| Revision as of 23:35, 29 January 2007 editRenamed user 5417514488 (talk | contribs)8,841 edits Larry Darby← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:54, 30 January 2007 edit undo66.130.16.181 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| I am very sorry, but you may not use internal links or internal diffs as your references per ] and ]. '']'' ] 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | I am very sorry, but you may not use internal links or internal diffs as your references per ] and ]. '']'' ] 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| you're a faggot for reporting handlfield | |||
Revision as of 22:54, 30 January 2007
Timeline of inventions
Hi,
On Timeline of inventions, the two deleted were factually inaccurate -
- Artificial teeth was explicitly at odds with the article on the subject, which cited an earlier case. However, that article doesn't give a source for the invention - the patent mentions "...in a more easy and effectual manner than any hitherto discovered...", wording which clearly indicates that artificial teeth were in use, and the patent was for a better form.
- Scramjet I left out simply because of the ambiguity of when it was invented - you could probably argue for half-a-dozen dates over forty years - but I was fairly confident that one wasn't it. (In all honesty, I also meant to go back and research it, but the rest of that week grew rather busy and I forgot).
In both cases, I felt it better to have no mention than verifiably incorrect information; Scramjet as is now looks fine, but Artificial teeth still looks wrong. Shimgray 11:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Diuretics
Hi Selket, I agree. Perhaps an initial basic writeup would be good just to get things going, and perhaps people can fill it in with more detail afterwards. I'm a bit too busy to do it myself at the moment unfortunately. -Techelf 12:03, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Images
I wanted to thank you for the images you are providing for anatomy. However, might I persuade you to upload the images to commons.wikimedia.org instead of to en.wiki, to make the images easier to share with editors using the other languages? --Arcadian 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Selkat has an obvious vendetta against Larry Darby. He against posted non-neutral, poorly written, non-factual information in violation with a settlement reached between Darby and general counsel for Misplaced Pages. The only reason Selkat would have to rebuild the article would be to continue to post information that is designed to disparage the subject. I have restored the page to reflect that which was agreed. Selkat: you are advised to stop your unethical practices.
- I did not rebuild the page. I was very unhappy when I saw the state that it had been returned to. I have no idea who User:71.207.240.17 is. To be honest, I do think the page needs some rework, but if I make any changes they will say they are made by User:Selket
Larry Darby
Per an OTRS ticket I have reduced the article to a stub. I know you have put quite a bit of work into this article, so I felt I should inform you. I would like to rebuild the article, and since you probably know more than me about the subject your help would be greatly appreciated.--§hanel 06:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- When you say OTRS do you mean an Office Action? I would be happy to rebuild the page. It was in pretty bad shape when I found it, but I did try to start rewriting for NPOV and would be happy to continue after things calm down a bit. --Selket 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
n
- Sorry for not being more clear. OTRS refers to the foundation's Email response team, who use OTRS to assist in responding to queries, complaints, etc. Office Actions can sometimes arrive from complaints on OTRS, but I wouldn't have the power to do such a thing anyway. :) Thanks for your help and understanding; I really appreciate it. --§hanel 06:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
maps
Hello, usually for those it is a mix of photoshop and paint, with this map overlaid with this. Cheers, --Astrokey44 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Can more links be removed at Bayesian inference?
Hello Selket. Thanks for the recent link removal. The 'external links' section is rather long; are there any other links we could perhaps do without? I see that www.abelard.org is a bit garish-looking and has a lot of advertising. Somewhere I saw a rule that external links should be mentioned in the text. If such a rule were followed, most of the remaining links would go away (unless new text were written to integrate them). EdJohnston 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Larry Darby
I am very sorry, but you may not use internal links or internal diffs as your references per WP:RS and WP:V. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
you're a faggot for reporting handlfield