User talk:Alc59

Welcome!

Hello, Alc59, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bybrook River

I have removed your inappropriate reference to a Christian organisation from the above article, which is about a river. Do you think it would be appropriate to add Avon and Somerset Constabulary, Avon Fire Brigade and every one of the hundreds of organisations, companies, etc. which have Avon in their name to the article on teh river Avon. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Shelter

I don't have a problem with the comment that there should be a citation for the content of John Baker's lecture on the Morrison shelter. What I've put is is an eyewitness (i.e. myself) account of the lecture - I've yet to find anything else that present's John Baker's own account of the design of the Morrison shelter, which is a shame, because it was really good. I'm still working on it though, I may have identified a booklet he wrote, so watch this space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alc59 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As copied from User talk: Dieter Simon

Hi Alc59, yes the trouble with using personal experiences for one's editing an article is that it needs to be verified by independent sources which is one of the mainstays of Wikipedia policy. If you have a look at WP:OR that should give you an idea. I have absolutely no doubt as to your being present at John Baker's account of his design for the Morrison shelter, but the trouble is there are definitive statements involved which are going to be picked up. What it amounts to is your presence at the talks would be considered "own research" whether you actually did serious research into or were an eye witness to a subject matter. Anyway, do have a look at the guidelines and see what you think.

As for my own experience in this type of thing, when I was young I was present when ball lightning struck a farm/mill where I was staying. It was an experience that will never leave me, and however much I'd like to add this to the article I am unable to provide verification of it. It is strange that John Baker has not left any written account of his (at the time) valuable development which would have been verified by independent sources. The thing is WP:OR states "original research policy and verifiability policy reinforce one another".

I too might have a look round for sources to that effect, perhaps there might be some after all? Dieter Simon (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the following [1] ? It takes a little while for the video to come on, but it is the type of thing that might be used. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are looking for the whole of the article by the Cambridge team, it certainly seems to give most of the things you are looking for. See http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/125/1925-1950/baker5.html then follow the arrows at the bottom to the right and follow it through. Write what you think is useful and cite the source once.

You obviously know more about the subject than I do, having participated in his lectures - say, that can't have been yesterday, you must be my age - anyway, have a look through the various videos, use what you deem necessary for the article, and fit it into the section the way you want though not copying. If you want me to help how to enter the sources, let me know.

I use http://www.bing.com and enter "john baker" "morrison shelter" (with the quotes). Just see what you can find. There should be quite a few more articles. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are already taking part in the John Baker, Baron Baker Wiki article. Just keep up the good work.Dieter Simon (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Alc59, I will certainly look out for it. If I can assist you in citing the source of John Baker, just let me know. Dieter Simon (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alc59. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alc59. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]