User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Immaculate Conception[edit]

I did an all-nighter last night, and I felt like doing a little something before going to sleep around the time that I normally would have been getting up. It was easy to spot the grammatical error, but when you're sleepy you often don't notice the factual errors, especially since if she were conceived without original sin she was born without it; of course they're not the same thing, but at least they're somewhat related. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much, Nyttend. I appreciate your efforts. -- (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas and extend this peace dove to you! Though we may have had past disagreements over formatting and style, I think we can both agree that our end goal is to make WP better. We should discuss any future issues on either your talk page or mine. I'll always assume good faith on your part, and I hope you'll do the same for me. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind Christmas wishes, Bloom. Happy Holidays and Season's Greetings to you as well. I'm not interested in edit-warring; I'll point out the errors of your ways to you on the relevant article talk pages. -- (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Anna Leonowens[edit]

In reply to your question on my talk page: as I understand it, her husband's name was originally Thomas Leon Owens, which he then elided into Leonowens. I assume it's still pronounced as though it were two words. -DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 04:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, DrG. You may be amused to read our expert speculations about it today (the 14th) at the Reference Desk; see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#How_to_pronounce_Leonowens. -- (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


As I keep on saying around here, nothing is ever funny or unfunny in an absolute sense. It's completely subjective, and even the same person will have different responses to the same joke depending on their current moods and preoccupations. The joke hasn't changed from funny to unfunny or vice-versa, but the person's internal state and responses have changed. That's just one person. Introduce multiple people and you're on even shakier ground in describing a joke as "funny" or not. Jack O

Agree that "nothing is ever funny or unfunny in an absolute sense". Disagree that "It's completely subjective". -- (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I half-thank you for half-agreeing with me. But how could it not be subjective? People's senses of humour are as unique as everything else about them. Jack O
I agree that there's a large component of subjectivity to it but don't think it's 100%. Human beings seem to be born with the ability to laugh (do you know anyone with no sense of humor?). Humor arises from recognizing an incongruity (like seeing someone slip on a banana peel) and there are lots of incongruities around. Many, many people find the same things funny. -- (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You're talking generalities, I'm talking specifics. Pick a joke at random, and ask the question: Is it funny? There's no possible correct answer to that. One person's experience of it is not true for all people. And as I said above, one person's experience of it on one occasion may be markedly different from the same person's experience of the same joke on another occasion. Has the joke changed? No. Jack O
There can be an inclination to laugh. A brooding frame of mind may predispose one to forego laughter although that person likely understands the funniness component of what they just heard. On the other hand a predisposition to uproarious laughter requires little more than a quiet elevator containing strangers on an interminable vertical journey in a high rise. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
A joke involving dwarves might get lots of laughs at a party. Funny? Sure. Tell the same joke to an audience of small people and you'll be told you're being crass and insensitive, and the joke was decidedly "not funny". Has the joke changed? No. So, were the people at the party mistaken when they reacted with hilarity? No, not at all. It's not about whether it's funny or not; that's a complete distraction. It's about how the audience receives it, and that is governed by an infinitude of factors. I'm sure Bob Hope or Jerry Seinfeld never spent a second worrying about whether one of their jokes was funny or not. All they cared about was "Did they laugh?". You might say that means the same thing as "The joke was funny". It does not. Jack O
DRAFT: Universal vs Absolute. A joke is either funny or it isn't. It's funny if someone laughs at it. If it's funny, it's absolutely funny. A funny joke is like the color green: the color green does not "go away" if a person becomes color-blind or blind. It's still green, absolutely green. A joke involving dwarves is funny because people at a party laughed at it. It is absolutely funny. It doesn't become "unfunny" because "little people" can't see the humor in it. Just because a joke is funny doesn't mean you're going to get the joke. You may not understand something in the joke which prevents you from "getting it", whether it's something cultural or vocabulary related or something else. Your life experience may not have equipped you with the "background" required to appreciate the joke. But that doesn't mean the joke is not funny. You may have even decided, consciously or unconsciously, that there are certain things you will not find funny: you may be a "liberal" who has decided that any attempt at humor by a "conservative" couldn't possibly be funny; you may be a member of a group that is the "target" of the joke's humor and your anger at being a target prevents you from seeing the humor. A joke is either funny or it isn't: it's the same joke whether you're sad or happy. With a funny joke, its funniness can range from barely a smile to laugh out loud funny. This is largely where the subjective aspect of humor comes in—not whether a joke is funny or not, but HOW funny it is. Tell me a joke at random and I will tell you whether it's funny or not. Just because only some people laugh at a joke does not mean it's not funny. Some may confuse "universally funny" with "absolutely funny". A joke that is universally funny may be rare given that each person has a sense of humor that is probably unique. But that's not an argument that refutes the statement that a funny joke is absolutely funny. Bob Hope and Jerry Seinfeld were always wondering if a joke was funny or not, and they got their answer when the audience either laughed or didn't. If the audience laughed, they learned that the joke was funny, absolutely funny. But they also knew from experience that audiences, like individuals, don't always laugh at funny jokes. -- (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Should Mass be capitalized? and, Who was the first Protestant king of England?[edit]

In the item about Edward VI, Mass needs to be capitalized as it is a proper noun. --HGK745 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. It is traditionally capitalised in the context of Catholic writing, but that is a measure of respect and importance: it is not a proper noun. This is dealt with by WP:DOCTCAPS: Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree with HGK745: it is a proper noun as are the names of all seven sacraments, and, WP:DOCTCAPS clearly does not apply as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is neither a "doctrinal topic" nor a "canonical religious idea". Please capitalize Mass. -- (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:DOCTCAPS is clearly intended to apply to terms of religious devotion like 'mass'. It is not a proper noun, and nitpicking over the exact wording of the policy does not change its intent. Modest Genius talk 11:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The names of the seven sacraments are proper nouns and should all be capitalized. Intent? Spare me your crystal balls! -- (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
That's not what WP:CRYSTAL is about. Do you have a reliable source for your claim that the names of sacraments are proper nouns? (Note: not the names of rites, which are titles - the names of the sacraments themselves.) AlexTiefling (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
On further review, I need to apologize for my errors on this topic: the Mass is not a sacrament, the Eucharist is a sacrament received at Mass. One reliable source I have for capitalization: [1]. -- (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
That says 'often capitalised'. But we have a style guide which says it shouldn't be. Our style trumps Webster's. Modest Genius talk 22:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Have another look at definition #1, Genius, and a closer look at definition #3. If our style guide says that somewhere, I sure wish someone would show me where! You haven't yet. -- (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Mass is not a religious idea? Must be news to all of the Catholics that celebrate it. --Jayron32 02:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Mass is an idea? That would indeed be news to Catholics who celebrate it. It's a ritual, a sacrifice, a sacrament, a liturgy, a mystery, a eucharist, a commemoration, a "re-enactment", a ceremony, a celebration, a meal, an obligation, etc., etc. But an idea? Believe me, that's way down the list, because it's primarily an ACTION (not at idea). -- (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of how you want to parse the terms, it will not be capitalized because leaving it uncapitalized is Wikipedia policy. --Jayron32 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
What policy are you citing here, Jayron, as the Mass is not an "idea"? (By the way, are you feeling OK?) -- (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Never been better. The point is, Wikipedia doesn't capitalize words of this nature; mass is not a proper noun under normal rules of English grammar, and is only treated as such in the context of certain specific religious traditions. Because of that, the above cited Wikipedia policy applies. If you're going to nitpick over the word "idea", then there's not anything to discuss with you further on this topic, per WP:LAWYER. --Jayron32 07:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
(If this is your best, you're in a world of trouble!) Why didn't you just say at first that you're citing WP:BECAUSEISAIDSO? I understand. -- (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It isn't "because I said so". It's because the Wikipedia policy cited above states "Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia." If your going to be obtuse about it, I really don't know what else to say on this matter. You've been told specifically why mass isn't capitalized, and if you want it to be capitalized, the correct venue is to do so by changing the policy. Unless and until the policy is changed, there's not much else to do. --Jayron32 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
As the Mass is neither a "topic" nor an "idea", the policy you cite does not support you. Merriam-Webster and I, and others, will continue to disagree with you. -- (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said before, the Wikipedia style guide doesn't change because you parse words to mean what you don't want them to mean. --Jayron32 23:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You're the one claiming the Mass is an "idea", Jayron, so it fits the policy you cite. Not many would agree that the Mass is an idea, because it's an ACTION, i.e., a liturgy. -- (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it seem a little odd if someone wrote "The pope celebrated mass.", rather than "The pope celebrated Mass." Isn't it simply a matter of tradition? How about "The pope went to see the mass (of people)", or "The pope went to see the Mass."? Whatever you decide Wikipedia is not going to change the world. Wikipedia will adapt itself to the world about it; the world will not adapt itself to Wikipedia. Jodosma (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Different issue: didn't Henry VIII become the first Protestant ruler of England when he broke with Rome? -- (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. The relationship between Protestantism and Anglicanism has long been a controversial topic. --Jayron32 02:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Do encyclopedias state "maybe's" as categorical facts, Jayron? Aren't we supposed to be an encyclopedia? -- (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an encyclopedia. I'm just some dude. What Wikipedia has to say on the matter is at Anglicanism#Definition, to wit: "Anglicanism, in its structures, theology and forms of worship, is commonly understood as a distinct Christian tradition representing a middle ground between what are perceived to be the extremes of the claims of 16th century Roman Catholicism and the Lutheran and Reformed varieties of Protestantism of that era. As such, it is often referred to as being a via media (or "middle way") between these traditions." Later, under Anglicanism#Doctrine: " The question often arises as to whether the Anglican Communion should be identified as a Protestant or Catholic church, or perhaps as a distinct branch of Christianity altogether." In other words, "maybe". --Jayron32 04:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, to expand a bit on why Edward and not Henry (his father) is considered the first Protestant ruler of England: Henry, doctrinally, was essentially Catholic. He didn't change how worship occurred in Church, nor did he institute any broad theological changes to the doctrine of the Church in England, rather he kept the doctrine unchanged except removing the authority of the Pope in England. Edward, on the other hand, (and his Regency council, especially) attempted actual protestant reform of the Church, instituting distinctly Lutheran and Calvinist doctrine into the official state Church and banning Catholic practices. Mary, his sister, reversed course and tried to re-establish staunch Catholicism. By the time Elizabeth came to the throne, most of England was fed up with the extremism of the two positions, which led to the current "Middle way" between Catholicism and Protestantism that Anglicanism holds today. Many (not all, but enough) Anglicans object to being classified as Protestant, which they see as a distinct tradition from their own. The matter is confused as constitutionally, there are several places in English law where the Church of England is expressly referred to as "protestant" (i.e. Succession to the Crown Act 1707 and later restatements thereof, which IIRC use the word "Protestant"). It's a complex situation. --Jayron32 04:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the info, Jayron. The point I was trying to make is that on a topic with large grey areas, an encyclopedia should avoid making categorical assertions about "who" was the first "what" during such a contentious period of history. -- (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The word "vandalism"[edit]

If you're going to use the word "vandalism" in your edit summaries, you should understand what it means on Wikipedia. There's some helpful guidance in, of all places, the Wikipedia policy page on vandalism. Specifically, please review the difference between vandalism and a simple difference of opinion. It's rude and inapproporiate to accuse people of "vandalism" simply for the crime of disagreeing with you about how to best represent sources in our articles. MastCell Talk 03:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I over-reacted to your unjustified removal of my improvements to the article, even improvements that have nothing to do with the temporary legal status of Pedro Victor Garcia. If the article is going to contain a mini-BLP of PVGarcia, that mini-BLP will not focus only on his temporary "illegal" status. On a related subject, don't you think it's just a little creepy for the AP to be using FOIA requests to uncover this kind of stuff? What do you suppose is motivating them? Are they writing a book? -- (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


Broom icon.svg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Temple of Eshmun. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism and make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Eli+ 19:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, I immediately noticed that you have a longstanding editing history, around here our IPs are dynamic and one can risk being blocked from editing if the IP is blacklisted. I am happy you enjoyed the articles and no, your edits did not give me heartburn :P. I am simply weary of unregistered users who wreck havoc here and there and I'm glad you are not one of them. I wish to know more about your reasons for editing from an IP if you don't mind. have a great Tuesday ! -Eli+ 05:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I stopped using my named account because I wanted people to think I had quit in disgust. Of course, no one noticed, lol. I'm more a gnome around here than anything else, fixing details that other editors apparently don't have time for. Because of my political opinions, my named account (it's not blocked) is probably on several editors' watchlists, and, if I edit as an IP it's less likely that they'll follow me around. I should have quit completely long ago, but, Wikipedia is addicting and fun and not a complete waste of time, assuming that we are adding in some way to documenting the sum of human knowledge (and not just spreading the liberal bias of the NYT). Happy editing! -- (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Give yourself a name[edit]

Register with Wikipedia and you will find life on it much more interesting. Give yourself a name and get a watchlist, a sandbox or two (as many as you like really) to experiment with, work out how to do things, cut and paste stuff from wherever you like into your sandbox to manipulate as you please, but most of all, get to know more about the whole project. You can select your own preferences and you may even become an admin! Jodosma (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're not careful, I'll give you a name and it won't be one you'll like. Hello, Jodosma. Thanks for the advice. I do have a named account, I just don't use it. Happy editing! PS: Easy on the paranoia toward IP editors—don't judge a book by its cover. -- (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Aurora Quezon assassination[edit]

1949: The assassination of Aurora Quezon.

Those killed with her were not "bystanders", i.e. chance spectators, they were members of her party, travelling with her to dedicate a hospital. Suggest "others" instead. Also, can we take out that unnecessary comma before the "and"? -- (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
See Oxford comma and WP:ENGVAR for the second comment. The use of a comma before the "and" in lists of three or more items is mandated by certain standard varieties of English, and discouraged in others. Where different standard varieties of English differ on standard usage, we don't interconvert between them without a very good reason. --Jayron32 19:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I can live with the "extra" comma; no big deal. How about the incorrect use of "bystanders"? -- (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption, Mata-Utu has been reverted.
Your edit here to Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption, Mata-Utu was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed ( is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

BracketBot gives me a good swift kick, May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Catholic scientists may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

New article[edit]

You should get a real account so you can get credit for writing articles. Let me know if you need help with it. Interesting guy. Don't know if it will survive the new article patrol. You might add an info box and maybe a picture if you can find one.

Also, I don't recommend posting articles on your talk page with the reflist. It captures all posts that come after it. If you register an account you can use a sandbox. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for figuring that out; that was weird, wasn't it? I do have a real account—I prefer to edit anonymously now. Why would it not survive the new article patrol? Good suggestion about the infobox, even if the info is all repetitive. Thanks again. -- (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Your article was reviewed by User: Gilderien and passed. Well done, you. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
On further review, I don't think the problem with your invisible new article section here was due completely to the reason you ascribe, that is, putting reflists on a talk page. I found one refname where I left out the final slash (something I do often), the last one named "Purdue". That omission, combined with reflist, appears to me to have had the undesired effects we saw. As you can see, after I fixed refname "Purdue", all the refs on this page display accurately. The last three are from the Berlin article. And, your new article section displays correctly. Live and learn. Thanks for your help. -- (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Good to know. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Donovan Berlin[edit]

See Changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The work that you, Bzuk, and Malke 2010 have done there is simply OUTSTANDING! Congratulations and thanks to you both. I hardly recognized it after your improvements. Good job! -- (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. You did a good job getting it started. This was fun. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I had a chuckle at one of your latest edit comments: "em dashes are your friend, parentheses are usually just distracting clutter." That flies in the face of general editing standards for social sciences as em dashes are considered "breathless" and "gushy". As an editor in trade journals, I regularly banish them to the trash bin. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you had been reading too many romance novels at the time you came to this decision, Bzuk. FYI, the New Fowler's MEU 3rd edition (1996) and the Chicago Manual of Style 14th edition (1993) seem to have no problem with using em dashes to set off information within the sentence that is explanatory or parenthetical—no mention of "breathless" or "gushy". Of course, in many cases, commas work just as well if not better. Perhaps your hobby should be different from what you do for a living. And I will go update my resume to indicate that I am now a "social scientist" as I am an editor at Wikipedia. -- (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree there is a place for em dashes, just not in an encyclopedia or a factual tract. If you do write about history as in the Don R. Berlin biography, you are, indeed, working in the social sciences; don't know about being a scientist, however. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just curious: why the anon status? You seem perfectly suited to take on a more visible persona in this WickyWackyworld, have you considered "coming out"? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I do have a named account—I just don't use it any more—too many political enemies liberals. Better to be a mostly invisible gnome. -- (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that, but do keep in touch, I appreciate your contributions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Bzuk. I appreciate your contributions here as well. You do good work. -- (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've left this message with Malke 2010 (talk): "Check out the Donovan Berlin article now- it perhaps should be relisted as Don R. Berlin was the more commonly used name. Nonetheless, the article now fully covers an interesting individual's life work. FWiW, lots of refs did show up, and I haven't even hit the local air museum library yet." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you and Bzuk do great work. The article is amazing now. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
To, for outstanding work in creating and improving the Don R. Berlin article. Well done. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
New and improved version! Malke 2010 (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Malke 2010, that's very nice of you. You deserve recognition too—your help was instrumental in getting it off the ground. Thanks! -- (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome anytime. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Easter Berlin, first name of[edit]

Hi, Jeb. How do you know Don R. Berlin's mother's name was Easter and not Edna, if you don't mind my asking? All your previous edits look good, so I won't revert you. (The info probably needs a source we can cite.) -- (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC) (copied from jeb hhoh's talk)

She is my grandmother, born on Easter Sunday of 1875 (?). Long wanted to see an article on Don, but a daunting task. Well done all. Jeb hhoh (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Physician's Oath (1948 Declaration of Geneva)[edit]

At the time of being admitted as a Member of the medical profession, I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity:

I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity—the health and life of my patient will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets which are confided in me;
I will maintain, by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession—my colleagues will be my brothers;
I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party politics or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception;
I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity, even under threat;
I make these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.

This, imho, is what it's supposed to look like (except for the bolding and italics, which I added). Every declaration of the oath begins with "I will . . ." or "I make . . .", not with anything else. The only thing I can figure is that there must have been a severe shortage of emdashes in Geneva after the war. (lol). My starting point was here. -- (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

For taking the time to improve Intrepid RM-1. Small things matter. Thanks!

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My posse is G.W.A and it stands for Gnomes wit' Attitude. I'm glad you didn't find my changes too traumatic. You've done a ton of good work in making that article! I hope you won't mind if I do some more standardizing of the references. Thanks for your thanks! -- (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. You might have seen in the history I was playing with 80 different ways to try and make that pull-quote work and never settled on one that I really liked... your second opinion that it didn't really work at all is probably correct. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what a pull-quote is, but I think you mean the quote from the driver who said he threw up when he saw his lower legs after the crash. You see pull-quotes in magazine articles and newspaper articles but I don't think you see them in Encyclopedia Britannica, for example. Wikipedia allows quotes, of course, but in my experience they're much longer than what you had and they don't repeat what's in the text elsewhere. -- (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Don R. Berlin[edit]

See talk about man in the photo. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much[edit]

Thank you for your wonderful copy-editing. It's great to see that you're working at the post office. I would love to visit it one day. Anyhow, I nominated it for FA but there were way too many problems and the reviewers suggested I withdraw. Would you like to work on it together to make it an FA? Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I work at that post office, because I don't. I meant that I use that PO sometimes because it's closest to where I live. Let's not aim too high at first. The first step is Good Article. I'll help, but I make no guarantees. -- (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay thank you in advance. Let's make this a GA. He deserves it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Awards and decorations[edit]

Juskalian's awards and decorations include:

Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze star
Bronze star
Bronze star
A blue ribbon with a gold outline.
Bronze oak leaf cluster
Bronze star
Bronze star
Bronze star
A blue ribbon with a gold outline.
Bronze star
Combat Infantryman Badge with star
Silver Star Medal
with oak leaf cluster
Legion of Merit
Bronze Star Medal
with oak leaf clusters
Air Medal Army Commendation Medal
Prisoner of War Medal American Defense Service Medal American Campaign Medal European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal
with campaign stars
World War II Victory Medal National Defense Service Medal
with oak leaf cluster
Korean Service Medal
with campaign stars
Armed Forces Reserve Medal
United Nations Korea Medal Vietnam Service Medal
with campaign star
Vietnam Campaign Medal Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation
Parachutist Badge
Two questions. 1) Is it normal for the ribbons to be positioned that way? I mean empty in the top left part? 2) Shouldn't the infobox have small ribbon logos as before? Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Proudb. 1) We're going to need help from someone who has done a few of these before. I'm having trouble centering the second row (three ribbons), so, for the time being it approximates how it looks on his jacket, where the lapel forces the lopsided shape. I expect it to change when we figure out how to do it. 2) The featured articles I looked at did not have small ribbon logos in the infobox. My model was John F. Bolt. Other articles I looked at (not FA) were Elliott C. Cutler, Jr., David Hackworth, George W. Dunaway and Hal Moore. -- (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Other FA's to use as models are: Kenneth Walker, Kenneth R. Shadrick, George Andrew Davis, Jr., Leslie Groves, Thomas J. Hudner, Jr., Douglas MacArthur, Thomas C. Kinkaid, Fred Moosally, Edwin Taylor Pollock and Arthur W. Radford. -- (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright IP. That's fine with me. The number of awards is an odd number so we need to find a FA to get an idea. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, P. I've copied this to the article talk page in case anyone else wants to contribute. I think I have a solution to the ribbons arrangement problem: I think I'll just award him one more medal so he has an even number! <grin> -- (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Haha! Make sure it's the Medal of Honor! Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the misunderstanding there. What should we do with the active duty part? Maybe just leave it? Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You have nothing to apologize for, Proudb. The way I put it, you couldn't help but think I was joking. But, I hadn't read our article on the KWSM yet when I wrote that, so I didn't know for certain if the Colonel was eligible for the medal. A lot of Active duty becomes the first paragraph of Military service, doesn't it? -- (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
PS: all this discussion about changes to the article should be happening on the GJ talk page! -- (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello IP. I propose we have a review for GA and get a third-party opinion of the renditions to the article and in order to help facilitate the process of review and copy-editing. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Let's both of us indicate on the talk page that we're ready for the first GA review to commence. -- (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Say said you lived in the area. Would you might taking a picture of the post office and uploading it to Wilimedia/Wikipedia? Whenever you have the time... Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Are IP's allowed such an honor? If so, I'll take a shot at it tomorrow (I've never uploaded anything to Wikimedia, so now is a good time to learn how!) -- (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Great! and yes...IP's are equal before the law in Wikipedia. The only thing they can't do is...have a watchlist I believe? Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Supersonic flight in a P-47[edit]

As an offshoot of the Herbert O. Fisher article, see claims made in the Harold E. Comstock article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for your comment on the ww2awards website. I didn't realise that so many silver stars had been awarded. And I am still shaking my head over the fact that the US Army doesn't keep a record of who got one! I suppose if I wanted to I could say that I got one as well, and no-one could prove me wrong. Absolutely astounding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baska436 (talkcontribs) 07:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Baska. The Army should have been compiling the awards data. I would think that awards would be recorded in every service-member's record and that the citation that went with the award would also be recorded somewhere else. If there were 30 million people who served in the Armed Forces to date, then we have a "shovel ready" project for thousands of clerks compiling awards data from existing paper records. I also was surprised to learn that so many Silver Stars were awarded, 100,- to 130,000. Still, that's less than one-half of one percent, or, one man out of 250. PS: Don't forget to sign your posts. I just click on the "writing blue pen" icon next to the Bold and Italics icons. You can also set up automatic signing if you go to Preferences. -- (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


I noticed a reply on Blofeld's page. If I'm not wrong you abused me calling a ***. What do you mean by saying so?—Prashant 04:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. I did not call you a dog. I just asked you to stop acting like some poor animal that's been beaten into submission. If you don't understand that Blofeld is abusing you, then my advice won't mean anything to you. -- (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Blofeld is abusing me? When? Please, clear up things and some advice are welcome. Yes, I'm feeling like a poor animal who has been beaten and left bleeding. Even, my hard work on the article has been ignored and everybody is worried about Blofels's contribution. I'm feeling the same, even more than anything caiuld feel. —Prashant 06:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

IP, anybody who knows what he did with the FAC knows that he needed an apology, which he's now done but it doesn't change the fact that he destroyed the FAC and my trust in him. I've shown more patience and treated Prashant better than anybody on here, and he and others who are familiar with Bollywood articles know this. Your meddlesome comment, given that you had nothing to do with the FAC or this strikes me as a grudge comment. I can't think of any other reason why you'd step into such a situation with a stance against me motivated by anything other than a personal grievance against me. I see you seem to have a keen interest in Catholic affairs and have edited my religious-related articles, I'd guess that the only reason you've commented against me is that you're miffed with my Prostitution in Vatican City article which you probably find extremely offensive and an attack on the church and as a result you perceive me to be abusive and inhumane. this would seem to indicate you consider it problematic. If you really are offended by that or any of the work I've done related to the church I apologize and am sorry that you feel that way, but I've not edited anything which isn't suitable for wikipedia. And I'd be happy to work on improving certain Catholic articles if you're interested. But if you have issues with me, please get them out into the open and air them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that you not abuse Prashant any further (all that emotion over a failed FAC?) and that you edit Catholic-related articles more carefully as you may have a "Catholic problem" (Prostitution in Vatican City is an example). -- (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Me a Catholic problem? Hardly, more likely that you're a devout Roman Catholic who takes offence to any content which infers that the Vatican is anything less than next to Godliness. How dare you indicate I have a "Catholic problem", I've produced lots of decent articles related to it, including Beninese cardinals and the works and the only controversial one was the Prostitution article which was the result of trying to think of the most paradoxical article I could think of; the content is legit, are you suggesting we censor wikipedia to protect the Vatican's name? Please keep your personal issues away from the project. As for Prashant, my response took place before the FAC failed and I've even received two barnstars for my patience with him and the FAC. So mind your own business, why not expand some local churches in Virginia instead?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm relieved to hear that your Prostitution article is the exception rather than the rule. The last time I looked, its sources don't document a single act of prostitution occurring in Vatican City. But the article title is Prostitution in Vatican City. Are you familiar with the expression "You can't get there from here"? It should be deleted. You say you set out to write a paradoxical article. Why? Because you wanted a good hook for a DYK? Nowhere near a good enough reason for an article whose contents don't support its title. It is possible that I am being overly sensitive about some of your edits. Time will tell. -- (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree, it should be Prostitution involving Vatican City. I've moved it to reflect the content. See User:Dr. Blofeld/DYK, I simply happened to be going through the V countries of our A-Z challenge in which we try to produce a wealth of varied interesting content and the first one I thought of for the Vatican was Prostitution, to produce the bizarre and attract viewers rather than "I have issues with the Catholic Church". As for issues against the church would I have written articles like Marcel Honorat Léon Agboton and 2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka if this was the case? Catholic Secular Forum could be expanded though. I'm genuinely a religious pluralist and respect most religions, especially Buddhism and Hinduism of which I have written many related articles. I was raised as a Christian, but I'm more of a "pseudo-Buddhist" in my outlook on a lot of things. I have far more issues with Islam than Christianity, especially towards women, yet I've edited numerous articles on mosques out of pure interest. Anybody who knows me well enough knows that I am very open-minded on most topics and would never bring personal issues to the table on wikipedia.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
(stalker comment) It's really surprising Mr. IP that you think that Blofeld is being abusive to Prashant. Blofeld has been nothing but kind and patient with all of Prashant's hissy fits in the past, and following his stupidity at the FAC, Blofeld and everyone involved with the FAC, have tried to tackle the problem with dignity. So there is no question of Blofeld abusing anyone, even if the episode is as moronic as the Chopra FAC. --smarojit (buzz me) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
@Blofeld: thank you for changing the article title—at least now it's more accurate. I appreciate this act of good faith on your part. (Now you're free to add every incident you can find going back to 1929—but not earlier because I'm holding you to the history of the Vatican City State [I really am LOL at the moment]). I'll look at the articles you've mentioned. Thanks.
@Smarojit: I don't know the history between B and P; I was reacting to one reply B made to P that appeared over the top to me. (Your comment is welcome, too; there are no "stalkers" on this talk page). -- (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Herbert O. Fisher[edit]

See new article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bzuk, that article is better than an apology! Great work! When I figure out how to do a barnstar, I'll give you one. Thanks. -- (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks muchly for the Wikiwings! but good things always have a way of coming back!!

Wikiwings 2.0 Wikiwings
Awarded to editor: For your role in the ongoing improvement of Don R. Berlin and Herbert O. Fisher articles. Onward and upward! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it, Bzuk[edit]

As much as I appreciate the kind thoughts behind it, Bzuk, I don't deserve anything like this. Thanks! -- (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
I was meaning to give you this for awhile, but I assured myself to give it after the GA was complete. Thank you for your teamwork and the pictures are wonderful. Here's a nice barnstar for you! I don't think it'll pass the notability lithmus test of military persons though! But don't worry, nothing ever does! Lol. I also appreciate your positive commentary over the whole notability issue with Lafian. That was such a fiasco. Cheers! Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this barnstar, Proudb. I don't feel like I deserve it, but I appreciate your awarding it to me. (I just hope that people who give me awards don't expect me to live up to them, lol!) On the issue of Lafian, my standards of notability are different than Wikipedia's—I would give every Silver Star winner his own article! Thanks again. -- (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (, is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Asiana Airlines Flight 214[edit]

If "probably" causes that much consternation (even though no one can be definitive about the future) we can omit it. However, the source material only uses "negligible" in reference to all airlines based in Asia. We cannot infer that the same will apply to Asiana in particular. Galaviz said that the effects on Asiana would be limited. I'll just quote one line from the reference: "But aviation experts said the damage to [Asiana's] business would probably be limited...." Dang, there's that word again. Regards -- Taroaldo 04:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we just crossed paths at each other's talk pages. Yes, a consensus has been reached! Taroaldo 04:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we did. You know, the more I think about it, we probably shouldn't be giving any article space to experts who can see the future. You said it: "no one can be definitive about the future". Don't we have a rule about crystal balls? -- (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your help at Bramshill House. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Why, thank you, Drmies! You really shouldn't have! -- (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Seconded, really appreciate your interest and help.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Blofeld. I'm enjoying myself, following you around! -- (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Foxley Hall[edit]

Thanks very much for the link. SCAS were formed in 1998- I've not been able to find out from a web search the original purpose of Foxley Hall, but its glacis-like shape and "moat" seem pretty defensive. Present tenants include a Missing Persons Bureau. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)



I'm glad you liked the image of the flag. I was sad to see it taken down, but I understand that other users feel differently about TFA images than I do.

Neelix (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It caught my eye because I like flags and had never seen it before. Thanks for putting it on the Main Page. -- (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

TPm Final Motion[edit]

Well said. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Malke. Like I said on Collect's talk page, "Round up the usual suspects" may be clever in a movie, but here it's just another nail in the wikiCoffin. Is there any data available as to the ages of sitting arbcom members? This pending decision seems so immature. All I can say to all of you innocently trapped in the net is, you have my sympathy. -- (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ramon Novarro may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Janis]] in ''The Pagan'' (1929), with [[Greta Garbo]] in ''[[Mata Hari (1931 film)|Mata Hari]]'' (1932, and opposite [[Myrna Loy]] in ''[[The Barbarian (1933 film)|The Barbarian]]'' (1933).
  • In the 1940s, he had several small roles in American films, including ''[[We Were Strangers]]'' (1949, directed by John Huston and starring [[Jennifer Jones]] and [[John Garfield]]. In 1958, he

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This notification is incorrect. The diff of my edit shows no disappearing brackets. I found the culprit, an IP editor using VisualEditor, and informed BracketBot on its talk page. -- (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
For the record: the unpaired brackets shown by the bot were unpaired before my edit and unpaired after my edit. My edit did not break any syntax; it only removed one superfluous right bracket. This triggered the bot, which reacts when the total of left brackets doesn't equal the total of right brackets! I fixed the missing right brackets anyway, so now lefts equal rights and the bot is again happy. -- (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


"A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent."

George Zimmerman's family physician[edit]

Hello, Cjmooney9. I found your edit summary on the Trayvon Martin page interesting. I haven't followed the case very closely. Who discredited the family physician's description of GZ's injuries after the incident? And, why wasn't the description allowed at the trial? Thanks. -- (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there- Lindzee Folgate was the family doctor. After the incident the GZ camp released a report from her saying the injuries were major - that he had a broken nose, and serious lacerations to the head.

However, when she was called as a witness during the trial by the prosecution, she admitted that the injuries were actually minor - the nose wasn't broken, the cuts were small and required no stitches, he was never asked to have an x-ray, and he didn't need to go to hospital. He actually received no treatment and was sent home.

She also revealed that he was suffering from pyschological problems, which forced him out of his job, and he was on medication for that.

So, as I said, the quote on the article is very misleading. As the person who said it basically retracted it, during the trial. In the case it was agreed that all injuries were minor, and he received no medical treatment. Cuts, scrapes and bruises basically

Cjmooney9 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CJ, for the info. Here's a transcript I found on CNN:

RIONDA: You mentioned that he said, Mr. Zimmerman told you that he had told you that the nose was either broken or possibly broken. Is that correct?

FOLGATE: That's what I was told, correct.

RIONDA: Based on your examination of his nose, can you say the nose was broken?

FOLGATE: I would say likely broken. It's hard to say definitively based of -- the fact that there were no x-rays to show the break itself. However most of the time a broken nose can be made clinically as well and that's based off of the black eyes that we saw, the nasolabial swelling, and the bruising.

RIONDA: So you can say, it is or isn't or you don't know or --

FOLGATE: I couldn't say definitively one way or the other because I have no direct x-ray saying this is exactly where the fractured occurred, but clinically appearing, it appeared to be, yes.

RIONDA: But it was still perfectly straight?

FOLGATE: It was still straight. There was no septal deviation.

RIONDA: I think you've got in terms of the plan decision making progress, is that what you move on to next?

FOLGATE: After the physical exam, yes, I would move to the plan and decision making process.

RIONDA: You talked about the scalp lacerations that there was no sutures need. In other words, he didn't need any sewing up at all, right?

FOLGATE: No stitches, correct.

RIONDA: And you stated in terms of broken nose that we discussed it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septal deviation, swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury.

FOLGATE: Correct.

RIONDA: Now, you're there. Did you then recommend something to him in terms of making a definitive determination of whether his nose was broken?

FOLGATE: My recommendation was that he see an ENT, which is an ears, nose and throat specialist.

RIONDA: What did he say regarding that?

FOLGATE: He told me at the time that he was not going to be seen by the ENT.

CJ, I have a different perspective than you do on the testimony of physician's assistant Folgate. I don't see any retractions here, or opinions, just facts. According to her testimony, a broken nose can be diagnosed clinically, meaning based on the observed symptoms, without an x-ray. She diagnosed a "likely broken nose" based on the symptoms she observed. Whether GZ's injuries were "major" or "minor" is too subjective to be of any value as those words are ill-defined. Perhaps the "discrediting" and "retractions" took place in another part of her testimony that I haven't found or read yet. Thanks again. -- (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)