User talk:Doops

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question in the Newcomers' Village Pump or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

==

Hi, Doops,
On the John Winthrop disambiguation, you need to remember that links are case-sensitive in Wikipedia. Usually "Disambiguation" isn't capitalized, so you may want to move it to John Winthrop (disambiguation) - Nunh-huh 22:34, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Colon

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Anyway, I've never heard of a rule that states that you shouldn't "follow a verb by a colon." After all, people often write something like:

This list includes:

Item A
Item B

(If you respond, do so on my user page, as I may not be monitoring this page.)

--Lowellian 22:37, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Double-dated year

Doops,
I think moving Mixed-style date to double-dated year would be fine. As to how to show confusing dates in encyclopedia articles, it's a good question. One way we've done it in the past was with "January 13, 1746 (O.S.) (= January 24 (N.S.))" and other variations, like making the "repeat" date smaller: "January 13, 1746 (O.S.) (= January 24 (N.S.))" (this was from Sweden, where double-dating wasn't an issue....) I'd say there may be better ways to do it, but it would take some experimentation! -- Nunh-huh 00:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

New Forest

Do you think we should merge New Forest and New Forest National Park? I know that the Park won't cover the entire forest, but it seems a little odd to have two seperate articles about it. Morwen - Talk 18:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, you say that, but before today, there was no article about the Yorkshire Dales! I moved it from Yorkshire Dales National Park - which was quite absurd place for it to be. I think we should have a presumption to merge, unless there are strong reasons for not. Morwen - Talk 19:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Doops/NewForest looks splendid. Morwen - Talk 19:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can make both page histories appear at New Forest's page history, which is I think what I shall do. Hold on a moment. Morwen - Talk 19:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the help. Morwen - Talk 19:51, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe merging the history wasn't the right thing to do, but oh well, it's done now ;). Morwen - Talk 20:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Garter, Thistle

You have made good revisions to Order of the Garter, many of which I have copied (with appropriate amendments, of course) for the article Order of the Thistle. Might I request you to similarly review the latter? -- Emsworth 20:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Royal Victorian Order

~~Might I inquire if you know what the offices of the Royal Victorian Order are?~~ -- Emsworth 00:35, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) P.S. Sorry! I seem to have found the information after all.

2004 Olympic Scandals

Nice work on that page. I accidentally thanked Molinary in the edit summary (should have known better than to misuse the summary field, 'cause now I cannot edit it)!

Klanda | Talk 19:38, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Dartmouth College

I agree that "proudly" was more NPOV. I was trying to get rid of the lengthy prior construction without pissing off whoever wanted "pride" to begin with. I think this compromise works. Can you figure out how to incorporate the two swimming articles, including capitalizing the "C" in college on one of'm, into the main D.C. page?Sfahey 20:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC) (class of '70)

Sports on In The News

Hi Doops. As far as I know, there is a convention on Wikipedia to not place local sports news on Current Events or In The News. This convention is similar to that of not placing fair use or licence-unknown images on the Main Page sections. The convention to not place sport stories on the Main Page is sometimes relaxed in situations such as the Superbowl and the Soccer World Cup, which are relevant to wide snapshots of the Wikipedia readership. During the Olympic Games, we were not allowed to put sports news on In The News. Instead, a separate Main Page section was created in order to keep the sport separate from the news. For these two reasons (sport on the main page, copyrighted logo on the main page) I removed your post. The truth with sport is that we cannot possibly cover every major sporting controversey on the Main Page. So we try to keep the items interesting and internationally important. - Mark 05:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Baseball statistics on In the news

You said on In the news that "by Mateo's critereon, world series or world cup champions don't warrant a mention either. The bottom story he restored was 4 days old". Maybe my comment about the reversion was unclear. What I was trying to point out was that the story was originally linked to American League Championship Series, where the only update in relation to the In the news posting was the addition of a line at the bottom of a table. The guidelines for In the news point out that "Wikipedia is not a news report"; the basic point of the page is to highlight Wikipedia articles that are in the news, so that reader can link to an article that explains them more fully. In my opinion, the American League Championship Series provides very little information, and that is why I reverted it.

Also, if you don't want people to remove your story, maybe you shouldn't post a comment saying "I suppose it could be removed if people disagree". — Mateo SA | talk 05:04, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

PM of the UK

I'm afraid that I have succumbed to the objections and removed some information from the lead. I have reduced the detailed information in the lead section to broad outlines (preserving, for example, some information about recent controversies relating to the office). I hope you do not mind. -- Emsworth 19:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Palladian Window

Hi Doops, Do you think it would be a good idea, as a palladian window is just a feature of palldian architecture, if the window page became a section of Palladian Architecture with its own heading; if it came below the section of Woburn Abbey, the photo of which shows two palladian windows, I think it would sit quite well there, what do you think. Palladian window would then become a redirect page to palladian architecture. Giano 17:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Colonial Colleges

Harvard University was known as New College from 1636 until it was named after John Harvard in 1639. Reading the first few sentences of the Harvard University article would have told you that. However, there is ample evidence which I will provide at request substantiating this fact. If this was not fact, I would not have written it. Thank you for your incorrect and misguided edit on Colonial Colleges, which has since been reverted. —ExplorerCDT 12:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Images

Yo! I'm working on the Wikipedia:Untagged Images project. When you get a second, could you please label Image:PalladianWindow2.jpg with one of our Wikipedia:Image copyright tags? Thanks! jengod 21:07, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

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 2000 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:

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:

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

hijacking

Well, I certainly agree that what happened at Colonial Colleges and List of colonial colleges was very bad form. "Copy-and-Paste" jobs which violate the spirit of the GDFL by obscuring the history of who-wrote-what are unnecessary and often seem very rude to those who did the writing in the first place...and as I recall you put a good deal of effort into that one. Since my involvement in the original was pretty minor, and since I was uninvolved in any of the recent moves/copies/etc., I feel I can act to rectify the situation a bit by merging the article histories. There will still be the problem of which name it should be under, and of what precisely should be in it, but at least the original authors (mostly you) will be able to be discerned. (I note in passing that User:ExplorerCDT says he "gave birth to" the article "Colonial Colleges" (On 14 Nov 2004) when essentially the same material existed in the "List of Colonial Colleges" article since 27 June 2004. - Nunh-huh 23:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've now done this, though you'll have to edit the combined article at "Colonial Colleges" if you want to restore/delete/reword/or improve any of its content. - Nunh-huh 00:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

List of post-nominal letters

Hi! I was just wondering why it's better to link MBE to List of post-nominal letters rather than Order of the British Empire in Ellen MacArthur. I find it distracting when an abbreviation links to a long list, because the reader then has to search a long list to find what they were looking for, but it may be just me! Is this a matter of general style? Given that the Order of the British Empire article starts with a list of the Orders of the British Empire anyway, is the change really an improvement? John Mark Williams (t) 11:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply (currently on my talk page – I dont know whether Im better off replying to it there or here!) and explaining your reasoning. Im not sure what ultimately the best thing to do with post-nominal letters would be. I think that links in general should follow the “principal of least surprise” – if someone clicks on a link and thinks, “What am I doing here? What did I click on? Ah – wait a minute – I know! So, now I've got to…” that’s a bad thing. ☺ Linking to Post-nominal letters (rather than List of…) might be better because the reader actually clicked on a post-nominal letter (or maybe a set of post-nominal letters), not on a list of post-nominal letters (and “List of…” will obviously be linked to from the “main” article). As for not linking to the same article more than once, I was worried about the same thing, because I wanted to link “knighthoods” to Knight, but Dame is already linked and that redirects to Knight (however, this might not be obvious, and anyway there might one day be an article specifically on dames). I left a comment in the source in the hope that someone wont undo my new link, but well see.

You may like to know that your <small> tags around MBE have vanished during a series of edits I wasnt involved in where “Dame” kept getting prepended to Ellens name and removed again; I dont know if you want them back there again! John Mark Williams (t) 10:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Harvard University Organization

Hi Doops,

I figured you'd see a post here faster than those at the Harvard talk page. I think that the article needs to be significantly reorganized. Currently the "Institution" section is an odd jumble that talks about college rankings, the mascot, and has only brief links to schools other than the College, which overwhelmingly dominates. I think that a lot of the info currently at the Harvard University page should be migrated to Harvard College, where even more info can be added. Then more information about the other schools should be added to the University page. We should discuss at the Harvard talk page.

--Jacobolus 14:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

citing sources

I left a comment for you and Jmable on the Talk: Bovo-Bukh page, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Church of England

Thanks - useful improvement on Church of England! Good work. --Daedelus 16:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini

That's Wikipedia standard for the names of Cardinals. Rick K 05:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Um, well, I don't know if it's a formalized standard. :) Rick K 05:56, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Nyr14

Could you please take a look at National Rifle Association? The same user as at Washington, D.C. is also attempting to insert his POV there. I'd appreciate if you could revert to my more neutral version of the "criticisms" section. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 18:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Speculation on 2005 Conclave

I agree strongly that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia unless converted to past tense.As for Jtdirl (FearEireann)...his statements of how ridiculous it was to consider Ratzinger anything but a non-starter deserve to haunt him to the end of his days!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Doops"