User talk:Markkidd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Markkidd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - CobaltBlueTony 19:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Luray, Virginia

You seem to have a great interest in Luray, especially the caverns. Are you a native resident of Luray? My family names are Beahm and Judd. Anyone with those last names are related to me in some way. - CobaltBlueTony 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually just a fan. I currently live in Lexington, Kentucky but I hope to continue my research into the caverns and particularly the Great Stalacpipe Organ in Luray (whether that means relocating or scheduling more lengthy visits. Do you live there now? --Markkidd 12:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No, but my maternal grandfather is from there, as was/is his whole family -- a large number of them, anyway. - CobaltBlueTony 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complex partial seizure

I'm puzzled why you reverted to a version you found "troubling". Yes, I did read the talk page. If you read the article carefully, it doesn't actually say that St Paul is "creative" - he is included in a separate list of "great historical figures". I have already added links on the talk page that you if follow, would include discussion of St. Paul, Napoleon, van Gogh, Socrates, etc. IMO, such speculation regarding historical figures is fit only for a Sunday magazine, not a serious encyclopedia. The reasons for my edit were:

  1. There is no need for a general list of people posthumously "diagnosed" with epilepsy in this article. This is an article about complex partial seizures, not the history of epilepsy.
  2. The list of "creative" people with epilepsy does not include anyone with a firm diagnosis of epilepsy other than Dostoevsky. Indeed, of the creative people in List of people with epilepsy, it is only Dostoevsky that could be argued to have found any creative source from his epilepsy. Finally, it is not possible to be sure that he had complex partial seizures - which is the purpose of this article and the argument regarding creativity. PMID 16194626 reckons he had "an idiopathic generalized epilepsy with minor involvement of the temporal lobe" - but that is also just speculation.
  3. Rather than attempt to repeat the work of List of people with epilepsy, the reader can follow a link to that article and make their own mind up as to whether there are a significant number of "creative types" with epilepsy.

Regarding your edit: The use of a straight revert-to-previous-version is regarded as a hostile act on Wikipedia. It should really be reserved for vandalism or spam. In addition, your edit comment was insulting to me. If you have a problem with an edit made by a non-anonymous editor, leave a message on their talk page. Alternatively, if you think it best to discuss more widely, use the article's talk page - but take care not to get personal in an open forum.

I think we both agree that the current version of the article is unsatisfactory. Naturally, I prefer my previous edit, but there is room for improvement if you are willing to contribute.

Colin°Talk 09:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "History" vs. "History and Conception"

My thought on knocking the heading back to just "History" is twofold. First off, I was interested in keeping the headings as brief as possible. In the headings, I believe that less is more. Secondly, how the organ was originally conceived seems to be a part of the history, and thus it can be shortened to just that.

So that was my thought process on shortening it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:A_Mighty_Fortress_is_Our_God.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:A_Mighty_Fortress_is_Our_God.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Videmus Omnia Talk 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)