User talk:Thomas.Hedden

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


Hello, Thomas.Hedden, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kpjas (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Medical Advice[edit]

they're not supposed to. think about it, the legal can of worms that that represents. looking for a project? if you know of other articles offering medical advice? CHANGE THEM! there is another wiki site called wiki howto, or something like that. if you're really determined to post your techniques for tick removal, try there. however, i suspect that their policy on medical advice is much the same. the issue of advice on tick removal has been debated in the past and this represents the decision. :)Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

the difference that you may not be appreciating: yes, many articles contain descriptions of treatment you may receive, but not how to treat i said earlier, if you know of advice in wikipedia for home treatment, go delete it. Toyokuni3 (talk)`


Hi Thomas, I appreciate your translation work very much. You might have seen that the Otto Schrader redirection stuff in de:wp is done. May I propose you another translation? In the German promoted article ahoi I referred to a lot of English and U.S. sources. If you delete or reduce the chapters on all the other languages, the remains - which base on very careful research - could still be interesting for en:wp. What do you think? Aalfons (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC) sorry I don't get the syntax right here. If I put this section to the bottom it will be integrated into the following section, no idea why. have a look on this page's history page. --Aalfons (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Walter de Haas[edit]

I was just looking at Walter de Haas, which you translated from the German wikipedia on 21-22 February, and my eye was caught by a couple of red links. The easy one to fix was the Die Rheinpfalz am Sonntag citation, which doesn't exist in the English wikipedia, so I had to link to the German version using the syntax [[:de:Die Rheinpfalz am Sonntag]]. So far, so good, but when I started to do the same thing for Franckh‘schen Verlagshandlung things got complicated. The bottom line is that I eventually found a stub article on Kosmos here on the english wikipedia. I've done my poor best (with the help of babelfish) to edit the Kosmos stub and the Walter de Haas article so that the latter can link to the former. Would you care to take a look and see whether you can improve anything? The original German article is de:Franckh-Kosmos and the English stub is Kosmos (publisher). Thanks!

Oh, by the way, when you have translated an article it helps to put the relevant cross-language links onto the original and translated pages. The syntax omits the leading colon (e.g. de:Hanns Günther and en:Walter de Haas) which tells the wiki software to list the other language link in the left-hand-margin "languages" box (rather than insert a link in the body of the page, as happens with the leading colon).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointillist (talkcontribs) 16:05, 20 March 2009

The Faraway Lurs[edit]

Firstly, this article is a stub because it is completely unreferenced - the one external link is an unviewable Google books page - and has barely developed past an overly long plot summary.

Secondly, it is low importance because I feel that the "subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of children's literature". This does not mean that it fails to meet the notability criteria, but rather that it lacks any recognition in the form of awards, adaptations, further study etc. It may be that the subject is actually more important than it appears, but the article does not give any indication of this.

To be rated as "mid importance" (the next category) requires that the "subject is notable or significant within the field of children's literature (or to a historian), but not necessarily outside it." Many articles which are nevertheless an important part of the project are only assigned low importance. Recently, the importance criteria for the project have been applied more strictly, and it is my default position to assign low importance unless a clear reason otherwise is shown in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strdst grl (talkcontribs) 18:12, 3 June 2010

Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor inspired by Schiller?[edit]

Hello Thomas, you wrote about the thesis that Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor was inspired by Schiller's Don Carlos ( I would love to know more about that. Could you please be so kind to name the sources your statement relies on? That would be very nice of you. Thank you ever so much,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Scholbach (talkcontribs) 12:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Johnathan,
I think that you misunderstood my comment. The Wikipedia article contains a statement to the effect that Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor was inspired by Schiller's Don Carlos. I am not the author of that statement. I never looked into that claim. I was merely pointing out that the story goes back much farther than Schiller.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.Hedden (talkcontribs) 14:38, 17 September 2013

Voynich Manuscript[edit]

First, removing your edit for policy reasons is obviously not WP:VANDALISM. Please read our definition of vandalism and also WP:AGF. Secondly, I agree without sources meeting WP:RS her views don't belong. See WP:UNDUE. If you can find such sources, we might be able to use them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 21:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you immediately deleted my contribution, rather than simply adding a "reference needed" note, and the fact that you use the phrases "... Please read => our <= definition ..." and "... => we <= might be able ..." says it all about you. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to make use of [1] and/or [2] feel free. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)