User talk:SamWilson989/Archive

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia and good work

Hi, I'm Oiyarbepsy and I can see fairies.

Welcome and thank you for joining and editing Wikipedia.

This is not an automated bot that placed this message. Yes, it is boilerplate, but it won't appear anywhere if I don't put it there. You are reading this because I've looked at your contributions and it's obvious that we'd like to keep you around.

If you have any questions, please click this link, then hit the new section and rock and roll. I really like to pretend to know what I'm doing here, so I'm sure I'll give you the right answer, and if I don't, you can whack me with a trout.

Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy Since when did we get such a kind, not-automated, and slightly humorous way to welcome new editors? Then again, getting wacked with a trout any time you give a wrong answer sounds like serious business. I would be smelling like fish and bruised up enough for others to speculate spousal abuse. CorporateM (Talk) 23:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A welcome's a welcome, I didn't question the method. And it was nice knowing what the punishment system here on wikipedia was when I joined. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Since when? Since I wrote that welcome message, of course. All welcomers should have such a personalized messages. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone needs to make a sign "Beware of trout" like the "Beware of Dog" signs. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Acquisitions

Regarding the acquisitions article, I may be back later on with a better summary of Juniper's acquisitions that does not rely so heavily on primary sources, as I'm working on one for the Juniper Networks page that could also be incorporated here. I also have lots of Request Edit-type stuff if you have an interest in that kind of work,[1][2] with varying degrees of complexity. However, I always have quite the load as far as needs for collaboration on articles where I have a potential conflict of interest and I'm afraid it's not typically very interesting work. CorporateM (Talk) 01:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reviewed the Yelp article and edited the template to allow you to go ahead with the edits. I'll look over the other one now. SamWilson989 (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Taekwondo at the 2015 Pan American Games

I am not sure as to why this page has been "un-reviewed"? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article itself was fine it just was incomplete, so I thought I'd leave it and come back when it can properly be reviewed. That was all. I apologise if that isn't convention. The message on your talk page was automatic, I will delete it, it doesn't actually tell you anything. SamWilson989 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It won't be "complete" until later this year. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's understandable considering when the event actually takes place. SamWilson989 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

First Hy,frankly I'm amazed by your position, I took your advice, I left for a day, I did not revert Krobison, if NepY did not interfere,I would have reached a understanding with Krobison,at first he wanted to help me, you are saying to let a person who demanded my help to have informations on a major article to leave that article to him is that wise . Why, Krobison today wanted to remove the first anniversary of the 14 of July ,the main event in the French Revolution in which the Queen played a central part. Also he wanted to remove the name of the leaders who declared the war ,even their name ,how do you except a reader to make his own research ,he wants the readers to have their own conclusion, in fact know Krobison (see his talk page) ,he is demanding my help to show him the paraphrase because I have the book ,I respect you a lot and frankly NepY and flyer were having a negative attitude from the beginning ,I know a administrator ,I 'll request his intervention. But you, I trust you and AS a sign of good faith ,I have demanded from Krobison to work together at his demand on the paraphrasing and I 'll not ad or remove anything in the section THE French Revolution until that administrator interfere if no person also make no major removal of information,in spite of your position thank you ,I trust you. Finally I proposed to NepY or flyer to work together on paraphrasing and direct quote , I received Negative comment. NepY interfered again today twice ,he spoke about neutrality when he simply removed the whole information, can you imagine an article about Marie Antoinette without the 14 of July ,every time I agreed on something with Krobison ,HE interfere. Can anybody argue with me on merit and information ,my God there was nothing in the article on the 14 July ,Barnave, Mirabeau,The Girondins ,The constitution and the constitutional process ,I was able to work with Krobison he agreed he went to far only again to see NepY INTERFERE ,I will like to see administrators and experts take control here and let them give the verdict on merit. Sorry to be too long ,thank you again (talk)Aubmn (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Aubmn, I see the need to reiterate something I've mentioned before, on the talk page for Marie Antoinette. The problem that I see is a different problem to what you think it is. Personally, I know very little about Marie Antoinette. I have no idea about how important the events that occurred on 14 July were and whether or not they should be mentioned on the article for her. Therefore I can not comment on whether you are right or wrong. The problem here is nothing to do with the content of the article, whether this event is included or not. The problem is that you need to discuss whether that event is important or not on the talk page for the article before reverting someone's edits. You are having a discussion using edit summaries, which is the oddest thing I have seen on Wikipedia so far, and I've not been here that long but I've seen some odd stuff. You need to find a consensus with the editors who are knowledgeable about the subject or at least knowledgeable about editing, and you need to do this NOT using hidden comments on the article itself, and NOT using the edit summaries. I have understand that you have not formally reverted Krobison's edits, but you have effectively done so in your edits, and reverted NepY's edits. You have breached the 3-revert-rule several times now and I am going to ask for assistance, I see this as having gone too far. I'll create a new section on the talk page, laying out what has happened, and request for comments from independent editors. We'll see how that goes. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please check for one minute France History on Wikepedia to see the importance of 14 July and it association with MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubmn (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point. See the talk page after I have requested for comment. SamWilson989 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the point,removing major informations on a major article with no valid reasons ,you know academics and experts would be shocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aubmn (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not revert NepY, he reverted me after I agreed with Krobison without any valid excuse, he removed the 14 July from MA, you know it is the symbol of the Revolution and the turning point of her life, they wanted to remove it, why I did not remove their work, why always removing mine. It is okay but the 14 of July ,the most important date in MA life. Anyway thank you (Aubmn|talk)Aubmn (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'm certainly guilty of some not-quite-kosher behavior; I've only done light editing & authoring a few small entries. The (problematic) idea of communicating with comments in the text is mine. I didn't mean to start or continue an edit war and have been trying to coordinate to a degree with Aubmn, but it is clear we have very different visions for this article. I think my vision is more aligned with WP principles, but that is of course a biased opinion.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I too knew little about MA or the French Revolution when I started this (that has certainly changed) -- I was trying to brush up because my son's history unit was on the FR. What led me to start editing (and I confess I didn't check any of the talk pages first) is I was trying to read the article on my phone, and to be honest it was nearly unreadable. My original plan was to just break up the overly long paragraphs into readable chunks and fix the frequent grammatical errors (primarily missing/incorrect possessives and many errors in tense). But as I dug into it, it was clear that the article deviated frequently from appropriate neutral style, was excessively wordy, contained many redundancies and had many facts that were irrelevant to the main thrust of the narrative (the frequent inclusion of physical measurements was perhaps the most memorably egregious case, but there were certainly more). My belated visit to the Talk page suggested that the direction I was taking was along lines that had received broad support.

I do believe I've improved the article substantially, though it still needs work. I do strongly wish Aubmn would not revert my edits but rather add back in what is felt to be excessive removal of facts; I have certainly sometimes overshot, though most of my deletions I will stand behind. If edits were made, rather than wholesale reversions, those paragraphs would get continually better, as then at least my undisputed fixes wouldn't need to be continually replaced.

The edits regarding the ceremony marking the anniversary of the fall of the Bastille I think is a telling episode. Aubmn added this after my edits, and I think in part it is because I cleared out so much deadwood that the omission of this event became apparent. I would agree that it should be included, but the original paragraph repeated the sins of being excessively wordy, opinionated and with redundancy. I tried very hard to trim this to the core bits -- that the royal couple was allowed to go, that the event was huge (which the number of people & soldiers attending states well that fact), and the reaction of the crowd to the king. I'm disappointed to see that the wordy version which has excessive introduction, grammatical errors (e.g. "who" instead of "which") AND my version, though that does allow a side-by-side comparison.

I think no one disputes this is an important historical personage deserving a detailed treatment. But, I would argue that is precisely why it is important to write clean, concise text which is neutral and to ensure that there is a strong narrative thread with minimal side trips. Krobison13 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Krobison , first it took me 20 years to learn about Marie Antoinette in details, with all my respect. Second about the Physical, all your edits were accepted without any change, these informations were taken from Fraser and a great number of respected historians, this is not important all your edits were accepted here. Third you removed at first the event of 14 July entirely than you retreated after the backlash, like you removed Necker role in the Revolution; You wanted to remove the main information's about Barnave to his own article, this is a big mistake Kribson , the reader is not oblige to go from one article to another to find about the events in MA life, Barnave article is for Barnave life and activity but his political and constitutional relation with the Queen belong to MA article, excuse me Krobison but you need to read a lot of books about the subject in order to know all of this . Also Krobison you entirely removed the Austrian connection cutting her relation with her family in the Revolution; she is Marie Antoinette of Austria. You also removed the constitutional fact that it is the King who declared war before backing up. You also removed not one leader like you said but three (Madame Roland, Robespierre, Brissot), you removed the political and constitutional process of the war declaration reducing it to a few lines. I have a lot of readers calling me and telling me they are totally lost, they complained of being obliged to go from one Article to the other. Wikepedia is about cooperation, full cooperation, we need experts to resolve that. I 'm ready to work with you Krobison if you believe in cooperation. I helped you with a lot of informations ,I did not revert hundreds of your edits but are you ready to do the same, to work together with other expert editors on the subject to make this article better. Thank you Krobison, thanks Sam.Aubmn(talk)Aubmn (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Self-determination may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

control over many of its former possessions including Korea, [[Sakhalin Island]], and Taiwan]. In none of these areas were the opinions of affected people consulted, or given significant
of) and the UK breached the [[Territorial integrity|territorial integrity]] of the islands.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Brilmayer | first1 = Lea | authorlink = Lea Brilmayer | title = Secession

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Version query...

Sam, reference this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John,_King_of_England&diff=prev&oldid=644670037), are you sure you've got the right ISBN and year? The ISBN leads to the 1984 edition published by Edward Arnold, but that only has 103 pages, and I don't think has the quote in question... I was wondering if you'd meant to reference the 2001 2nd edition, which is published by Hodder Arnold and has the relevant quote on the right page. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right, I'll go ahead and change that. I'd just been editing a different article using the older edition and just copied over the ISBN and date evidently sub-conciously. Thanks for letting me know, SamWilson989 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nederpop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch. 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) 09:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Map....

...NB: I haven't forgotten about the map! :) I'll take a stab at it tomorrow... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, no worries, we're all busy editing and actually spending a life away from wikipedia that we forget the one or two jobs we've set ourselves. I'll look forward to seeing it done :) Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources: Church of England parish church; Emsworth; Arthur I, Duke of Brittany; The Voice (U.S. TV series); Rava dosa; Clergy house
Cleanup: Rouen Cathedral; Cash for Honours; Molland
Expand: Demography of England; Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford; Internet History Sourcebooks Project
Unencyclopaedic: Union of Brittany and France; Enigma machine; The Script

Wikify: Tewkesbury Abbey; Battle of Mauron; Communications in the Isle of Man
Orphan: Duomo of Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto; Ash-Shabibah; Ahir Majra
Merge: Lady chapelY; Feudal land tenure in England; Lady ChapelY
Stub: Little Melton; Mortal Coils; Andrew Cooper, Baron Cooper of Windrush; Wrexham Cathedral; Robert "Kool" Bell; Jermain Jackman

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"The the"

Hi, regarding your recent reversion of my removal of the first "the" in the sentence "The lowest in-game rank of authority is that of the Baron – variations are Timariot, Shaman, Mayor, Bishop, Patrician – of which only Patrician is a playable rank if the player owns the The Republic DLC"– I have made hundreds, if not thousands, of corrections of "the the" errors, and I am confident I am correct. Just to make sure, I have posted this question at the English Stack Exchange. Please respond here before reverting again if you disagree; I do not want an edit war, and I'd rather talk it out here. Thanks. -Newyorkadam (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Ah that counter-example of The New York Times has convinced me, fair enough. Thanks for letting me know why you made the edit, SamWilson989 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Treaty of Louviers

If you have time, could you look over the Description section for improvements. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure I'll have a look now. SamWilson989 (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking out the first paragraph into a "Background" section, and take out the last paragraph. I think the reasons for the treaty belong in their own paragraph and you should also include other reasons for the Anglo-French conflict, as it definitely was not just because of Richard breaking off his marriage to Alys. I've made some edits on the page already though. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for improvements. I go to work on your ideas now.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for help. This is not my specialty and can see it is yours. Any assistance is appreciated.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You give me far too much credit, but I appreciate in nonetheless. I'd suggest possibly asking Ealdgyth and Hchc2009, they've both helped me out in the past and I'm sure would give you some pointers. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks HcHc! (hehehe)--Doug Coldwell (talk)

My main advice on the description section would be to clarify that Richard held Normandy from the French Crown, rather than simply as something he had inherited from Henry II; the heart of Philip II's arguments with the English kings comes out of that rather difficult relationship (the English kings being at once independent monarchs, and feudal vassals to France). You could also pull out the issues with the Normandy borders in the late 12th century being uncertain and porous, defined by personal relationships and land holdings, not clear boundaries. In terms of the sources in the article, Gillingham is typically good value (but he does have some biases!) Older authors (Powicke, Scudamore etc.) will be okay for dates etc., but their analysis is typically dated now (NB: you might want to give the original date of the Powicke volume - e.g. the 1960 date as well as the 1999 reissue) I'd be cautious about Turner for anything controversial; he's not a heavyweight in this field, and often misses out on a lot of the more recent Anglo-French work on Philip II and the Angevins that has come out in the last 15-20 years (and which is covered rather well in some of Boydell Press's "New interpretations..." series). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I felt stating that the arguments between the kings occurred purely over Richard not marrying Alys didn't really do the whole period justice. A whole section on the reasons for the tensions and treaty could and should be written. SamWilson989 (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I just happened to have stumbled onto the Treaty of Louviers, more or less by accident, and I think it is getting over my head as this is not my speciality. I'm going to do some more reading and studying on this, but if any of you are experts on this history -- feel free to contribute to the article and do any additions you feel necessary.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The best qualification in history I currently have is a GCSE and I'm currently doing an A-level. None of which even covered any time before the 19th century. If you're not British, then it means I'm essentially as far away as an expert as you can get. Yet you said it's my "speciality". Yet I know more about this period of history than any other topic ever, and I don't get paid or anyone to teach me. But I do it pretty much every damn day anyway. I love it to bits, and Wikipedia allows me to meet other people who just do this for the hell of it. It's great. I don't think 95% of the editors on Wikipedia could claim to be experts in everything they edit but that doesn't stop them. So carry on reading and studying and keep on helping out, because otherwise Wikipedia just won't work if we only let experts help out. We need people like us, amateurs who just love to find out new things. Sticking to Wikipedia policy allows us to make great content whilst learning a lot. Why do you think any of us ever stick around? SamWilson989 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct! BTW, I'm from the state of Michigan.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll continue improving the Treaty of Louviers article. Wikipedia is a hobby for me in my retirement.

I was not an expert on many subjects I created articles on, but researched until they became DYKs.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I now have about 30,000 contributions and created 344 articles per this list. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I've never been but I hear there's some great lakes there! SamWilson989 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Michigan

I live in a high rise building with a view of Lake Michigan (very large, like a sea). Been to all of the Great Lakes in my lifetime.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a picture I just now took of Ludington, Michigan, with frozen Lake Michigan in the background. I think maybe we will have to take Global warming out of Wikipedia and put in New little ice age instead. Now if I could just find some references.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I found many references, and have created 21st Century mini-ice age article. Thanks for idea!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, it looks good! I've added it to my watchlist, I'll keep looking at how it improves :P SamWilson989 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Great. Now let's see if it gets as much action as Global warming. hehehehehe

I am going to submit it for a DYK tomorrow after I sleep on it for a hook line. Something like-

DYK ...that many scientists predict a 21st Century mini-ice age (Lake Michigan shown)

Château Gaillard

If you were to guess, what type of material did they use in their mortar as it seems it lasted over 800 years. Another guess (if you care to), what type of raw material might the carters have carried to the castle? I assume they used beast of burden and the material came down the Seine. Mostly just curious, so any guesses are O.K. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if it wasn't a lime-based mortar. Although it's weaker and more vulnerable to the elements when it's first applied, lime mortar actually gets harder over the centuries and - as you've observed - can still be effective 800 years later. Like lime plaster, it can be difficult stuff to work with though! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answer. I was just about to ask you = you are fast. Do you know what type of raw material might the carters have carried to the castle? I assume they used beast of burden and the material came down the Seine. Mostly just curious. Thanks again.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have literally no idea about the mortar, hchc is probably correct, or the raw materials that would have been carried on this castle specifically, but I'd assume it wouldn't be too dissimilar from other materials used in the construction of castles at the time and I'd suggest that the pipe rolls of the exchequer of Normandy at that time may contain payments for raw materials. You can find a link to the archives here: [3]. As far a transport goes, well it was located on the Seine and William Breton recorded a 'deep and most capacious pool' (See Gillingham's Richard I, pg 302 if you have access) so that suggests to me that raw materials would have come in up the Seine from the rest of his empire and transported somehow upto the castle. But I have no evidence for this so I'll have a search and see what I can find. I assume you wish to add this to the article on the castle? Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That would be great. You sure know you castle stuff.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Gillingham's "Richard I" I just got last night at my local library, through I.L.L., trying to piece this together.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to be writing and researching a lot on this period then a must have is Gillingham's The Angevin Empire as well. It's a great overview of it all, and contains a great further reading section at the back where you can find books on pretty much any subject in this period. Hope that helps, SamWilson989 (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for lead.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your request for The Angevin empire / John Gillingham. was successful. Item requested from Albion College. Your request will be delivered to Ludington Library at Mason County District Library (article I created) when it is available.

As you can see I ordered it through I.L.L. Thanks again for lead.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem, that was quick. SamWilson989 (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

capacious pool

I am guessing that this "pool" was used as a holding area for boats with supplies, because it was linked to the Seine by two substantial watercourses. From here the carters carried supplies to the castle construction site. Your guess?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I assume, Gillingham doesn't go into great detail unfortunately but it makes sense. SamWilson989 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks = makes sense to me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard I as engineer

I get the impression that Richard I was a great engineer. Perhaps he trained some of his key people in engineering and castle building techniques. Apparently he had experience from working on his father's castles. Since he built Château Gaillard with such speed, I am guessing he had to do OJT, since not that many skilled people would have been available then to built such a cutting edge high tech castle.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's true Gillingham hypothesizes that he was probably the main engineer during the construction of Château Gaillard, Richard had knowledge of siege warfare from his previous experiences abroad and at home, however I don't think you'll find evidence to suggest he personally trained anyone whilst building the castle, though it does make sense. I'd try to find some solid evidence on it. The earliest known construction that Richard was involved in that I can see is the strengthening of Clairvaux in 1182, which would suggest he had 15 years of hands-on experience by the time Château Gaillard was being built. SamWilson989 (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the great reply.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Carolla Podcast

I've been listening to the podcast since day one and I can't remember Joel McHale being on more than once. Maybe he was on the radio show regularly? Fuddle (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a regular listener by far so I couldn't say, but I was going off the website where it says he was on the podcast on 23 Nov 11 and 27 Oct 12. There is no record of him being on the radio show on the website that I can find, but the wikipedia page for the radio show, The Adam Carolla Show (radio), does say he was a frequent guest but as that is unsourced I'm going purely off of what I could find myself online. If you do find some sources for him being on radio more than the podcast then it might be helpful to add those sources to that main article as well as his own. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I checked the podcast archives and he's only been on 4x. Fuddle (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well feel free to edit accordingly then. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking a category

You can do that by prepending a colon, thus:

"attempting to empty the Category:Biography articles without living parameter, and keep it empty."

... the [[:Category:Biography articles without living parameter]], ...

--Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, User:Redrose64‎ just enlightened me. Don't know how I managed not to learn that trick until 2 months in of editing this site. You guys are all so helpful. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You can also use the {{cl}} template: Category:Biography articles without living parameter --Redrose64 (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that looks really useful, thanks. SamWilson989 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Maine link

thx, new to editing and working out the right link coding, Leifou (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Leifou

No worries, as you can see from the discussion above this, I learn new things all the time. Reading through Help:Wiki markup is definitely something I would recommend. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, Ill do that Leifou (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Leifou

A couple of things that would help you right this moment are that you don't need to put your name after you put four of these: '~' as that creates a signature including your name. Also, a colon before your message on a talk page indents it and is used to follow conversations. I have added them on your message. The more colons you add, the more the message is indented. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Young's modulus

Hi, thanks for the reference on Beryllium, but could you do me a favor? Could you put a inline comment in the refs section as to whether the source document / book used GPa or PSI or both in listing its value? I was working in January up the list trying to fix a number of units conversions disasters in the table and am hoping we can do that here as well. If you look down at the bottom of the table, that's the data and notes and format I was trying to standardize on, but I had not gotten back on the project and finished working up yet (stopped just below Beryllium in fact...). Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you want me to put an inline comment after the 'reflist' template? As it happens, the document uses GPa, not Psi, but the conversion is correct. Feel free to move it over to the GPa column if that's the current system on that page, and let me know where this comment should go. Thanks for your improvement to that page, it did/does need some work, SamWilson989 (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Finally got to the change here. I did this:

[4]

You can see the two changes; I just added the HTML comment after the </ref> ends, and then used the new conversion utility on the PSI value rather than inserting it directly.

It took a while to figure out how to do all that cleanly, but preserving the source units made a big difference in quality of info in the table.

If you work more on the article (encouraged!) then trying to keep the table updated that way is probably the best bet for quality purposes, but we can always talk about alternatives if you disagree with the result for some reason. Article talk page or my talk page are fine.

Have a good day! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Your help with edits to the Huntsman Corporation page

Hi Sam, given your past interest in the Huntsman Corporation page, I was hoping you might take a look at a few edits I have proposed? As an employee of Huntsman, I can't make the edits myself so would appreciate you having a look. If you're not able perhaps you could flag to another editor or steer me in the right direction of one? Many thanks!Lstewhou (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lstewhou: I began to make the changes myself then realised I can just give you the go ahead, so I'll show that on the talk page then feel free to edit away. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your help with edits to the Huntsman Corporation page

Hi Sam, would you mind having a look at some proposed COI edits on the Huntsman Corporation page? If not, I would be grateful if you could flag to another editor. Many thanks!Lstewhou (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)7

Replied within the talk page to keep it all together. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my dash edit.

You wrote: "Manual of Style sets out the use of the smaller 'en dash' for date ranges." That is correct. Thing is, that was an en-dash. The character I replaced is a hyphen, used primarily in compounds, to resolve modifier ambiguity, etc.

Hyphen: - En-dash: – Em-dash: —

Apologies, I was obviously rushing. Won't happen again. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Condensing/lengthening episode summaries more efficiently

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Condensing/lengthening episode summaries more efficiently. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SamWilson989. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Rees-Mogg

I'm not sure we need a source to describe someone who has made two serious bids for Parliament as a politician; as I see it, that's what the word means. If Fred has a red nose, enormous trousers, sits in a car with ten friends, and stuffs custard pies in their faces (and these facts are beyond dispute), we don't need a source to say Fred is a clown, because the known facts establish it (in effect, the sources re his nose etc _do_ say that he is a clown whether or not they use the word explicitly).

_However_, "former parliamentary candidate" resolves the question nicely. Thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SamWilson989. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)