up to consensus. Don't worry, It's just a draft and you'll have all the time you want to make changes after we've replaced it with the current article. The second rule is that all proposed changes in the rough draft must be made on the talk page of the rough draft and must be clear and concise. At that point anyone involved will discuss the proposed changes and if agreed by consensus they will be implemented. We will do that until there is no disputes or disagreements. After all disputes are hammered out, we will replace the homeopathy article with the rough draft. At that point there shouldn't be anyone needing to make huge edits, and if you do see an edit that you want to make, be sure to add a note on the talk page PRIOR to making the edit so that consensus can be reached and then you should make the edit. If you have any questions you can leave me a message on my talk page. Here is the link to the rough draft Link to rough draft. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The homeopathy related pictures you sent and released to me, Did you create them yourself? As in photograph them yourself or have someone photograph them for you? If not, I'll have to delete them and get new ones that you yourself took since I don't know the copyright status of them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Peter, I get the impression that Sarcodes are very rarely used, so I'm wondering if we could cut the mention of them from the Homeopathy draft, saving it for sub-articles. What do you think? -- Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I just moved two sentences one paragraph down, but didn't change any of the wording or cut anything. Are you sure you're not confusing my more minor change with Wikidudeman's more major one just before it? Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't think it seemed that major, as it was just a move of text within the same section. I didn't think it would be all that controversial, but I'm happy to not do it again. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Sorry again! Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's an obvious error in this article - but I don't know what the correction should be. Maybe you do.

Fairly early on it gives the circumstances that enabled Wilson to read History at Jesus, Oxford from 1934 - when he was aged eighteen. A little further down it states that Wilson gained his MA in 1934.

Can you ascertain when he got his master's, and put the correct year in? I tried Google but found nothing.

Regards: User: JHB

I am trying to find a source to confirm what I am certain about. Strong was in place at the V&A by the summer of 1973. I know that we cannot depend upon original research so I am continuing to look for a printed source. We're only talking about a 6 month variance. I suspect that the the magazine you reference has an innocent minor error in it. It is possible that (30 years on) the exact date of his starting is just not widely published. His appointment would certainly be listed in contemporary newspapers. Are you able to do some researching? It's not a hugely important issue. it's just that I'm aware that it was 1973... Davidpatrick 13:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source [5], please check it for yourself. I can't imagine a point that specific being incorrect can you? It is afterall Roy Strong talking about Roy Strong! what makes you so sure you are right? thanks Peter morrell 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link. A few thoughts. A) The V&A dates in that article don't come from a direct quote from Strong. The dates are written by the editor of the interview. B) Strong may have been the source of the start date cited by that editor. Or it may have been research that the editor did. And of course it's possible that Strong himself or others have simply "tidied up" the dates of his employment and rounded it up/down to be from January 1974. Participants to history are frequently forgetful of exact dates. John Lennon insisted for several years in the 1960s that he and McCartney had met in July 1956. Told the story to journalists etc etc He really believed it too! Historians later discovered that they had actually met in July 1957. No big deal. But it is an example of how the memory can play tricks on individuals. C) My personal knowledge that Strong was there in summer 1973 would count as original research - so it cannot be used. D) There is reference made to Strong's published diaries. Those may be the best available source to check. Davidpatrick 13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not definitive evidence of course - but note the following pages - neither of which I have ever contributed to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pope-Hennessy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directors_of_the_V%26A_Museum

So - for whatever reason - other editors had placed Strong at the V&A as of 1973.

Davidpatrick 14:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser! I certainly won't assert Original Research as a basis for stating 1973 - even though I am fairly sure of the matter. Though this is a very minor point - I am now intrigued enough to keep researching! I have encountered so many minor discrepencies like this - that it doesn't surprise me. People DO round-up and round-down descriptions of their tenures at different jobs. Shaving off or adding on 6 months (over 30 years later) wouldn't be that odd. Same applies to organizations. Here is a possible way to go - pending further research. Even if he DID start on January 1st 1974 - he therefore had to have been APPOINTED to the position at some point - even a few days - PRIOR to his start date. In other words he certainly was APPOINTED to the position on a date in 1973. Even if it was late December 1973.

So how would it be if - pending further research - we changed the current text:

In 1973, aged 39, he became the youngest director of the Victoria and Albert Museum

and changed it to:

In 1973 he was appointed Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum - the youngest person to hold that position.

And I will keep looking for sourced info. Davidpatrick 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is accurate. It would be better to say "he was officially appointed Director of the V & A [ref the 2 sources] 1 January 1974." BUT slight problemo..he wasn't 39 he was 38 at that date! so maybe we had better leave it for now; is that OK? we can't realistically change it at this stage unless we leave out his age! blimey! hope that's OK with you cheers Peter morrell 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.