Kommunal.az

Hello "Cutler" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

• Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages.
• You can experiment in the Wikipedia:Sandbox.
• Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
• Ask questions on Wikipedia:Village pump.
• Happy wikipediaing, -- Infrogmation 17:04, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello. In testing effects suggested by the data, your proposed word describes is a bad choice unless you want to write about the phrase "testing effects suggested by the data" rather than about the thing the phrase refers to. What that is done, the phrase should be italicized. But it is usually better to write about the thing rather than the phrase.

"X is a term used by ABCologists to describe a blah blah blah."

is inferior to

"In ABCology, an X is a blah blah blah."

On the other hand, if the word X is used in several different ways in the field of ABCology, and you want to say so, then you should write about the phrase rather than the thing, and italicize it, thus:

In ABCology, the term X is used to refer to any of four different things, except on even-numbered days, when it is recited as part of the prayer for better crossword puzzles.

Michael Hardy 19:35, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Two other matters:

• Rather than writing [[dog|dogs]], instead write [[dog]]s. That has the same effect. Try it and see. Where you wrote [[graph|graphical]], I changed it to [[graph]]ical. Similarly, [[apocrypha]]l, etc.

• When you write a new article on a statistical topic, could you add it to the list of statistical topics. I did this with cross-validation, overfitting, testing effects suggested by the data, and exploratory data analysis.

Michael Hardy 19:39, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment:

This is not something you would want to do but an error that you sometimes have to point out in someone's analysis.

It is an error to test hypotheses suggested by the data by the same methods one would use for hypotheses formed independently of the data. Other methods must be used. Scheffe's test for all contrasts in multiple comparisons problems is the most frequently cited example. Michael Hardy 21:39, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are mistaken. "Multiple comparisons" and "testing hypotheses suggested by the data" are both broad in the sense I had in mind. What is narrow is the idea that the intersection of those two topics is all that there is to the topic of multiple comparisons. The multiple comparisons problem is not concerned only with testing hypotheses suggested by the data, but that is what your version of the article said. Michael Hardy 00:33, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is sometimes a good idea to add articles not yet written to a topics list, in order to an invitation to the public to write such an article. Michael Hardy 00:45, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand why you replace the word residuals (neutral) with the word errors then qualify the word errors as being potentially misleading! Residuals just means the difference between the model and the observations. What's your problem? Cutler 01:39, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because that's not what "residual" means. As I said (and you act as if you did not read it) a residual is not the same thing as an error: a residual is an observable estimate of an unobservable error. Why didn't you read that before asking me why I changed it. Michael Hardy 21:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You have indeed done a good job of that clearing up, Cutler, and performed a significant wikiservice there. After all, the reverts tok me no more than 10 minutes or so, and we now have a situation where (a) the article about the vastly more famous and important John Kerr is under a sensible title, and (b) all the other John Kerrs are sorted out and redirected to a suitable disambiguation page, where, one day, if anyone ever gets around to thinking they are important enough, someone will write an entry about them. No Australian---even so un-Australian an Australian as John Kerr---would ever call Kerr "John R. Kerr". Despite a half-century of bombardment with the spewings of Hollywood, we still just don't go for that American-style middle initial. It's just not done. I should explain here that Kerr was (a) not ever a politican, and (b) holds a position in Australian constitutional history rather akin to the positions that Hitler and Napoleon hold in European political history---love them or loathe them, everybody knows that nothing will ever be quite the same again. Best -- Tannin 16:21, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would have thought that Tannin knew better than to compare either John Kerr or Napoleon to Hitler. Adam 14:10, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Cutler, you recently change the redirect fatigues from pointing to the disambiguation page fatigue to pointing to the nonexistent article fatigues (uniform). This is considered a bad practice because it can make a link appear blue even though there is no article at the end of the link. I have changed the redirect back to the disambiguation page. Cheers, Cyan 01:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just saw your John 'Babbacombe' Lee article - great stuff! Unexpected gems like that are why I love Wikipedia. - DavidWBrooks 20:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re the family tree at Charles Darwin:

• The text mentions Josiah Wedgwood, a very important figure in Darwin's life, but he doesn't appear on the family tree.
• Emma Darwin's parents should appear.
• All Darwin's children should appear.
• Who are the Galtons and why are they in bold in the family tree?

Adam 12:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Erasmus Darwin = Mary Howard        Josiah Wedgwood = Sarah Wedgwood
               |                    1730-95         |
               |                ----------------------
               |                |                    |
           Robert Darwin = Susannah Wedgwood     Josiah Wedgwood = Bessy Allan
           1766-1849     |                                       |
                         |               ------------------------|
                         |               |
                      Charles Darwin = Emma Wedgwood
                      1809-82        |
                                     |
                                  William 1839-1914
                                  Anne 1841-51
                                  Mary 1842
                                  Henrietta 1843-1904 
                                  George 1845-1912
                                  Elizabeth 1847-1926
                                  Francis 1848-1925
                                  Leonard 1850-1943
                                  Horace 1851-1928
                                  Charles 1856-58

Adam 14:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The family tree is actually of more than curiosity value, because Darwin came to believe that the Darwin/Wedgwood inbreeding (3 1st-cousin marriages in 3 generations) was the cause of his children being so sickly, and it thus significantly influenced his thinking about heredity. Adam 23:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The new family tree is much improved. Surely though, it is possible to have the links to the other WP articles such as Josiah Wedgwood actually embedded in the tree. I see that done at websites all the time. Also, I think it is a little confusing to call Darwin's father Robert Waring rather than Robert Waring Darwin. Was that intentional? And a question - are the Josiah Wedgwoods related to the Wedgwood Benns? Adam 02:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, I don't know much about the rest of the Guest family, apart from Charlotte and her husband. But I'll look into it. Deb 14:24, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I would also like the family tree to be updated. I've written some pages on the family which was quite eminent. e.g. Leonard Darwin. I'm not sure ASCII art would be better than an image. Otherwise, are image maps acceptable? Duncharris 11:40, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

When you put a link into an article, you really need to check to see that what it links to is what you intended. You were wrong to put a link to number system in the precision disambiguation page. If you look at number system, the first thing you see is a statement that it is not an article about numeral systems, q.v. You should have linked to numeral system instead, and you would have seen that if you'd actually tried the link. Michael Hardy 22:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, here is the format Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I am just doing the new articles. This allows people to choose their own style of displaying date. Burgundavia 22:27, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed your addition to conservatory (school). Earlier this afternoon I created that entry then just discovered music school <sigh>. I suppose the two should be merged. Do you have any preference under which name? -- Viajero 15:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Cutler, I've nominated you for adminship. If you accept, please acknowledge the voting on the aforelinked-to page. Good luck, and good day._{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 12:43, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Cutler, I'd be grateful if you would consider the questions I posted at Requests for Adminship Thanks -- Cecropia | Talk 18:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I've voted to support your nomination. Good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 14:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now a sysop. Please read the Administrators' reading list to learn about your new privileges and responsibilities and what special tasks sysops perform. Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 20:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're very welcome. _{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 07:11, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome and congratulations! 172 17:14, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello. In stress (physics), you wrote

${\displaystyle \sigma =lim_{\Delta A\to 0}{\frac {\Delta P}{\Delta A}}.}$

But what you really needed was

${\displaystyle \sigma =\lim _{\Delta A\to 0}{\frac {\Delta P}{\Delta A}}.}$

See the difference? Michael Hardy 21:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Accuracy and precision.png

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks so much. --Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nice to see the brief note you added on Macclesfield Town Hall, especially since I recently uploaded the photo. — Dizzley (Peter H) 12:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is this image of a newtonian fluid through a round crossection (thus creating a parabolic shear profile) ? --Duk 16:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! On VFD, you said "Comment - actually, merge the lot into an article Partisan taxonomy of the UK press and make it more sophisticated than left/ right. Cutler 00:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)". That sounds like a good idea, you seem to know more about the subject than most 'pedians. Since merging doesn't require a vote, you could be bold and write just such an article, and do the Wikipedia:Merge when the VFD closes. Yours, Radiant_>|< 09:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I noted your deep sigh on CEO reputation. I agree that this is one area where our effort and speed are outnumbered by the ease to add such text. We should apply the principle of appropriateness of the means: Deleting should not take over 10 times longer than creation. How about the following rule:

• If an article has been directly copied from an existing web page then it can be speedied when it is apparently either advertizing or a borderline case between advertizing and copyvio.

I presume you could win User:Radiant! as an ally, as well. — Sebastian (Please reply here, I'll watch this page for a while.) 15:43, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• That would be me :) I have a talk page, and I don't bite.

Sebastian - thanks for your empathy. It certainly is frustrating that there are so many no brainers that still have to go to WP:VFD. The situation is now quite precarious. There are only 400 or so admins, just about two for every hour of the week, and it is a real struggle to keep on top. VfD is in danger of being swamped. There are definitely discussions about reform but they are getting bogged down as usual. Sadly, I am principally an editor, secondarily an enforcer and barely ever get involved in policy. However, I will spend some of the next week catching up on some of the recent talk and post again is I get any bright ideas. Cutler 16:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Don't say "Sadly"! What would Wikipedia be without editors?! I don't think you'd need to be very involved in this. There is already a discussion on Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Reducing_VfD_load. I should participate there, but to be honest, I havent gotten around to reading it yet. If you like my proposed rule, I could bring it up there. — Sebastian (talk) 17:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Sebastian - sounds like a good idea. Let's both get involved in the debate. Cutler 17:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Great – I submitted a modified version at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal#12:_Obvious_copies. — Sebastian (talk) 18:39, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I also added a more general proposal: "G2: Appropriateness of the means". — Sebastian (talk) 18:56, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Okay. I am entirely unsure what you mean by 'appropriateness of the means'. Yes, I'm sure we want deletion to be swift when needed, but that can hardly be policy. Regarding 'stuff copied from websites' - those are plain and simple copyvios. Not a bad idea, but one covered by existing policy. Radiant_>|< 19:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

You voted "Merge" in this discussion. I've laid out a detailed merger plan. Please review it and state whether you prefer it or some other form of merger. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:15:14 (UTC)

Hiya,

you recently voted to merge per Uncle G at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

Hallo, this is just to inform you that "someone" has removed the dubious note you posted some time ago on Adam von Trott zu Solz. 132.187.253.14 20:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking that merger off my do-list! --Eric Forste 23:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for the history of thermodynamics article. That one was on my wishlist from the time I first realized it didn't exist yet until I had the pleasure of reading the results of your work, which is far better than anything I could have done this year. --arkuat (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleon, you seem to know something about gyroscopes. A while ago, I did some editing on Eric Laithwaite who was obviously just plain wrong on the subject. However, when I read accounts from experts about the nature of his mistake I'm none the wiser. They talk about fast tops and slow tops and are obviously refering to a body of knowledge that I've never managed to find. Can we have some more content here? An account of where Eric Laithwaite went wrong would be really useful. Cutler 13:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cutler,

I did some Googling. The descriptions I saw did not give the necessary details to know exactly how the first demonstrations proceeded.

I understand gyroscopic precession, but I don't understand nutation, that is about my level of understanding. (I don't rely on the formula, I think the logic through in my mind, visualising what is happening, and then I see why it makes sense that for example the Earth is precessing; what those torques are about.)

I don't think there is much prospect for clearing this Eric Laithwaite matter up. Beyond the level of precession, this kind of Newtonian dynamics looks as difficult to me as the dynamics of little subrings of Saturn's rings, coiling around each other like spaghetti.

I like to contribute, but I would have to know details about the Royal Institution demonstrations. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 16:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you have worked on incorporating information from the Catholic encyclopedia into wikipedia. I've created a project page for the Catholic Encyclopedia as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles project to coordinate efforts and hopefully make the work easier. Reflex Reaction 14:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small problem with the Darwin Tree.  Ann Darwin m. Samuel Fox should be one generation lower. She was the daughter of William Alvey Darwin and Jane Brown, i.e. niece of Erasmus.

Here are the details:-

Jane Brown (1746-1835) = William Alvey Darwin (1726-1783) issued Ann Darwin (1777-1859) married Samuel Fox. William Alvey Darwin was brother of Erasmus.

Noticed the problem when editing William Darwin Fox - Kiwi Kousin 07:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see you've been updating this article, so I wonder if you can advice on how the name is pronounced. The artcile currently says IPA ['lɛzəz] which would would equate to something like "lezzers". The BBC pronouncing Dictionary of English Names doesn't have an entry for The Leasowes, but for Leasowe (possibly unconnected) it gives IPA ['lisoʊ], or something like "leessoe". rossb 16:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The {{otherpeople}} template isn't needed on every article where someone shares a name, only at the primary destination. So, the template is on William Perry so that readers looking for the other William Perrys can find them, but if somebody has already landed on William Perry (boxer), they presumably wouldn't have been looking for the politician. sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Could you add sources for the article Catherine Murphy (counterfeiter)? --FloNight 13:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --FloNight 02:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cutler - since you I was hoping you could lend your expertise to the current Mathematics Collaboration of the Week: Multiple Comparisons, since you started the article. Obviously it's a interesting and important topic. We are also in the midst of a discussion as to the distinction between multiple comparisons and multiple testing. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Let's get a math article up on the front page! Thanks for any help. Debivort 10:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agh. I didn't realize I had done that at the time. I'm not sure how I must have done that, I probably pressed Stop on the browser before the article had finished loading. Thank you for notifying me.

As for Pet Sounds, you're absolutely right about that. The beauty of infoboxes.. Bobo192. 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the Poor Law article. It's an interesting area.

However, the article only goes back to 1601, though it mentions various other acts before that point. I was wondering, do you know where I might find out about the previous acts?

Thanks. BillMasen 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for adding Coney to the two pages on consent. It was a surprise since, in the overall pattern of criminal law, I have always considered it a relatively obscure case. It is pleasing to see the older case law standing up to modern scrutiny. A minor point: the habit of putting a full stop after the v. is rather more an American than a British style. I know that the other cases on Wiki have adopted the U.S. style (they got here before the English), but. . . . David91 17:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All younger sons and daughters of Dukes and Marquesses are entitled to the courtesy title "The Lord." Lord George William Russell was a younger son of the 6th Duke of Bedford. This would not apply to his sons, unless he became a Duke or Marquess himself. The short answer, therefore is no.

It's interesting to note, however, that the dukedom of Bedford did pass through his line. The succession went something like this:

• John Russell, 6th Duke of Bedford (1766–1839)
  • Francis Russell, 7th Duke of Bedford (1788–1861)
    • William Russell, 8th Duke of Bedford (1809–1872) (dies without heirs)
  • Lord George William Russell (1790–1846)
    • Francis Charles Hastings Russell, 9th Duke of Bedford (1819–1891)

Lord William missed the succession on account of dying too young (had he lived through 1872, he'd have been the 9th duke, and his son the 10th). In that circumstance, Arthur would have become Lord Arthur Russell. Sadly it didn't come to pass. Probably more than you wanted to know, but I'm bored. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of making this even more obscure, I don't think you're right. Assuming you mean Lord Arthur John Edward Russell (1825-92) then he would only have needed (as I assume he did but I haven't checked) to apply for a warrant of precedence to assume the "Lord" on the succession of his elder brother the 9th Duke in 1872.Alci12 15:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you're right. And now that I think about, Odo was referred to as "Lord Odo Russell" before he got his peerage. He must have made use of the procedure which you described (and of which I was previously igorant). One learns something new everyday. Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See newly-created Category:Lupino family - Ian Cairns 09:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple years ago you started the article on control charts, and you said that Shewhart set 3-sigma limits on the basis of ... the result of the Vysochanskii-Petunin inequality , that for any unimodal probability distribution, the probability of an outcome greater than k standard deviations from the mean is at most 5/(9k^2). But the Vysochanskii-Petunin inequality dates from 1980, and it says 4/(9k^2), not 5/(9k^2). So what was the source for what you wrote? I'm very curious. EricK 13:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.--Anthony.bradbury 18:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a look.--Anthony.bradbury 18:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the addition of a new entry on Thermochemistry. I have tagged it for debate as is our policy on that page. Please see my comments on the Talk:List of publications in chemistry and add your comments there. --Bduke 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you! --Mecu 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that when the title was officially restored to the 13th Baron Dunboyne in 1827, it was more a recognition that the original outlawry was rather dodgy and not particularly legal than an actual restoration per se. Since then the 6th to 12th Barons have been considered actually to have been de jure Barons Dunboyne, just not officially recognised as such (and they used the title at any rate). So I'd just ignore the "styled" business and act as if the title was normal. Proteus (Talk) 14:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please update licence tags for your graphics, such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohrs_circle_fig_2.PNG

Thank you, LMB 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created {{Fluid}} and the relevant categories. Can you come up with an image to use and can we start tagging articles. I think this will (hopefully) mean that if people move into this section (or away from it) it will be easier to keep track of what has been done and what needs to be done. Is this a good idea, have you any feedback? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Accuracy and precision.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pekaje 19:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pekaje - not as on top of all this as I once imagined that I was. Thought I had released 'Image:Accuracy and precision.png' into PD but obviously not. Please just tell me what I have to do. Cutler 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was relased as GFDL 1.2, but my reason for requesting deletion doesn't concern licensing. The image was merely obsoleted by the SVG version at Image:Accuracy and precision.svg. You only need to do something if you think the SVG version is not an appropriate updated version of the original PNG version. --Pekaje 11:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, every edit of the person who tagged the article for speedy deletion have been vandalism, so you shouldn't be too worried. But don't let me stop you if you want to add more refs to it. Thanks. - Bobet 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you tell me how to make a Wigmore chart? I can't find elsewhere. Thanks,--Rambutan (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.--Rambutan (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your contributions to the West Bromwich Albion F.C. supporters section. I'd tried to find a source for Chapple-Hyam in the past but failed, so well done on finding one. I managed to find a source for "Mutley" supporting Albion so I've added that in. (Sorry, I'm not a boxing fan so initially I hadn't heard of him). Celebrity supporters in club articles seems a dodgy area so I think its important that we keep it reasonably brief and source every single one, to give them the best chance of not being deleted. I've done quite a bit on the article as a whole in the last few months (including about 95% of the citations) and ultimately I'd like to get the article up to Featured Article status. There's still quite a bit to do but any suggestions you have or any further contributions would be welcomed. I'll try to create a "to do" list on the article talk page later today. --Jameboy 09:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cutler. You are off to such a great start on the article Lynskey tribunal that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- JayHenry 20:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You article Frank Douglas MacKinnon would also make an excellent DYK suggestion. --JayHenry 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Tiptoety 16:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the talk page header. Purely an oversight on my part - did a cut-and-paste but forgot to amend that particular field. --Jameboy 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article James Jurin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--++Lar: t/c 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On February 14, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles John Stockdale, and John Joseph Stockdale, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Great work again. Keep it up! Kindly nominated by PFHLai. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice and big article! Phgao 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's fantastic. I'm referring to [1] Phgao 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask you if you would consider going for adminship, as it is not mentioned on your user page, but then I saw in discussion that you are on! Congrats! Phgao 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your help desk question and done what I can for now... Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Gurney's Bank. There appears to be a dfferent Gurney family described in the book Friends and Relations by Verily Anderson (ISBN 1-898030-84-7). Is it possible that you have referenced the wrong Gurneys? Can you please look into this further and confirm? If the two Gurney banking families are one in the same, several cross-references should be added among the various articles, but I am guessing that Gilbert was referring to the Gurney's Bank Gurneys, since the one you cited went out of business 10 years before Trial by Jury. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. As the other editor suggested on my talk page, the Gurney family could certainly use an article explaining all these relationships, including the relationships to the famous Elizabeth Fry and other Gurney siblings. Unfortunately, I've got too much on my plate to get to it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I added a little more to the Samuel Gurney article and the two banks' articles. It seems that Samuel Gurney was still running the Norwich bank as well as the London firm after 1809. I am now fairly satisfied that the relationship between the two banks is, at least, clearer, but there is obviously more to this story, especially who was running Gurney's bank from 1809 to 1896, and how the Gurneys managed to insulate Gurney's bank from the troubles of the London discount house. But, I have done as much as I wish to do here. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cutler. I don't know about the legislation template. I have personally never needed to know or remember which chapter on the statute book it was; I've never needed to know who introduced it, nor what the date of royal assent was (though surely it's in the title! e.g. Fatal Accidents Act 1976); I think you'd have a hard time with a lot of Acts finding out all the little bits and pieces of amending Acts; and big Acts can be related to a vast amount of other things. I know that all sounds quite negative, but is there a real need to have this clog up the pages, will people care about the information, and will people spend the time to use them?

I thought when you mentioned Franklin's case you were going to ask about a case law template! Wikidea 12:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ...that Dr. John Roberton proposed medical police in 1809 whilst Dr. John Roberton was a pioneer of obstetrics? both by Cutler double nom. ok? by Victuallers (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Roberton (1776), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Roberton (1797), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm currently researching to create an article on Francis Burley, who played football for England, and I came across the articles you created. Hugh Birley is Francis's uncle. Do you know if Hugh Hornby Birley was Hugh's father? As the footballer's full name is "Francis Hornby Birley", there must be some connection between him and the earlier Hugh. Unfortunately the information at www.birley.org is a little confusing.

If you are interested in the family, you may also care to read about Francis's sister, Caroline, here. Perhaps she deserves an article in her own right? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above, do you know the connection between Sir Oswald Birley, the artist to the above family? As his full name was "Oswald Hornby Joseph Birley", there must be a family connection. I suspect that Oswald's father, Hugh Francis Birley is also a son of Hugh Birley, but I can't pin this down for certain. He is described here as a member of a Lancashire family and the dates fit. Any held you can give would be appreciated. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have sorted them out now and have added cross-references and links to the various articles. At some time I will try to create a family tree template to link them all together. Cheers and happy editing. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I moved him from the notable residents section of Leigh to Atherton. --TimTay (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bernard Reach for the Ground cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Sir James Lithgow.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me the story is contained in the article you sent me... you need 2,000 characters for DYK... can't say I want to read any further details of this story. Its a bad taste stunt and I think there is sufficient here. However its your time. Victuallers (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but this OK. OK?

• ...that Sir James Lithgow played a major role in restructuring the British shipbuilding industries in the 1930s? by Cutler note I added an extra ref that is checked easier than odnb. Victuallers (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've used the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as a source on Wikipedia. I attempted to do the same, but met with the opposition of two editors who seem adamant that this subscription-based service may not be used. I'd appreciate your insight at here. Many thanks.--Damac (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed them all into a single ref now. Legally each is a separate commission, so it's really all or nothing. The gazette entries are the definitive record of his appointemnt 9and are free0 so it makes sense to make use of the resource. David Underdown (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments on the RfC: Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia? Despite the overwhelming consensus that there is nothing wrong with this source or in using it on Wikipedia (indeed editors expressed their astonishment that such an issue became an RfC), the two editors, whose behaviour caused me to issue with the RfC, continue to issue questions on its use,[2] accessibility,[3] or question my motives in bringing the RfC.[4] (The RfC was the only route I saw of including information from the 2004 OCNB).

I have tried to deal with these two editors rationally, but no matter what I seem to say to them, they return with more queries and comments. Can anything be done in this case? Can someone please try explaining the situation to them at the RfC.--Damac (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I haven't read that book either, and I'm not about to get it out of the library. But

1. I have read the Portuguese source, Cartas de Inglaterra, so I could cite it more precisely;
2. and the Kearney website does verify the article because it includes the following:

"The Times. Jan 23 1882. P.C. 24. a. 16. Noted in Rose/Reade 4547, as "Remarkable on account of the indecent interpolation in the speech of the Home Secretary Sir W. V. Harcourt at Burton-on-Trent. See the 4th column of page 7, the 53rd line from the bottom." Ashbee Catena, lv, who notes that an apology appeared in the issue for January 27th immediately after the leaders. A similar interpolation in the issue of June 12, 1882, page 8, col. 2, in an advertisement for a book, Everyday Life in our Public Schools. See Rose/Reade 4582."

So I will try to use this to give better citations. I know what Ashbee Catena is; I don't yet know what Rose/Reade is, but I can find out.

If the word "self-published" is a hint that that you see a problem with citing the Kearney website could you explain what the problem is? I don't know Kearney, but his published work is good and the website looks scholarly and reliable to me. Andrew Dalby 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sir James Lithgow, 1st Baronet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Rawlins' banned autobiography is still on Wikipedia. I thought you might take further steps with a view to having it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.99.135 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Rawlins uses computers in an American uni to hide the fact that he is writing his autobiography. Part of it is written by Pickering, a friend of Dennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ewing and Humfrey fatigue cracks.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to tel you Cutler that you date for the death of Winston in your box is wrong, he died in 1965.