User talk:Dickdock

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

Pappus harmonic theorem[edit]

At projective harmonic conjugates you have inserted the alternative "Pappus harmonic theorem" without reference. We would welcome this contribution with reference, since it would help clarify the history of some ideas in mathematics such as inversive geometry. The Pappus chain shows there may be reason for your assertion of the Pappus harmonic theorem as that topic also relates to inversive geometry, but without a reference this assertion is just that. Please supply a reference retract the assertion.Rgdboer (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of NY Rock[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on NY Rock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


Cootie Willaims and His Orchestra 1941-44[edit]

A tag has been placed on Cootie Willaims and His Orchestra 1941-44, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. auto / decltype (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Bud Powell 57 (album cover).jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bud Powell 57 (album cover).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frank Socolow (William P Gottlieb) 300x315.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frank Socolow (William P Gottlieb) 300x315.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robbie Best[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Robbie Best has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

John Kennedy Toole[edit]

Hi Dickdock. I just wanted to inquire about your recent revert of my minor edit to the John Kennedy Toole page, which was a bit puzzling. Yes, the Pulitzer is referenced later in the article. But as the primary proof (and proof in itself) of his notability, I thought it should be referenced in the first stanza. I'm surprised that you apparently disagree, and I think that precedents in other pages support my point. When I did some spot checks at [Category:Pulitzer_Prize_winners], I saw that the first three entries (all the "As" in the alphabetical list) mention the Pulitzer prize in the first or second sentence. Also, at least one of them specifically calls the subject "Pulitzer-prize winning", so I'm not sure how the construction is "Unusual". Any insight as to your thinking here? Celtechm (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Celtechm, yes you're right, they do mostly highlight the Pulitzer early on. I put back your edit in the second phrase, cos I do like the nice clean X was a [nationality] [whatever] format. Feel free to revert me! Cheers Dickdock (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for putting that in. I like your treatment better anyway, as it relates the award to the awarded-work. Celtechm (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure how to respond to your notes to me, so I'm responding here. If this isn't the appropriate place to do so, mea culpa. Re: Toole edits and Amis: I've read TWAC, if that matters, and can't be bothered to argue the "resemblant" issue any further. The word sticks out like a sore thumb, but you seem to have a special fondness for it, and more to the point a passion for this point of argument, so there it is, as Amis would say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdery (talkcontribs) 14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fred Johnston (writer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Monégasque and Michael Collins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously.[edit]

Stop PoV pushing just because YOU don't like the term and find it controversial. The term British Isles is *not* used for any purpose other than GEOGRAPHICAL purposes by almost everyone in the UK and elsewhere. This rather sad and deluded agenda the Irish and their plastic paddy Irish-American cousins like to push is nothing but Anglophobia to make the Brits seem like neo-imperialists. Got news for you buddy, we owe the Irish nothing and I have no guilt. Ta.--85.211.120.118 (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

British Isles...[edit]

... is the article title, and as long as it remains so there is no good reason to circumvent it other articles. If you have a problem with the term, it is at the British Isles page that you should be trying to change it, not at the unrelated Trinity College, Dublin article. You have also broken WP:3RR. You should re-revert, or I'll request administrator intervention. Thanks. Jon C. 08:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll ignore your first two statements as they appear to be things you've just made up. There are several good reasons not to use the term, the primary one being it's controversial, as mentioned on the page. It is also unnecessary, intrusive, divisive, outmoded and increasingly ambiguous. As for WP:3RR, I have no experience in edit-warring and zero expertise, but I'd guess we've both probably broken it or something similar. It was you who initiated the change on 7 March 2013. I am trying to restore the original, inserted on 17 January 2012. I'm not going to re-revert. Dickdock (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Made it up? If a name is good enough for the title of an article, it's damn well good enough for use in other articles. You have made four reverts in the last 24 hours. Really quite simple. Jon C. 10:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Trinity College, Dublin. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Michael Greiner 01:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For sorting out my lefts from rights on the Ghent altarpiece. When I give people directions it drives them nuts - I'm seriously dyslexic in that regards. Also thanks for sorting out the virgins & Dorothy is in the sources so a good addition there. I think MM is considered a martyr, but still reading about that section and it can be sorted later. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much Truthkeeper, glad to do a minuscule bit to help your (and ceoil's) amazing work on the article, the altarpiece certainly deserves to have an FA article and given your track record it will no doubt get there. The MM bit I sourced online at [1], but your sources are a lot more authorative and comprehensive so didn't want to dilute them with too many random ones. Anyway it was mildly amusing that she ended up for a while among the virgins, as here in Ireland at least she's kind of considered the patron saint of "fallen women" (hence the infamous Magdalene Laundries), but of course things could have been very different in 15th century Flanders (or 15th century Ireland for that matter). Now how do I get out of this paragraph...should I turn left, or right, or..... Dickdock (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Ha, just noticed The Magdalen Reading so of course you knew all that! Dickdock (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know about Magdalene Laundries - that's an interesting article. Thanks for the kind words - Ceoil has done most of the work there and I think it will be a slow build. It is coming along though. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Iggy Pop discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Praxis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bowie Re Hendrix[edit]

Bowie being introduced to Hendrix (as an unknown) is "random unintegrated datum"? I don't agree, but rather than tit for tat editorial changes, I'm open to hearing your detailed views on this. Thank you Matthew.hartington (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Bowie meeting Hendrix in 1967 could be interesting, but as given it was just plonked down as a bare fact with a primary ref in the middle of a passage on 1967 with no relation to what was around it and no development eg. how was Bowie affected? If it can be developed and woven into the the flow (preferably with secondary refs) then I think it would be a good addition. Dickdock (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's a very generous reply, and I do agree with the rather stark insertion, my one reservation at the time of addition. The source is from the current V & A exhibition, "David Bowie is", also confirmed in the recent Bowie publication "Any Day Now: The London Years". The text of the article (prior to my intrusion) flows really well - if you can develop the new fact into the existing narrative, then please do. I feel that you are living this article in much greater depth than I am at present. Thank you for your help and very kind reply. Matthew.hartington (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much, not sure I deserve it. It's in Cann's Any Day Now? That's interesting, I don't have that, and looking at various rave reviews of it it looks as if I should. Does it expand on the meeting at all? Anyway as soon as I get my mitts on one I'll ... ponder the situation! Cheers! Dickdock (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's mentioned in the book, and apparently, Bowie had a negative reaction towards Hendrix, writing a scathing review of his performance which was printed in the Record Mirror [The book contains many fly-on-the-wall day-to-day situations which can make it a ponderous (though thorough) read if you're not an obsessive Bowie fan]. There's also a report in a recent News of the World article which says that Bowie carried Hendrix's guitar into the afternoon rehearsal at the Saville Theatre(simply to gain admission). I'll see what else I can dig up on this and report back in case it can help your conclusions. Many thanks for taking this on board! Matthew.hartington (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I've looked further into this, and came up with a piece rather more fleshed-out. What do you think of this for inclusion? Obviously, if you can improve on it, or think of a good way to integrate it into the existing piece, I'd be most grateful:-

"On May 7 1967 at a Saville Theatre concert, Bowie was introduced to Jimi Hendrix backstage by his musician friend, Billy Ritchie. The meeting does not seem to have changed his mind about Hendrix’s performance, as he then wrote a negative review, calling Hendrix “the tentacle-headed flower show from Greenwich village”, describing his playing as “the emotion-filled E chord of Mr H”. The piece caused a stir, and was printed in Record Mirror, complete with photograph of the then-unknown future Superstar. Even at this early stage, it seemed that Bowie had a gift for obtaining publicity". Matthew.hartington (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I shouldn't really comment since I haven't got Cann's book yet but I'd definitely leave out the phrase "then-unknown future Superstar", and probably some of the other detail as well. I've tried previewing a few variations but they all look out of place in context. In fact the strokes are so broad in the article and so much stuff is left out on this period of Bowie's career (and other periods) that it's really hard to see how to integrate it without beefing up the section considerably, which would be a good thing to do but would require a fair amount of work. Dickdock (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for replying so promptly, very nice of you. Cann's take on it is pretty much covered by what I wrote here. The reason I mentioned the then-unknown part was the huge irony of the meeting, considering what lay ahead in the future, Hendrix being blissfully unaware that he was meeting a future Superstar. It does sound like you feel it's not ready for inclusion as yet, so I guess we'll both have to think further on it. If you can give me any clues as to how you see the "beefing up", I'd be grateful, though we're probably of like mind on the question of not cluttering the article with too much relative trivia. Many thanks Matthew.hartington (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to International versions of Wheel of Fortune 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:
  • D]]<br />[[Eko Tv]]<br />[[Super Kanal]]<br />[[TGRT]]<br />[[ATV (Turkey)|atv]]<br />[[Kanal 1 (Turkey|Kanal 1]]<br />[[FOX (Turkey)|FOX Turkiye]]<br />[[Star TV (Turkey)|Star TV]]<br />[[TNT (

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NY Rock[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on NY Rock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. STATic message me! 17:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Johan Cruyff[edit]

The quote is about the standing of Cruyff and his foundation from a head of state. Its not about anything about Peres himself regardless of how controversial he is deemed by some. I concurred with your edit in removing him from the lede (i had done so previously) as it belongs in the outside football subsection.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 12:54, 12 Septembet 12014 (UTC)

The quote belongs nowhere, it's just photo op waffle. What expertise does Peres have about the standing (or anything) of Cruyff? (And the quote is by Peres so of course it drags him and his controversy into it.) Dickdock (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The quote is solely about Cruyff and his work outside football from a head of state. To see anything beyond that is subjective. I actually didn't put it in though I did remove it from the lede which was reinstated by another user. Comments from notable figures/leaders appear throughout Wikipedia, should they be silenced if deemed a controversial figure by some?. I'd take any issue to Arbcom.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 17:48, 12 Septembet 12014 (UTC)
Please address my point. What expertise has Peres on Cruyff? Dickdock (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The quote is about Cruyff's work outside football with his foundation, clearly he knows about it and him. Can only say again, comments from notable figures appear throughout Wikipedia, if you think anyone deemed controversial by some should be silenced I'd take it to Arbcom. There's nothing really i can add.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 18:18, 12 Septembet 2014 (UTC
So he knows no more than any joe soap about Cruyff's work outside football? Then he is not quoteworthy in this context. Dickdock (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)