User talk:Autodidactyl: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:17, 24 June 2008

Bowerchalke

User:80.229.29.19

		The Original Barnstar
		Excellent work on Bowerchalke SuzanneKn 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really flattered to be asked to look at this geology work. I am though really a geographer rather than a geologist but I have written a few pieces on geology in wikipedia. At first glance, I do query the glacial erosion point. Salisbury is too far south to have experienced glacial erosion; however it would have experience fluvio-glacial erosion. The article also mentions sub-glacial erosion. I'm not sure what this means - does it mean solifluction where the defrosted top layers flow off the permananently frozen underlayers? Overall I think the work is excellent, hence the barnstar. I will return though to have a further look and think later but I've got to give my son the laptop now! SuzanneKn 21:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about your 60my question. In the meantime I gave your page an info box. Hope you like it. Plse remember to sign your messages with the four tildes. SuzanneKn 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klasies River Caves

Hi Autodidactyl,

I'm impressed by the article about the Klasies River Caves, which you wrote. However, it claims that the caves are a "a designated Unesco World Heritage Site", even though they aren't on this list, so I've removed the claim for now. Please re-add it, if you are certain the claim is true and have sources to back it up.

Happy editing,

--Carabinieri 13:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've found the source you were probably referring to. But that only says that the South African government submitted the site to be added to the World Heritage list. I've changed the text accordingly. I've also added inline citations and added {{fact}} tags to information I was not able to find in the Guide to Klasies River. I'm assuming you got this information from the book by Ronald Singer and John Wymer. Could add inline citations referencing these claims as I did?

--Carabinieri 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on that article. It looks really good now IMHO. By the way, I've nominated it at DYK, so it may be featured on the main page within the next few days.--Carabinieri 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Stark

Hi Autodidactyl,

That article would be suitable for DYK, but it wasn't created or expanded from a stub within the last five days, so it's not eligible. The DYK criteria are here, in case you want to know more about what is and isn't suitable for that section of the main page.--Carabinieri 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klasies River Caves on DYK for 7 March 2007

On 7 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Klasies River Caves , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! — ERcheck (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klasies on Main page

Doesn't the main page need to be updated to fix the error? Shouldn't it be Omo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abelani (talk • contribs) 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Place de la Bastille

I was delighted with your flattery; it's nice to know that my work is appreciated. I was also very pleased to find out what a lovely page Place de la Bastille is. It was easily remedied - if you click on the date of the entry you want to look at, this entry will appear. Then you edit that page, saving it and putting in a suitable note. The page did look dire at the beginning, so it was quite a revelation to see how good it had been. Anyway, pleased to help. SuzanneKn 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS You may want to just put a little note on your user page, then when people see your edits, they will know that you are not a newbie. At the moment, your user name comes up in red. When I look at the recent changes, it's the red ones I home in on as often they're the dodgy ones. SuzanneKn 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you've worked out I am a teacher. This is worrying. But worse still it'd be great if you did give me a proper barnstar. I haven't received a real one yet. Which county are you? I'll move onto there next. SuzanneKn 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look before applying Fossil site tag

In the past several days you've applied the ' * List of fossil sites (with link directory) " category to (at least) two archaeological sites that are definitely not fossil sites (La Venta and Calico Early Man Site). Please be careful, Madman 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal to award Barnstars for nonsense-adding edits?

See User talk:SuzanneKn and Surrey, check the edit history, then check the facts about the proposed Slyfield incinerator that was NEVER BUILT. 86.16.117.32 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your comments on my talk page:

"So in my case you jumped to a completely wrong conclusion and immediately started hurling insults."

Hurling Insults? Where? Kindly point me to any insults I hurled at anyone. I've certainly made a forthright expression of annoyance, which I consider to be justified. A simple mistake reading the edit diff would be a perfectly innocuous by itself, but she clearly indicated that her decision to revert was based on a previous negative comment on my talk page. If she wants to use that as a standard, what goes around comes around. 86.16.117.32 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GREAT WORK!

Thanks for your great work on the Prime Minister's spouses! I think it was the only list when I complied it, I didn't know about Walpoles two wives, as these people are rarely found in their biographies, which annoys me :) Gareth E Kegg 09:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your clarifiying edit on Larrys Creek on October 19. I appreciate your help keeping the article presentable while it was Today's Featured Article very much, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gutenberg

Glad to see someone new interpreted in this. I'm not sure how prominent to make the caveat. Do you know of any later work discussing their theory? DGG (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 27 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Folke Heybroek, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: The Pinnacles Desert

I have no idea about the Pinnacles Desert but I will do some research and improve the article. It's 160 km from where I am, and I was holidaying for the past week surprisingly close to them. I didn't go to see them, but I think I'll go have a look if I can find time to take a day off or on a weekend. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Folke Heybroek - Oyster-catcher.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Folke Heybroek - Oyster-catcher.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bowerchalke Inlier v11.jpg

Hi there, I like the image, which is credited as your own work, but I have a worry about the content. The base-map looks like a tracing of the 2nd Series Landranger map (ie not earlier than 1983) at full scale. Is this allowed? Also is the geology based on your own survey (original research) or from a BGS map (copyright unless very old?). I think more detail is required on the image details. Pterre (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For info I've raised this on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as I'd like to do similar on other geology-related articles but am not confident about the copyright. Pterre (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your reply. I'm not trying to cause trouble here - I'd like to see more of this and contribute myself, if allowed by copyright. I'm pretty sure the image details ought to credit the sources used - was hoping someone on the Copyright questions page would provide an authoritative opinion. Streetmap is based on the OS 1:50,000 map with permission (and no doubt a massive licence fee), so whether it comes from Streetmap or directly from OS it is still covered by Crown Copyright. How much redrawing of an OS map is needed before it ceases to be copyright? In this case the basemap is at full scale. The first 1:50,000 sheet of this area with metric contours (Landranger 2nd Ed) was 1983, still well within copyright; there are older 1:25,000 and 1:63,630 sheets with 25ft or 50ft contours now out of copyright. Although the geology in your map is not a straight copy of the current BGS maps its source is not credited on the image description. It presumably either comes from a map (which ought to be credited even if out of copyright?) or from local knowledge which sadly in Wikipedia counts as Original Research. Pterre (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your query about image software; I'd recommend Inkscape, which can produce the highly desirable SVGs; GIMP is also a handy alternative to Photoshop. Verisimilus T 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Parker disambiguation

Thanks for correcting the link on this page. It was previously a simple redirect to Jane Porter (formerly Jane Parker), of Tarzan. However, Jane Boleyn, viscountess Rochford, is as often referred to by her maiden name, Jane Parker, as by her married name, Jane Boleyn. Therefore, I was confused when I looked her up and thought it would be clearer, especially as there is a lot of interest in Jane Parker Boleyn at the moment. I hope this makes it clear why I felt the change was helpful. Boleyn (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hinchcliffe and sourcing

Hi, good work on the hinchcliffe article, but many of the sources seem to be blogs and forums, which rarely qualify under our guidelines on reliable sourcing, which worries me slightly. David Underdown (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazette where he was placed on the unemployed list RAF lists him only as DFC, so he cetainly wasn't give the AFC in 1918. It is just posible he was given it some time post-war if he still officially held his RAF commission - I've not managed to find a record of him actually leavign the RAF. David Underdown (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the gazette containing his DFC does not credit him with any previous decorations (and the book says he got the AFC first) (and nor is he one of the AFCs named in that Gazette), and I've already mentioned the later one. Now I have seen errors made (and corrections published later) in the Gazette, but for them to make the same mistake twice stretches credibility. The London Gazette is the definitive source where British decorations are recorded, so I feel we should go with that. David Underdown (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like I can lay hands on that easily, thought I migth have found a lead in The National Archives research guides, but that came to nothing. David Underdown (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6/1 DYK

On 1 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Elsie Mackay, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 03:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Lacau

On 23 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pierre Lacau, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self agrandising spam

It was. I was wrong. Sorry and thanks!

Philip

@@ Line 135: / Line 135: @@
 }}{{#if:|, and '''''[[{{{6}}}]]'''''}}, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know? talk page]].
 |} <!-- [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]] --> --[[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
+== Self agrandising spam ==
+It was.  I was wrong.  Sorry and thanks!
+Philip