User talk:Edmund Patrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edmund_Patrick.

Contents

Archives

   Discussion Conventions thereby hopefully preventing confusion on my behalf; please

  • post new messages at the bottom of the page - using section headings to separate conversation topics
  • post reply messages at the bottom of the relevant section headings
  • sign your comments. Type the four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your text, or click Image:Signature icon.png or use the edit toolbar. It is that simple, and they most certainly are not the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse. I know - honest!

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette,

Be nice, and Talk page guidelines


[edit] GA review of Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy

Thanks for your GA review of Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy. I have left my responses on the article's talk page. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA pass. I will, of course, keep my eyes open for additional info to add to the article. I'd like to one day be able to get a FT from this article and its related articles. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

No problem, interesting article about the good old days :) I write mainly bird articles, and it's easy to miss odd bits when you are too close to the subject. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New policy proposal that may be of interest

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of timekeeping devices GA

Thanks for offering to review this. If there's anything that needs to be changed, let me know. Thanks again, Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question, what do you mean here? This edit is just plain confusing. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 01:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was just a bit confused by it. I am going to have it be BC/AD, rather than BCE/CE. I've seen years' articles using this system, so I'll keep it at that. I think it's all uniform now. And I agree, statements that are not common knowledge (unfortunately there is very little statements that are common knowledge in the article) should be sourced. Thanks for giving me that source, and adding a few on your own. Also, it's nice to know that I can pass for being "more knowledgeable about this subject". I have no background in timekeeping devices (I don't even wear a watch), much less their history. I picked it from a category of short articles as part of an admin coaching task :) Justin(Gmail?)(u) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading the website you gave, and while I appreciate it, the history of it is not very well covered. It goes in depth, but its reliability is questionable, with statements like "Sometime in 1946 or 1947 the RAF most likely decided it wanted a new pilot's watch", and "G&S almost certainly then approached all their major contributors". It would be a good source for an article on the watch, especially one that needed help writing about the design. So I'll leave that ref out. I'll look for some good refs later, but if I don't find any I'll probably just merge that section with its 3rd-level-heading, and salvage any material I can. As you can see, the ref you gave me differs significantly from the current information, so it will be difficult to judge which account is accurate. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simply untrue fabrications

How O how can someone who had been dead over ten years have had any input into the Salem witch-trials??? What utter nonsense man!!!! I really do question your motive for wanting to sling mud at someone who I doubt very much you've ever read or even understand. It's all too easy to deride what we don't understand and come from on high with negative judgements. Every major writer on Browne in the 20th century recognises that Browne's involvement was a slight but unfortunate one. This whole PC nonsense stems from Edmund Gosse's vitriolic attack in 1905, every major writer on Browne, J.S.Finch, Huntley, Nathanson all state quite the opposite to you. Just what is to be achieved by an agenda based on prejudice?? I strongly recommend that you read Malcolm Letts Notes and Queries article which long , long ago dismissed such prejudiced notions upon a great man of science and literature.Norwikian (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You deseve some..

Cookies!
All your help with the GA-review of Ring of Pietroassa has earned you some tasty cookies. Enjoy!
—Aryaman (Enlist!) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC))


[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)