User talk:Alandavidson

Welcome!

Hello, Alan, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. Check out the Simplified Ruleset. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — if you have any questions, or just want to say hello, feel free to contact me on my Talk Page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• Always use wikiquette
• Write from a neutral point of view
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• Always use edit summaries when editing pages.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
• Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing!

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

How are you on copyright law? Disputes over photo copyright issues drive eveyone at Wikipedia to distraction. Adam 14:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Map of Australia

I added the map, didn't make it. Please contact the author of the map. Electionworld Talk? 17:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Response

It seemed somewhat...un-neutral, to put it frankly. Take it away as you please, though.

australia map

Hi Alan! Ive updated the australia history map based on your comments at Talk:History of Australia.. I responded at that page. Also you may like to note some of these at Territorial evolution of Australia if you havent seen that already. Regards, --Astrokey44 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted.

The ongoing NSW debate

Hi Alan,

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this but... The space we have for history on the New Zealand page is very, very limited. A lot of very important people and things are either not mentioned (Muldoon, the Maori renaissance, NZ running Western Samoa etc etc) or get very little space (the entire overseas military history of NZ, including both World Wars, gets one sentence). NZ technically being part of NSW for a few decades had no practical impact whatsoever, and so I really can't see why it is important enough to be included in what, as I have said, is very very limited space. Perhaps a compromise could be to have the information in a footnote? --Helenalex 06:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

United States

Your statement about penal colonies has been removed twice, both times for the same reason: It fails to note whether it, as it appears from context, is limited to the Dutch and Swedish colonies, or whether Spain, France, and Britain all did the same. Please clarify and source before readding it. Nothing intrinsically wrong with stating it in the article, as long as it can be cleared up and backed up. MrZaius^talk 14:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The article about the United States is most likely too long already. I am concerned that we should be brief. I thought that stating that this applied until the American Revolution implied it was the British. In the context of settlement, 150 acceptance of convicts is most significant. If you think it needs expanding, please help by expnading. What do you think? Alan Davidson 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, my key point was that the statement was overly vague in the sense who's doing what. Adding the word "British" to the sentence and moving it to a connected place would be an adequate fix, if the practice was limited to Britain. If not/if it requires a more nuanced approach, just deal with it in the linked main article. Also, if by "150 acceptance" you mean that just 150 criminals were sent to American penal colonies, it certainly doesn't warrant note in the parent article. Could you please clarify your statements and add a source if you add it back to the article, or consider adding it to European colonization of the Americas? MrZaius^talk 15:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

August 28 Lunar Eclipse

Hey Alan, I was just looking at your contributions for the article concerning this eclipse, and thought I should thank you. I didn't necessarily view all of your edits, as they were exclusively temporal, but I noted in the history that you were accurately maintaining the 'tense' of the article as the eclipse progressed. There may not be a specific medal for it, but I applaud and commend you for contributions that may have seemed trivial, but which contribute to the coherency of Wikipedia. So thankyou - ^You've been _{taught by} FluckED 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

'At least' 110

Dear Mr. Davidson, with all due respect, saying 'at least 110' and '110' are NOT the same.

Suppose I said that Ichiro Suzuki had 'at least 200 hits each season for the last seven seasons'. Or that I said "Ichiro Suzuki had 200 hits each season for the last seven seasons". Which is more correct? Given that Ichiro did not magical stop at the '200' milestone, but continued onward, saying "at least 200" is appropriate. Saying '200 hits', while often seen in journalism, is both 'lazy' and 'incorrect.' "262" and "200" are not the same number. "200" and "204" are not the same number. "262" and "204" are not the same number. Use of the "at least 110" or perhaps "110 or older" is appropriate. Saying "110" is not.Ryoung122 02:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The word 'currently' is as opposed to 'all-time'.Ryoung122 06:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the words "currently" and "at least"; they served no purpose.Alan Davidson

Please don't make 'future news'

Regarding your edit to Gertrude Baines:

On October 8, 2007, she will break into the top 100. 

That is a 'prediction' and in violation of Wiki rules. The correct terminology is 'if'. That is not being disrepectful...it is simply stating the facts.Ryoung122 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your comments:

Disrespect To talk about contingencies of the death these senior people is disrespecful (Gertrude Baines). I would be upset if I were her or a relative. The sentence should be removed, but as there are a few days to go I will leave it alone. But please respect the sensitivities of these people in the future. Alan Davidson 02:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is actually disrespectful of myself as well as all who report the news in 'real time', not 'future time'. In reality, the sentence shouldn't have been written in the first place (because it is 'future news' which is a violation of 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball') and neither did I write it anyway. BUT if it is written, to write it AS IF the person's continued survival is assured actually, in my view, disrespects the person...because it assumes a 'glass is half-empty' approach instead of 'glass is half-full'. Rather than giving one credit for surviving the day, we simply assume that, after 112 years, they still haven't lived long enough.

Guinness' position has long been to use fl. or 'fluorit' which means 'still living as of that day.'

The bottom line: your comment is NULL and VOID because you are introducing POV opinion into what should be a simple factual argument. To say that "if Gertrude Baines is still living on Oct 8, 2007, she would break into the top 100" is an if-then, logical, factual statement, no different than weather forecasting. It does not imply the person will die; it does not imply the person will survive. It implies that "if condition A is met, then B will be the result."

So, for you to write as if I erred, when in fact I was correct, is fallacious, disrespectful, and arrogant and I will not pay attention to such comments.

Have a nice day. Ryoung122 11:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - I did not say you erred. The statement was correct. All I said was that it was disrespectful - a point which you did not counter or even address. I also note that a majority (albeit statistically insignificant) agrees with me.Alan Davidson 12:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Clinton Davisson

Thanks for the edit on this article. Any chance of a citation to the moon crater fact? I suppose that would need to go in the Davisson (crater) article. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easchiff (talk • contribs) 02:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done Alan Davidson 09:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Steve didn't pull the barb out"

Of what reason did you remove that full statement? « FMF » 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your question - I am unsure who to respond to. This was apparently 8 or 9 months ago. I cannot recall. Usually I reverse something for vandalism or lack of a citation. If that is not the case, it should be reinstated. Alan Davidson 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fanny Adler Greenberg

I do wonder why we have an article on Myrtle Jones but not on Fanny Adler Greenberg, who may have been the oldest living Jewish person and was recognized as NY state's oldest person at 112?Ryoung122 23:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Alan Davidson 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Victoria Marina Cecilie of Prussia

Please give a reason. It's not a vote, it is a discussion. Charles 02:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It can include my brief view as is, but I have included some reasons for you. Alan Davidson 03:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercentenarian trackers

Despite the fact that such a category provides a positive rationale for organizing similar articles, it seems that others have nothing better to do with their time than to tear down material that is 'useful to persons on Wikipedia.'

Comments welcome here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_1#Category:Supercentenarian_trackers

Ryoung122 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)