User talk:Hires an editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Thanks for finding another reference - I would have but was busy. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Part of the reason I used the Frommer's reference is that I couldn't find a better reference, which I thought was worse than no reference at all, but you prompted me to look for a better one...which I found after a lot more looking. Cheers! Hires an editor (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WHOSE POV? The unnecessary removal of two *descriptive* and accurate words[edit]

In the article entitled, William Lewis Herndon, on Wikipedia I ask; why did you remove the following words and declare them as POVs? If you had read the book, as I have, then you would know it was a remarkable journey and you would know they were over 4,000 miles of danger as declared by Congress and Senate when it was ordered that 10,000 more copies of the book be published.

I disagree with the removal of those two words -- it was no cakewalk traveling through that jungle of fierce natives and animals as well as dire circumstances that kill men and especially white strangers passing through their many territories.

I ask that those two descriptive words be placed back where they came from uinless you think they are not descriptive nor the journey "remarkable" or those 4,366 miles "dangerous". It seems to me it is you that have an erroneous "POV".

QUOTE "After a [remarkable] journey of 4,366 [dangerous] miles ". These are descriptive words that lend aid in thought and visualization. They harm no person and are only two in number. Why were they removed? They had been there a long time before you finally saw and removed them and declared them as POV -- whose "POP"? Writing on Wikipedia and other areas are suppose to be neutral but yet you removed those two descriptive words -- why?  – Brother OfficerTalk 08:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

William Lewis Herndon[edit]

It's somebody's POV that it was dangerous. If we're supposed to look at it from a "universal point of view" then it wasn't dangerous for the Natives, now, was it? I propose that you simply place this sentence in quotes, the way you did on my talk page, to make that more clear. "From Herndon's point of view, it was a dangerous undertaking." (or whatever) Hires an editor (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Naturally it is some person's point of view that the exploration was "dangerous" just as another person with their own POV would declare it not dangerous. But the latter would not know unless they made that trip or read the details of it. The FACTs are that the expeditions were highly dangerous. Yes, it was dangerous for the Natives because tribes fought one another and Herndon as well as Lardner Gibbon on those Explorations of the Valley of the Amazon constantly hired Natives as guides, hunters, and fishermen an knowledge as to what areas to avoid and why avoid those areas including whether another tribe that was war-like (there were and because of they canoed downstream on the right side of the river bank only. Natives had killed Natives and white men. There was even a massacre. The priests were able to provide these warnings as the USN men traveled))or natural dangers. Many Natives lost their life, as did one Priest on those Expeditions (Wm Lewis Herndon & Lardner Gibbion split up to cover more territory. Each had two helpers and the rest were hired Natives for over 4,000 miles of exploring unknown areas of jungle and a maze of rivers to seek the mouth of the Amazon River so the USA could trade via the Mississippi river and New Your ports.)

I have been through a lot and never would I want to go through the unknown dangers and foreign languages of Spanish, Quecha, and Portugese, and also a blend of any of those, that Herndon and Gibbon went through with fragile instruments for mapping and traveling and surviving to make a distance of over 4.000 miles from Lima, Peru, over the Andes mountains, down the Andes mountains, and then by canoe to Para, Brazil hoping all the way they were traveling in the correct direction through a maze of rivers to collect information, find the common rivers to the mouth of the Amazon. Each of them were very sick several times. It was "dangerous" -- doctors didn't make house calls with medical bags from the USA to those jungles and mountains.

Teddy Roosevelt tried it and came very close to dying. I do think he would declare the trip as "dangerous" but then that is his POV -- but he has that woeful experience for his POV.

Okay, I am open to your proposal and I do thank you. So does a United States Naval Officer who copied that piece of text posted originally by "MAURY" on "23:04, 15 June 2006 MAURY", the 1st message posted there over 3 years ago and remained until recently but apparently under no malice aforethought. I sincerely thank you for the mannerable conversation and your proposal.

 – Brother OfficerTalk 13:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How to move images[edit]

{{helpme}} I'm looking for information on how to move images from wikipedia to the commons. Is there information on this anywhere? Or do I just have to upload the images again? Thanks. Hires an editor (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Algebraist 19:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


Anyone can write an essay, basically it would just be expanding on what you said previously, yes. I don't actually know much about essays but my understanding is that you should start the essay in your userspace, as a personal essay cannot be created in the project space, however, if you leave the essay open to be edited by anyone then it will eventually be eligible to be moved into the project space, I think. see WP:ESSAYS, if you have any other questions then please feel free to ask me, or you could try and find someone who know a little more about it! Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Essays, Part II[edit]

{{helpme}} Hello. I'm looking for information on how to get an essay out of userspace and into a more general area of WP, like some of the other essays. The reason I'm asking is because I came up with a Motto of the Day (Wikipedia: A change in the way you think") that got accepted, and after some discussion with a fellow editor or two, I thought an essay on this topic might be useful or fun for other editors. I just don't know how to get it more widely viewed, commented, and/or changed by others. I've looked through the info on essays, and there's a dearth of information on this subject. Thanks for your help! !!!

I don't think there are any formal requirements for putting your essay in Wikipedia space. If the essay is Wikipedia-related and potentially useful to other editors in the context of editing Wikipedia, you can just put it in Wikipedia space and tag it with {{Essay}}. But if it's not really directly relevant to Wikipedia, it should stay in your userspace. +Angr 12:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sagan's degrees[edit]

A.B., S.B. and S.M. were the degrees that Sagan had. That was the reason that they were written that way. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Peer Review for Commercial Revolution[edit]

Thanks for your input! I'm making your suggested changes. How do I respond to particular points? For example, the low quality primary source from the high school teacher is how I got some of the major organization of the article, and ideas on what to put. Where would I put that instead? Or how do I cite that? Hires an editor (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You can respond on the peer review page although it is probably preferable to respond on the talk page for the article.
Regarding crediting somebody who helped you out ... Wikipedia really isn't designed to credit authors or contributors. Even with respect to citing sources the purpose is not to "credit" the source but simply to provide evidence that the statements in the article are factually accurate. So while I applaud your efforts to give credit where credit is due I don't think that there is really a way to do what you are asking. If you want you could provide a mention on the talk page for other editors to see. Up to you.
BTW, if you believe that you have gotten enough feedback you should close the peer review so that it does not appear on the list of open cases (since the backlog is significant). You, of course, are welcome to leave it open a little while longer to see if anybody else offers an additional review (I wouldn't hold my breath given the backlog).
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


FYI if you want to move consensus on all Honduras/Constitutional crisis/Zelaya/coup/Micheletti related stuff, you might want to look at this discussion pages. You will have to work at it and may face pushback from certain editors because those articles are highly disputed... just a friendly notice from Moogwrench (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Honduras coup article[edit]

I appreciate your contributions. -- Rico 03:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit War?[edit]

Hi, I was wondering what image exactly had led to the page protection on the Lima article. If it's the photo of the slums, then I am fully aware of the situation. If it's another image, let me know. I ask because I see that another photo of the San Isidro financial district was added, and it is redundant, (i.e. the same three buildings are featured, including the unmistakable "Chocavento."), so I wanted to delete it. Thanks. Rafajs77 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's the slums picture. If one picture is redundant, it makes sense to delete it. I'd make it clear on the talk page, though. Which two pictures? Hires an editor (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply, it is the pictures in the section on the economy. The top photo was there before, someone added a second one. I will go ahead and remove it. The second photo is of the same part of town, except it features one less building, so it's just completely pointless. Rafajs77 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Cold War Legacies[edit]

You seem to be knowledgeable and actively helping with Cold War Legacies. In my User space I have posted a number of unanswered questions that you might be able to address, as Wikipedia practices have gotten far beyond my experience level.

As a small example, I notice you removed as the publisher in the reference that I thought I was making more correct. I'd appreciate an explanation.

More importantly, can I assume you or someone else is working on recovering the other four main contributions that are still missing: Cold War Military Legacies, Cold War Security Legacies, Cold War Institutional Legacies, and Cold War Economic Legacies.

Even though I've posted related questions for help on my talk page, the answers have not been forthcoming.

waterfox1 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response you posted. It is just what I needed: Some remedial action with a dose of reality. As you’ve explained, it can be quite intimidating to someone not in the loop.
With those normative issues mostly out of the way, I’d like to address others that you brought up.
I understand, expect, and appreciate the wikifying process to go forth. Indeed, I can provide more references as called for. The root work is the two-volume Nuclear Shadowboxing which has about 2500 citations that can be drawn upon as needed. I tried to take advantage of internal hyperlinked citations available in wikipedia. I also took a short-hand route that simply referred to several comprehensive books as appropriate, and I recognize that such an indirect citation process might not be sufficient.
I have been working on providing some illustrations, but submitting images to Wikipedia has its own learning curve.
Somehow, the Legacy section from Cold War has been copied by someone else almost in its entirety into my lead-in to the six-article series, so that now Cold War Legacies is almost all duplication of Legacy with nearly nothing of my original lead-in. I don’t think the complete duplication is desirable or necessary, inasmuch as the exact text resides in the main article. The introduction I had prepared did not have such duplication, and it was intended to make a smooth transition to the new series of articles about each of the six delineated legacies. Is it possible for you, since you seem so experienced, to revert to the original lead-in that I supplied, and then reset the editing/revision process from that starting point? In fact, I had tried to emulate the other sections under Cold War such that Cold War Legacies would be treated similarly as a “main article” referenced at the beginning (or end) of Legacy.
Regarding content, I have had considerable (and subject-matter relevant) professional experience in both technical research and analysis. This wikipedia contribution contains material from a comprehensive winnowing of the literature: Of the three volumes I published in 2009, the first dealt with Cold War history, the second with Cold War legacies, and the third with what might well be considered “prescriptions” for the future. Thus, the Wikipedia Cold War Legacies topic is drawn largely from the second volume because I noticed that the topic was quite incomplete and understated in Wikipedia. (As for the Cold War “history” treatment in Wikipedia, it is certainly comprehensive; my Volume 1 differs in that it looks more at technical than just political history). My Volume 3 is largely prescriptive.) For anything in the submitted Cold War Legacies articles that might be prescriptive or speculative, rather than descriptive or reflective, I would be among those welcoming appropriate revisions. waterfox1 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Cold War[edit]

Why is using the Encyclopedia Brittanica a "no-no" as you put it?--Macarenses (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not intentionally revert you[edit]

I don't know why I just put in a dangling reference you took out. There was an edit conflict which said nothing about it. I'm sorry, but it's not my fault. Dualus (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Somebody left a message for you on your user page rather than your talk page[edit]

Just FYI, somebody apparently either didn't realize that messages to a user should go on the user's talk page or didn't care. You might want to remove this comment or move it to your talk page. Guy Harris (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of towns and cities with names derived from the word salt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


Is there an editor or administrator involved with the cold war project, to assist with a page? (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In what way? Depending on the type of help that you need, will determine where to ask the question...And what page? Hires an editor (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The Ribbon International[edit]

PLEASE DO NOT do more editing on the page. You deleted the introductory paragraph that was a "teaser" and synopsis of the page. It has been on the page since it got approved in March. I just received today, edits and additional copy from one of the Washington D.C. coordinators, that I need to add to the page. Susan Macafee (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Hires an editor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 23:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of towns and cities with names derived from the word salt for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of towns and cities with names derived from the word salt is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of towns and cities with names derived from the word salt until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

New discussions on Portal:Capitalism[edit]

Here Lbertolotti (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)