User talk:Doug Coldwell

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Notice:

If I left a message on your 'Talk Page', then please reply there. I am temporarly watching it. I will get back to you there.

If you asked me a question here, I will answer here. This way then both parts of the conversation are in the same place.

Orphaned non-free image File:DYK of flash-lamp 7-15-2009.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DYK of flash-lamp 7-15-2009.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for American Motor League

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed commercial link

Hi Doug,

I'm wondering why you removed the commercial link I put on as the current link to buy an Amsterdammertje ('Amsterdammertje kopen') doesn't work. Is the fact that my link links to a commercial site more important than for people to see where they could buy one if they would like to (even internationally). Besides that, as far as I can see GeoTypico is the only site that sells these bollards internationally. I understand Wikepedia shouldn't become an index of every seller of a certain product but GeoTypico is the only one selling these. So, information wise I think this is interesting for readers interested in getting an Amsterdammertje. Why otherwise is a link to where one could buy one placed in the first place?

Thanks for your response.

Regards, Bob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boblei2 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob,

I believe it is called "spam" - Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming. Spam in America is considered a very low quality food. Wikipedia is looking for only high quality material. I think the theory is that if one person is allowed a commercial link, then another must be allowed a commercial link or two. Then we get three or four and more - too much "spam" (too much low quality material). Commercial links of any amount or any kind are NOT allowed at all on Wikipedia.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Bob, you might also want to read WP:ADV and Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. Wikipedia is not a public directory, it is not a company profile, and we do not work for free just so commercial companies profit from our labor of maintaining your pages. Even non-profit companies must abide by Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and its non-promotional nature.

Promoting anything is prohibited, period. -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Plague doctor articles

Just thought I should drop by and say that while I've disagreed with a few of your edits to "Plague doctor" and "Beak doctor costume" recently, I can see that you're editing in good faith and are trying to improve Wikipedia, and I respect that. It's good to have constructive arguments about article content, but do let me know if you feel I'm being uncivil. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you have quite an interest in the plague doctor. My interest varies from time to time as you can see by my 200 Did You Knows. Lately it has been in antique automobiles and the biographies of the men that built them. I have good faith that you can improve the plague doctor articles better than I can. I think I'll go on to articles related to antique cars.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You probably already picked up on the fact I started the article on Charles de Lorme.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gottfried Schloemer

Hello! Your submission of Gottfried Schloemer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

-- Bit confused by your DYK nom. Surely the world's first gasoline automobile was created by Karl Benz four years earlier? Jheald (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a huge improvement on the readability of the lead. Fantastic!

On the key question of who supports his claim to priority in the U.S., it might be useful to quote in the refs what Britannica, Geist, McClure and May actually say on this; also to give the context for the Clymer quote -- what words came just before the "that"? Was he casting the Schloemer claim as cast-iron, or as something from the wild side?

But really well done on this, I hope you agree it's really going in a good direction. Jheald (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great improvement. I've made a few more tweaks to the lead -- hope that's okay. One other thing: looking at the sources added, some of them seem to give Frank Toepfer almost equal credit with Schloemer. Is it worth adding in a couple of sentences, to clarify what was his role in the endeavour? Jheald (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have in the article the wording There with Frank Toepfer he made the first gas-fueled automobile. If you feel more is needed, go ahead and add. Your wording is far superior to mine. I'll be gone most of today, so probably won't be editing until this evening.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I am in communication with the great grandson (and great granddauther) of Gottfried. They really like the article and confirm that as far as they know everything looks correct and they recall the information as they grew up. They live in Milwaukee and have often seen the car in the Milwaukee Public Museum. They remember seeing the car and have been given rides in it as kids.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for McArthur Mining Company

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gottfried Schloemer

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pinakes (tables listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pinakes (tables. Since you had some involvement with the Pinakes (tables redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Eeekster (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Pinakes

Dear Doug, thanks again for the help. I notice now that you originally created the page and also disagree with my move. Do you want to open a discussion of this on its talk page—as I probably should have done before taking action? The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Tell me your logic for your naming at the article Talk page.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cronaca fiorentina di Marchionne di Coppo Stefani

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me on the Did You Know.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Baldassarre Bonaiuti

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me on the Did You Know.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Mutiny at Sucro

Do you have access to the sources for this article? Why does it have a Causes section and a Reasons section? Aren't they two sides of the same coin? Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, have access to the sources. Which in particular? Only JSTOR I do not have access to as I don't have a subscription - have it in a PDF file.

Yes, have to agree with you that probably they are two sides of the same coin. My first idea on Causes was that I had listed the specific causes as a list. Another editor suggested it should be in prose instead, which is what I did. Causes would be specific reasons. Reasons would be how it came about (i.e. Scipio's illness, low morale, 35 ringleaders). If you like I can drop the header for Causes or do you have another idea.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My only idea is that you need to combine those two sections. You're trying to tell an engaging and encylopedic story, not write the definitive history of the Sucro rebellion: others have done that for you. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Combined the Reason and Causes sections. Shortened this then alittle. FYI, most of the material is from Livy, Ab urbe condita, XXVIII (28.24–29) and Polybius, Histories, Libri XI in particular 11.25-30.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For Secondary sources, the best I found was A greater than Napoleon: Scipio Africanus By Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart. I obtained the book itself through I.L.L. The pages for the Sucro rebellion are 72-80.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the nomination at DYK and I have an issue with the referencing. Could you see my comments at the nomination and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done as requested.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mutiny at Sucro

Materialscientist (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please do not alter other people's talk userpages. It's tantamount to vandalism. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for cleaning up

The quote at Battle of Cartagena (209 BC)‎. I knew that there was a way to do better than I had but in the tradition of Lazy Wikipedia Editing (LWE) I left it (not for very long) for someone else to deal with. Thanks for picking up my dropped relay baton. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Doug Coldwell! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Infobox

No idea, sorry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Otium, DYK's suggestion

Perhaps: "... according to Cicero..." or ...Seneca. I do not see better possibilities. The article deserves for GA. Good job. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Great idea of Cicero or Seneca, get's me thinking.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK idea: ...according to Cicero otium with dignity is the one that stands first and is most to be desired by all happy, honest, and healthy-minded men?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 12:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I can review this DYK. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I left a thought on the article talk page about the placement of Aristotle in the article (& also Virgil) Jheald (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's work on getting it "B" class first. GA is presently pie in the sky. By inches and increments construction helps. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Getting it "B" class first sounds good to me. Thanks for all the improvements.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but these messages you are sending out seem a bit like spamming. I have nothing to do with this article and it has nothing to do with me; same for most of the people you are messaging, I assume. You're a very experienced editor and I've never noticed you doing this before, I'm not quite sure what's going on. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

After all that hard work, you need an Otium

	Otium
	Nice job! Onward and upward. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the improvements. How do we get an reevaluation through the WikiProject Latin and WikiProject Classical and Rome to get a possible B-Class rating and perhaps a rating in "importance"?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember. But I requested and got a "B" not too long ago on Oliver Hazard Perry, so it's there in the talk page. Make sure that the talk page has the right projects on it, too. I think you can put in ??? in the ratings, which will show it then as unrated. Unfortunately, this all takes time. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. --Dweller (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, I went to each of the project pages and requested a reassessment to "B". Hope that helps. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I went to each WikiProject and asked how to go about getting a reassessment. Hope for the best.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that "peer review" is where you want to be. I think that's above WP:GA and maybe above WP:FA. But I could be wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that I could get a "peer review" for possible future GA status. Meanwhile, I'll request for reassessment to "B". --Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Villa Otium. An interesting tidbit 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that you've got two "B"s (and fast at that), we ask for a GA. The question is whether you wait awhile and improve it first; or go directly in. My experience is that getting a GA is quite a bit more rigorous. You have a lot of book citations, which bodes well. Broadening it out and getting some on line citations as in line references might make it more appealing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that there is now a dissent on the talk page. And it seems to have some pertinent criticisms (I know little about this subject, and don't pretend to be capable of doing a meaningful assessment. Have to wait and see how that shakes out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I have some work ahead of me. I'll keep doing some more studying and making improvements. It looks like it will be a lengthier project than I anticipated. I remember when I worked on GAs for Conclusion of the American Civil War I created and Australia and the American Civil War that User: Bedford created. They were rigorous projects.

Well, its a good thing otium is an interesting subject that I like. I have learned much already. BTW, I know how much work you have done on the article and I do appreciate it. I have seen you around in the past, working on my lighthouse articles. You are a lighthouse expert. This article will keep me busy for the next few months. Its a good thing I am retired and have lots of leisure time.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Doug, I worked on lots of lighthouse articles. I had a grand plan, which was to get the Michigan lighthouse articles in order, and to create the host of articles that have not yet been born. I also worked on a lot of them in other states. I got put off the grand plan when there was an intervention by some of our esteemed editors who did not like my use of templates to put in authorities on lighthouse articles. IMHO, they did not realize the benefits of the way we were doing it, and only saw that it violated their general rules and policies. They got rid of a lot of careful work that benefited the articles. My grand plan got put on hold indefinitely. Just talking about it pisses me off. So beware of the traps, and do remember (as I should, I know). Illegitimi non carborundum. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible reference

I don't want to paint over your oeuvre. What about this Horace, Ode 2.16 Michael Gilleland? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting heavy duty Ode. I'll have to study it further. Thanks for forwarding.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now for something completely different. As a word, Otium and variants appear in a great many Wikipedia articles. For your consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Great idea!! I'll use that information to provide "What links here". Thanks again.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice at the top of my user page/user talk

Just letting you know that I find it quite complimentary when people call me Doug. But it is a little confusing, hence the notice. :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for compliment.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi....

BLOW ME...:(