User talk:Ian Pitchford
Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
The Design Revolution
Hi Ian. Just wanted to know why you felt it necessary to delete authentic quotes from the article on The Design Revolution. Did you feel the quotes misrepresented the book? David Bergan 19:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Ian. So, what would be the point of removing it? If it's minor, who cares, no one will look for it. If it does have a noticable following, then people can search for it and read something factual and accurate... as opposed to nothing. David Bergan 19:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I can see your point about the quotes. I had written them because they were noteworthy enough to be in our Talk:Intelligent Design discussion and I wanted other users to be able to see that they were legitimate quotes without buying the book. It's hard to refer to a book in wikipedia discussions... because people want to source-check, yet they can't see the book as easily as they can click on a link. I'll leave it up to you, though. If you think it's worth it to have any of the quotes available, you can un-delete them.
By the way, what's got you interested in intelligent design? David Bergan 20:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
You supported my nomination of the Mark Felt article and I wonder if I could get your support on my latest FAC, Helen Gandy, who was Hoover's secretary for five decades. PedanticallySpeaking 21:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
You were kind enough to support my nomination of Mark Felt as a featured article and I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman. PedanticallySpeaking 15:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Why did your remove the factual dispute warning from the article. Did you read the article by A. Nagel on the external link? Andries 22:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer on my talk page, but I disagree with your assertion that a factual accuracy dispute should only be on an article when there is a dispute between two or more authors. The factual accuracy dispute should be placed in all cases when there is good reason to assume that the facts are wrong in the article, regardless of the cause of these wrong facts. In this case, I did not have have the time yet to improve the article and noticed discrepancies between the article and Nagel's article. I re-inserted the disputed warning. Thanks. Andries 18:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Back Again
You supported my W. Mark Felt FAC nomination. I'm grateful and though it was successful. I've got another FAC now, the next congresswoman from Ohio, Jean Schmidt. The FAC page is here. I hope to get it featured by September 6, the day she will be sworn in. I'd appreciate your support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. If you are worried about the "fair use" of her picture, when she's sworn, we'll be able to replace it with a nice U.S. government public domain photo.)
Valerian
It will be nice to know what has been reason for deleting my sentence about Valerian body ? Question is from Rjecina. Thanks for your answer but I think that it is not OK. Yes I will give you point about my english but I am interested to know when has Roman Empire ( de jure East or West Roman empire has never existed ) become Byzantine. Even modern historians ( which I have been reading ) are telling that only after 640 AD you can speak about Byzantine empire. Fact is that in year 628 AD part of Roman states are all Eastern provinces, Rome, Ravenna, Carthago and evacuation of Hispania has been only in time of emperor Heraclius 610-641 AD.
gyroscopic precession
Hi Ian,
you were quite right in removing the silly 'binary theory' stuff from the precession article. I was about to do that myself. I was building up a history of discussion with Ungtss, to show as evidence of willingness to explain, should Ungtss attempt to file a Request For Arbitration, or something of that nature. i will keep watching the precession article, and I will revert any attempt to insert binary theory stuff again.
I rather overdid it: I have flooded the Talk:precession page with comments.
There is a reason for my carefullness. I am currently working hard to get solid newtonian physics incorporated in the coriolis effect article. Here is my version of the coriolis effect article, and I intend to revert to that version soon.
All the animations in the article have been manufactured by me. I would very much appreciate it if you will read it, and follow the logic through, even it if appears counterintuitive at first. My version of the coriolis effect article is based on the scientific articles that are listed in the references section of the article.
If you feel my version of the coriolis effect article presents the physics correctly, then I would really appreciate your help in defending it. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Editorialization
Why do you not remove the NAS editorialization? Dan Watts 20:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote
Thanks very much for your vote of support on my Jean Schmidt article. I'm pleased to say it is today's featured article of the day. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Flood Geology
Hello. Just to say that I've put a short note onto the Flood Geology discussion page re: the ongoing debate about the citation of that "academic" reference. I can see this spinning off into a flame-war (or whatever one has on Wiki), so my view is (perhaps foolishly) to compromise, and allow a short reference to the work in. Certainly something much reduced and much more NPOV than what's been proposed to date. Then it can subsequently be qualified and commented on. I'm probably giving too much ground to the creationists, but I'm very conscious of the fact that (however dubiously) the reference is published, and that allowing said creationists to cry censorship can be dangerous. --Plumbago 08:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
At it again
I'm back at it again with my Bruce Johnson article, nominated as a FAC. He's Ohio's lieutenant governor and already at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson are votes opposing. I hope you don't find me a pest, but I find when I don't go out and ask folks such as yourself for their votes, my FAC's invariably are defeated. So I'd be grateful if you'd put your two cents worth in. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Revert
Hello. Could you kindly take a stab at rewording the info on the school that gave David Duke his doctorate before deleting it? Something should remain in the article itself. I think the fact that the school has 30,000 students and is considered legit is notable. It is surprising to many observers, and therefore more (not less) info should be provided to the reader. ThanksDannyZz 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
DYK
|
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gerwani, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
I recently made extensive additions and revisions to Moab. Since you helped improve Edom after I did a similar overhaul on that article I thought you might want to know. --Briangotts (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The Six Day War article still needs some cleanup, but is starting to look pretty good. We may actually end up with an article on an Arab-Israeli war that is actually a history, rather than an apologetic diatribe. How long it will stay that way is another question. Brian Tvedt 19:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Mark Felt Redux
In June you voted on the featured article candidacy of W. Mark Felt, which failed. It has now been resubmitted. In the event you would like to vote on the new candidacy, it is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - the problem was not particularly with the intro (which is mostly based on Zeq's paragraph) but with the "Effects on Palestinians" section. I have on numerous occasions given in to the opposing editor's demands but he apparently insists on redundancy, bad grammar, and removing balancing statements from his own UN sources which he provided. I don't see that his/her version is too different from mine, but am having a difficult time "giving and giving" instead of "giving and taking" with him/her. I have asked an Israeli editor to add to the "Effects on Israeli security" as well. Thanks for your input. Ramallite (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
--Ian Pitchford Talk | Contribs 
18:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)