User talk:ProfDEH

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

Welcome!

Hello, ProfDEH, 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:Where to ask a question or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Buffalo Bill talk to me 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - bot edits are deleted to keep this area clear.

Bicycle messenger[edit]

The image you should either replace the other pic of a fixed wheel, or be added to wiki media commons. Buffalo Bill talk to me 08:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I note your comment about my fixed wheel image but don't agree about the duplication. The earlier image shows a fairly sensible machine and doesn't show the whole bike. An interesting aspect of the fixed wheel scene is the way riders build their own bikes. Some like a battered machine, purely functional, but there is another aesthetic involving expensive and/or colourful components. Both in contrast to 'normal' bikes that are exactly as they came from the shop. I hope write a bit about this on the article when I get time - unless anyone has ideas about an alternative location? ProfDEH (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the two images are not a duplication, but the article is about bicycle messengers not fixed wheels. Therefore there is no need for two images. I note your comments about the fixie scene, but again, the article is not about fixies, it is about messengers. There is no evidence that a majority of messengers ride fixies.Buffalo Bill talk to me 09:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You obviously know more than I do about this subject, so delete it if you like - the bike is too distinctive to represent fixed wheel bikes generally. For now I'm moving it to the bit about fashion at the end.
Sorry for meddling, but moving it to commons would be the most beneficial thing to do. That way the reader can still find the image if he's looking for more illustrations on the topic. There's no need for all the pictures to be present in the article itself, if there's a link to commons. Key (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That's OK, I'm interested to know what people think. The messenger article needs some major sorting out, somehow it misses some of the most interesting aspects (from the point of view of readers who are not involved in this scene). The picture is there as a reminder that, without messengers, it's doubtful if that whole alternative cycling thing would exist. The difficulty is to convey that on a factual basis. ProfDEH (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the picture you added, definitely better than what was there before. I still think there are way too many - and will probably cull some of the others. Buffalo Bill talk to me 20:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and yes, way too many pictures, but only because they are so random. I'll search through my collection and see what looks relevant. What about Moving Target - some good images there, are they copyright? ProfDEH (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pascal's triangle[edit]

Hello, you had previously commented in this discussion, so I wanted to let you know that a new version of the image has been uploaded for comment. Thanks for you time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I didn't see that you'd already commented. My apologies. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Welsh Rarebit/Rabbit[edit]

You got me going on a new article for this. I've got a draft started on my user page and would welcome feedback. OwenSaunders (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put in any modern recipes because the major changes to the dish took place in the 19th century and once we get into the 20th we have copywrite issues with the recipes. OwenSaunders (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Once I started looking at policies, I started to think what I've written is actually original research. So still pondering it. OwenSaunders (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

I really don't think so. Clearly you've done a lot of research but that's collecting existing published material. I think compilation is the right description - see Original research - which is the basis for most articles. ProfDEH (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that a) the newspapers I cite fall more under primary sources than secondary (oddly the policies don't explicitly refer to newspapers) b)moreover, the way I use those source may be, to some extend, advancing a position through how I synthesis the materials. I haven't had time to look further into to this, thus the article is in limbo.OwenSaunders (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Orson S Fowler[edit]

I'm creating a redirect for Orson S Fowler which is how his Octagon House book is attributed. ProfDEH (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token b24f147fb63c245ca0e4aa9f9ad2702b[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

List of octagon houses[edit]

Yay! the DYK finally went through, and the DYK hook, with no picture though, is on the Wikipedia main page right now. Tho it is the middle of the night in the U.S. The DYK administrator saw fit to directly award the DYK plaque to Lvklock, not to Clariosophic or to me, oh well. But, indirectly then, passing the award on...

Updated DYK query On 22 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of octagon houses, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The hook that appears now is, Did You Know:

Thanks, ProfDEH, for your support, both the several edits you made directly to the article, adding a house or two, and for your developing and coordinating the Octagon house article in parallel, which was crucial. It was fun working in a pack, and getting the list out, at least (meaning it was less fun about negotiating for the DYK) ! doncram (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I though maybe I was the only person interested in these houses so it's good to see this level of activity. Congratulations on the DYK even if you didn't get named - and I wonder why not, you did a lot of hard work on that list. ProfDEH (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please somewhat extra info with a photo[edit]

I have seen your on Commons your photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boardwalk-777.JPG Could you please give in the description also where the photo has been taken (Country, area/city)? Further there is no link to a category. That makes it very difficult for others to find the photo. Could you please add a category? Info about categorization is available on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Category Thanks, Wouterhagens (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put it in Category: Nature reserves in the United Kingdom. Not very much in there though. The problem with categories is they are open to many different interpretations, even if there is a clearly defined category structure. So good luck...

ProfDEH (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Architectural drawing[edit]

Thanks for your comment. I would appreciate if you could explain some more, why you think the format of the article is confusing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the classification structure of the article lacks clarity, plus there are completely irrelevant bits about design values etc. The CAD part is misleading and possibly wrong. I might have a go at editing this article myself if I can find the time, it is not easy to describe what I can see is wrong here. Maybe you will want to help with refs and images if I get this started? ProfDEH (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I copied your comment to the Talk:Architectural drawing#Cleanup and will respond overthere. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation[edit]

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking to invite me. Good idea, hope it goes well. I don't think I will have time to be involved though - too many scattered interests. Let me know if you need help getting images of places in the UK, especially in London. ProfDEH (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mathematical Bridge[edit]

Thanks. I got the disambiguation and saw two possible meanings and got the wrong one. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Architectural drawing[edit]

I definitly don't agree that you have initiated syntax mistakes in the article, like you did tonight. As I described on the talkpage there is a completely acceptable alternative here, which I have used all the time. I hope you understand my point of view here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Initiated syntax mistakes? Do you mean corrected? ProfDEH (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

gallery widths[edit]

Hi. I did a site search for perrow="6" and found your user page. Can I just alert you to the fact that a value of 6 will extend a gallery beyond the width of a standard 1024x768 monitor? For the user to see the image, the page will need to be scrolled sideways. I think users will find this annoying. A value of '5' will give a wider gallery with standard image sizes, without causing this problem. Thanks. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline of drawing[edit]

I spotted your question in the edit history of Outline of drawing.

The drawing is not too cliche.

With respect to images for the outlines, the important things are to keep them representative while avoiding simply repeating the images from the main article on the subject. Showing different images broadens the exposure of the reader, and helps keep things interesting.

You've done that, and that's great.

Keep up the good work.

The Transhumanist 19:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Outlines[edit]

We need lots of help at WP:WPOOK on the outlines listed at WP:OOK.

Most of them lack picutures.

The outlines with the best image support include:

There are over 500 outlines without pictures.

We definitely need all the help we can get.

The Transhumanist 19:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons link[edit]

Thanks for catching that stupid mistake. Meant to do the correct category but had too many windows open along with copy pastes. D'oh. Good choice for the image, also.Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Icons of American culture[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Icons of American culture, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icons of American culture. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Grutness...wha? 10:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Stunt-bicycle-Paris.JPG[edit]

File:Stunt-bicycle-Paris.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Stunt-bicycle-Paris.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Stunt-bicycle-Paris.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Architecture of Denmark - capitalisation[edit]

I see that you capitalised the Danish firm schmidt hammer lassen. The problem here is that the firm itself - like several others in the field - users lower case in its own official title. While I fully agree that normal English usage prefers capitalisation of proper nouns, titles of firms, etc., I wonder whether it is required here. If so, there are several other firms cited in the article which would need to be capitalised too. Any thoughts on this? Any Wikipedia guidelines? Ipigott (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Non Free Images in you User Space[edit]

Information.svg Hey there ProfDEH, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:ProfDEH/Cycling. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilderness hut merge[edit]

Hi, thanks for voting in the merge discussion, I have made a request there which you might like to comment on regarding which article should receive information about countries not currently covered (e.g. Australia, Canada, Norway, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, etc). Thanks, --Ozhiker (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Index of architecture articles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canmore (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) 11:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Classic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical (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) 10:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Red-bike-66.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Red-bike-66.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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Cologne-cyclists-611.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cologne-cyclists-611.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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cyclist-189[edit]

Hello I would like to use this image in a TV documentary series. Would like to get permission from the artist to do so. Thank you 203.59.39.106 (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Can you be a little more specific? In principle it's free for you to use. The conditions of the licence indicate attribution in some form, not clear how in the case of video. ProfDEH (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Outline of architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Style (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) 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Outline of architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hemisphere (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) 11:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture[edit]

Hi ProfDEH, I saw you placed a couple of messages to Portal talk:Architecture, a page dedicated to discussing the content of the Portal only. I suggest you could move them to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, which seems better fit in scope, and is watched by much more editors. --ELEKHHT 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Pending pendent pendant[edit]

Please explain why you removed the category "Architecture" from pendent as "irrelevant"? It is commonly used (or faik misused) in the field of architecture, appears in dictionaries of architecture, and is mentioned in the text of the article; readers might well wish to refer to such a word in that category. I intend replacing it. If you wish to object, please do so on the talk page. JonRichfield (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Architecture[edit]

Please note that the presence of the {{architecture-stub}} template does not mean that an article should be removed from Category:Architecture. Stub categories are for maintenance, not for user browsing, and all articles must be in at least one real content category in addition to any stub templates that may be present. It may be appropriate in some cases to replace Category:Architecture with a different subcategory, if a more appropriately specific one is available, but the "architecture stubs" category cannot be an article's only category — so even if the stub template is there, you do still have to leave an article in Category:Architecture if there isn't another appropriate category to move it to. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Noted ProfDEH (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Phallic architecture[edit]

Hi. I looked at your initial edits and got the impression that you were making some strange edits removing a lot of the history. Looking again I agree with your changes to the lead, trimming it. However, I disagree with the removal of the gallery and the tombstone image does qualify as architecture and I think it's a superior image. I show a strong disaste to editors who turn up and make extensive changes without discussing their issues on the talk page first and I also feel the same about editors who gatecrash long closed GA reviews and scoff at their passing. I find it most disrespectful, little irritates me more on wikipedia than putting a lot of effort into an article and somebody coming along telling you it is a shambles and shouldn't have passed GA. The article easily passes GA and even some of our best editors have complimented me on it and said so. Please don't revert again. I've updated with the intro you shortened and have come around to removing the gallery to reduce the clutter. But the constructive way forward would be to discuss on the talk page, leave the closed GA review alone.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Blofield, point taken about barging in. I have to admit I thought I was adding to the discussion, only noticed afterwards the GA date was last September. I'll add some comments in a separate section on the talk page. ProfDEH (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I know it is the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and whenever we approach an article we take it at face value and don't really look to see who edited it and just edit. Look forward to discussing the article with you on the talk page (in a new section), sorry I mistook you initially as a vandal, you seem to have experience editing architecture articles.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Use "Bicycle-courier-337.JPG" in a book[edit]

Hej ProfDEH!

We would like to publish your photo: ProfDEH. URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Bicycle-courier-337.JPG in a book. The picture will appear in size 3x4cm. Is it possible to use it? What should we write as source?

Thanks for a quick answer to "mario@optimore.com"

Best wishes from Sweden /Mario — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.174.139.234 (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no problem using the image. It would be nice to hear what the book is. Attribute to Wikipedia and ProfDEH please. ProfDEH (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Architectural drawing 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:
  • up by a licenced professional: architect, engineer, landscape architect or land surveyor.<ref>[http://ottawa.ca/en/homeowners-guide-small-projects-1/how-detailed-should-your-plans-be City of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Octagon houses[edit]

Hi,
Would you mind bringing up the subject of Octagon Houses to this thread? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Door, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lock (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) 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Evolution Door animation / door article[edit]

Hi ProfDEH,

I think the idea of the door is above self promotion, as the the worldwide recognition, also from experts, shows. This you cannot deny. Also new inventions should be allowed to be shown on Wiki, in this case it's about an object and not about the creator. You take the visitor's possibility to achieve complete knowledge about the topic "door". The notability of this door system is more important than the fact that there is a person who did this work. best--Theodorakis2013 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Driehaus Architecture Prize nomination for "In the News"[edit]

Hi! I nominated today's Driehaus Architecture Prize laureate Pier Carlo Bontempi to be featured on the start page of Wikipedia at "In the News". It'd be great for the whole discipline if you could support this nomination.

Please go there: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Driehaus Prize and add Support or Strong Support. Thank you! All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It'd be also very helpful if you could also support this request (click!), so the Driehaus Prize would be considered to be included at "In the News" every year. Thank you, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)