User talk:Eraserhead1

File:1-over-x-plus-x.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1-over-x-plus-x.png, 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. JaGa^talk 05:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is reasonable - go ahead and delete it. Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes for Underground lines

I see that you have been editing LU line articles, specifically the boxes headed "London Underground's Newest Line". You might like to know of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Succession boxes for Underground lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that :). Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary deletion of new sections

EIC : Early Aspirations of Sovereignty ?

Hi eraserhead1 - Attempted to add a new section on Early Aspirations of Sovereignty in India of East India Company, under the Foothold in India Section. The entire section was summarily reversed by Fowler&Fowler - flimsy subjective grounds were given : Did the East India Company and some of its earliest Governor Generals have early aspirations of sovereignty in India ? Lets say in late 17th century ? Josia Child has been one of the earlier Governor Generals and he fought a war with Emperor Aurangzeb. He has explicitly noted his motivations for war with the Mughal emperor. Notes : Despatch Book June 9, 1686, vol 91 pp 142, 145 cited in K. N Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1600-1760 Cambridge University Press, p 454 I have given serious references, but the reference has been referred to as quote ("polemical" and "flimsy paperback" by an "anthropologist") by Fowler&fowler. In my humble opinion, this is simply ridiculous patrolling of history. Imperial Historiography, a superimposition of a distorted version of Imperial history by self assigned experts Oskanpur (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've answered your question on the East India Company talk page. Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of External links

I have nominated External links (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :). Eraserhead1 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Forced Prostitution

I removed the "sex trade" category from the Forced Prostitution article because the Forced Prostitution article is already in the category of "prostitution", which in turn is a subcategory of "sex trade". Therefore, the sex trade category is redundant, as the prostitution category already covers it. Asarelah (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page for the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I got your message. I have made several changes to the Voluntary vs involuntary prostitution section from Forced prostitution. Basically, what I've done is tried to offer a clear and detailed view on the debate about whether prostitution should or should not be considered "voluntary". I've started by explaining the three classical "worldviews", abolitionism, regulation and prohibitionism (there's also a new classification of prohibitionism, abolitionism, neo-abolitionism, regulation and decriminalization, but I've used the "classical" classification). Then I went on with explaining the abolitionist point of view (that prostitution is always coerced and exploitative) and explained that such views have led to the laws from Sweden, Norway and Iceland. Then, below, I presented the pro-legalization/pro-sex workers' rights perspective (that prostitution is a free choice which should be respected) and explained that such views have led to full legalization in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand. I think that right now the article is much more balaced, and both "sides" are similar in size. So, if there are any problems, we can discuss them, before removing the tag. Skydeepblue (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. I've posted what you wrote above on the article's talk page. I'll respond in more detail there later. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Railway Station

Hi, thanks for the message, I've been trying to clear up the article. There are definately too many photos on the page, to the point where it is splitting up the text making the page look messy and making it harder to read. I added the photo of Curzon Street station because of its historic importance as the oldest station in the world, but deleted a couple that had no historic importance or particular interest to the article. What are your thoughts? Villafanuk 16:33, 27 Jan 2010.

Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Reversion

Hi there, you recently undid an edit I did to the article iPad, if you had read more carefully, you would have noted that by so doing, you restored vandalism I had reverted, namely the removal of the phrase "iTampon" from the article. I don't want to gain a reputation for vandalism when I have done no such thing. Thank you.Windward1 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, I misread the history. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

other things called iPad

Hi, i disagree with your recent reversion. The ipad article is not a disambiguation page, we should not be listing unrelated, non-notable products on it.--Terrillja _talk 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, can we discuss this on the iPad talk page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Table

Read and feel free to comment on the project page linked to in the edit summary.Cptnono (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary didn't link to the right piece on that talk page ;). I've now removed the ranking from the Institute for Peace but I've left the others in place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Thanks for chiming in. There still might be a way to present it but there were to many red flags that I thought removing it would be good until sorted out.

I've discussed it on the Countries talk page.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've signed your thing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

iPad - CNN/Wired Rewrite

Thanks Eraserhead1 for the rewrite of the CNN/Wired paragraph in the iPad reception section. I thought the parenthesis might not be correct, but wasn't certain of the right way to do it. It reads much better now. :) ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

iPad Edit

I made the edit the IP wanted, then removed his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewquinn (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewquinn (talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Memory Geometry article review / help appeal

Hello. I've created an article to try to unify several stub articles on the subject of Memory Geometry. I think it's a good companion to the DRAM page that describes the inner workings of RAM and how RAM appears to software after BIOS configuration.

I want to bring this article to the attention of the wikipedia computing project because the responses I've gotten from the editor that handled the initial review have, I feel, not been specific enough for me to correct the article, and I do think that adding the article will be a big improvement of the current hodge-podge of stubs, which I think are a disservice to the important topic.

Thanks TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the problem is that I know literally nothing about this topic, so I'm not really able to help you very much. At a glance the article looks good, except that it has no inline citations. So I think at the very least you should add those. Maybe then just stick it out in article space and see what happens, I'm happy to watch it and see if I can help further. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of App Store applications (Science)

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of App Store applications (Science), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of App Store applications (Science). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving TGV

Sorry, I promise not to do it again.--DailyWikiHelp (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

iPhone image change

No problem. It's just that we want to be as open about this as possible. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting Sentences with "And"

In your summary for your most recent edit to the ipad entry you wrote, "you don't stand sentences with and." Assuming you meant "start" not "stand"... starting sentences with "And" is actually a widely accepted practice. I don't know if it is or is not acceptable per wikipedia's style guidelines. I looked, but could not find an answer either way.

According to "Guide to Grammar and Style" by Jack Lynch:

But at the Beginning.

Contrary to what your high school English teacher told you, there's no reason not to begin a sentence with but or and; in fact, these words often make a sentence more forceful and graceful. They are almost always better than beginning with however or additionally. Beginning with but or and does make your writing less formal; — but worse things could happen to most writing than becoming less formal.

Note, though, that if you open with but or and, you usually don't need a comma: not "But, we did it anyway"; it's enough to say "But we did it anyway." The only time you need a comma after a sentence-opening conjunction is when you want to sneak a clause right between the conjunction and the rest of the sentence: "But, as you know, we did it anyway."

See source here (scroll to bottom):

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/b.html

-- ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

iPad revert

(Undid revision 346871948 by Acps110 (talk) you've just reverted my edits not the IP's :p.)

Opps! ;-) You weren't there when I started that edit. Sorry. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviews on product articles

How come links to single websites (like engadget.com) are allowed, but not to websites that gathers reviews from a bunch of websites?