User talk:StuHarris

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


G'day there, StuHarris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Good authors are always welcome on the project, and I hope you like the place and decide to stick around!

We've got a few pages you might find helpful, such as:

It's all best summed up here: write from a neutral point of view, play nice with others, and don't let the rules get you down.

If you have any questions or need any help, my talkpage is always open for business, or you can see Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. Here's a tip to start you off: if you type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of any messages you leave on talkpages (like this one) Wikipedia will automatically insert your name and the current date and time after your message. Cool, eh? Happy editing! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

John Osborne[edit]

just dropping by to say i appreciate yr dope updating on John Osborne. i suppose having been an actor and whatnot it's a logical interest... anyway cheers W guice 15:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Esther Rantzen[edit]

Moved from my user page:

Your Bowdlerisation of the scandal/marriage paragraph was more destructive than creative. This text is peerfectly well sourced -- please restore it.

El Ingles 14:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No conscious bowdlerisation I am sure. If removed anything worthy of including in (say) Encyclopedia Britiannica, do put it back in. —Ian Spackman 14:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Cheers.

Derek Marlowe[edit]

I've had a go at it myself. You can find the main relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:Guide to layout; the section on dates in Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Links and URLs is also important. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The works were already out of chronological order (laregely because the novels were listed in one polace and other works in other places). The categories are essential, in fact, from Wikipedia's point of view. Happy editing! --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe Eszterhas[edit]

Sorry that I carelessly reverted your edit in my reverting of the vandalism committed just before you edited. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankie Lane Working Man's Barnstar[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
For converting the mess of references in the Frankie Lane article into something recognizable. It's tedious and often unrecognized work but it's essential and I thank you for it! ElKevbo 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop City (novel)[edit]

I was just moving the synopsis sentence from the Drop City page to Drop City (novel). The plot section was commented out, but without explanation, so I uncommented it. Feel free to delete anything false/irrelevant :) --Quiddity 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's completely wrong, then just delete it. Misinformation is worse than no information. --Quiddity 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Look Back in Anger[edit]

I think you did a great job on the play. Now is better (split) to both, play and film, I think. Cheers. Films addicted 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Films_addicted

Thanks. I once played Jimmy on stage, so I'm very familiar with the plot. I can tell you that it's exhilarating, but if the Alison is your offstage gf, quite complicating of one's life. El Ingles 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stu: The work that was added to the look back in anger page is very useful. It would be helpful to keep that information on the page. I don't think it is vandalism, but since this is your page and your protective of it, I am hoping you might find a way to keep it. The information is really good, and I've seen other plays on wikipedia using the same subheadings. I hope you change your mind because the knowledge in the article was quite good. Is it possible for good information to be vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying your version is vandalism, not at all. I don't even find any errors to note. My problem with it is that it very much reads as though copy/pasted from an analysis originally written for academic purposes. The footnotes are incorrectly formatted and the synopsis is much too long. In addition, your wholesale deletion of the previous version causes some important points to be lost. Take a look at the wikipages of the works of other contemporary English playwrights -- Tom Stoppard and Alan Ayckbourne, for instance. Note IN PARTICULAR that the page on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead has been criticised for being in the same academic format as your Look Back in Anger. Please sign your contributions to this page and any other discussion page. Thanks. --El Ingles (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stu: I am not the author of the revisions or additions. I was looking at the page and I noticed the multiple edits. The great thing about wikipedia is that it is anonymous, so I appreciate the ability to not sign my note. I appreciated the content, the detailed information, and the useful subheadings. It seems whoever wrote that version knew what they were doing. I disagree with the assessment that it is academic. I found it informative in terms of the play's basic characteristics (character, genre, style, etc..). I highly suggest incorporating that information in your article because the information will be helpful to the general public. I now feel like I know more about the play and now I really want to read it. Finally, I hope that you won't disallow others from adding to the knowledge you started on this page. I think you are knowledgeable and can find a place for the combination of the two versions. It seems somebody did a lot of work to add to knowledge on wikipedia. I hope you will give that great knowledge the opportunity to be seen and used by the rest of the world. Cheers Friend! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A further explanation of why I reverted is on the article's talk page. --El Ingles (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blackbushe Airport[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that runway headings are 180 degrees from each other so it would have to be 07/25 which is what the official site has. Of course the satellite image shows 08/26. Are the other runways still operational? The website only shows the one and the satellite image has big "X"s on the others but then again the image has different headings to the website. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I was going by the satellite image and thought 08 was strange. I'll delete the cross-runway so that wiki conforms to the official site. El Ingles 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't want to take it out because sometimes it takes a while for the websites to get updated and you might have had newer information. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Look Back in Anger (film)[edit]

Looking over the article, I still think that it is start class. The plot needs to be trimmed down some, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot. The inline citations need to go directly after the punctuation, and before the number 4 citation, there is a missing period. Incorporate the information in the trivia section in the the casting section, and consider renaming the section from "Staffing, casting" to just "Cast" or "Staffing and casting". The locations section needs to be expanded, it's currently too short. There should be more inline citations for the article to qualify under B class or more sections of information should be added. It would also be great if you could add a production section as well. Is there any special information about box office revenue/a DVD release? Look for some critical reviews and add that. Begin developing these things and when you feel they have been addressed, I'll take another look. Look to the style guidelines for more help on what to include and look to other articles for ideas. Let me know if you have any questions about what I wrote here. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

French cuisine and Traiteur[edit]

Hello there, although I appreciate someone else working on these articles, I am trying to clean them up by removing all unsourced info and replacing it with properly sourced and cited information. If you add facts to the pages please try to cite your information.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you translate the citations into English? Also can you please stick to the format of the citations being used, inline note with the full citation in the works cited section.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, done that. I like the standard bibliog. format, but in my opinion the references should come BEFORE the footnotes. However I've worked within your style in this instance. El Ingles 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you include ISBNs in 'Works cited' where possible please? There's a wiki template for bibliography you might conveniently use. Cheers and bon appétit. El Ingles 16:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Notes first is standard, because you read the note and then go down to the reference based on the last name and page cited in the note, as well there are often citations placed inside the notes for quatations. This is the standard Chicago format used by many historians and although Wikipedia offers a template, which I believe is Harvard format, they suggest the editor use the style they are used to and keep it consistent within the article, which is what I am trying to do. I will find the ISBN's for the books and add them soon, I have a busy schedule the next couple days. Thank you for editing the citations you entered.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you also edit the one placed on French cuisine when you get a chance, thanks.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually dropped the tratoria fact by accident, but do you actually have a source for that at any rate if you are going to add it back?--Christopher Tanner, CCC 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a question as well, so we can add a reference for the brassarie note, what was the name of the article in Le Monde and whom was the author. Le Monde is a magazine correct? It sorta sounds familiar, but I do not recall it.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Le Monde is a daily newspaper, the 'newspaper of record' in France, equivalent to the Times of London or New York. The article was titled 'Les Meilleurs brasseries de Paris' and the author was Jean-Claude Ribaut. I'm not going to be able to retrieve a citation for the relationship between a traiteur and a trattoria. It's been accepted in the other direction — namely, in Trattoria. How about I send you e-mail stating this fact and you can then cite it as Private communication? El Ingles 22:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I knew that Le Monde was something obvious, just add back the trattoria fact, as much of the latter portion of that article is un-sourced (other than the portion you just added) if one of us finds a source we can add it. I'm not sure if your statement was meant as a joke, but citing you from an e-mail would not be a valid source. Perhaps make a mention that there is suggestion that many claim that one is the origin, while others claim the other is?--Christopher Tanner, CCC 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the translations, also thanks for finding those ISBN's for me. I was going to look for them today, but that's great you did that. I am planning on adding a lot more to the article today and tomorrow, please feel free to edit my grammar as sometimes as you have seen I do not always proofread it right away, so what you have edited so far has been appreciated. I'll be adding 18th century-current in the history, then probably rewriting the regional section. I'm still trying to decide how to work with the structure of meals, but I have an idea, any suggestions would be welcome.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Glad you appreciate the editing. It's something I enjoy and am fairly good at. This is interesting material and it's worth making it readable and accessible to the casual reader. El Ingles 21:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I write very academically and dry at times so making it accessible to the casual reader is a good thing with your editing. I attempt to keep uncommon words out of the articles I work on. At the risk of sounding egotistical, I am glad to see the article take shape into something usable. Are you from France by chance?--Christopher Tanner, CCC 22:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm an Englishman living in California. Writing and editing is my profession. I'm bilingual French and still own property in France. I've never worked in the restaurant business but I've had restaurant owners, managers and chefs as good friends. Cooking is my hobby. Cheers. El Ingles 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it is a pleasure to properly introduce myself then, I was a sous-chef in Yosemite at one point as well as San Francisco. Those of us who work in the restaurant business can be a little difficult to get along with, but the same can be said for writers I am sure. What type of writing do you do if you do not mind me asking?--Christopher Tanner, CCC 23:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I've eaten at the Ahwanee Lodge, with great pleasure, and many times at the Washington Sq B&G in North Beach. True, writers can be overly introspective, but I'm actually very gregarious. When the computer book business book was booming I wrote or co-wrote a whole slew of them on very tight deadlines. These days I create and/or edit technical documentation for the software industry. El Ingles 00:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting coincidence because I just saw one of my mentors yesterday at a culinary competition Iw as judging who is the corporate chef for the company who manages all of the Yosemite hotels. I personally was at the Tenaya Lodge, which was at the other end of the park. I myself am sort of trying to get into writing, possibly writing a book on cassoulet which will be an extension of my thesis. I am extremly interested in the research portion of writing and getting other people interested as well. If you have some time, and you wouldn't mind, could you take a look at the Food article for me. I am working on that one as the central article for the WikiProject Food and Drink. We could use another editor for the project as well if you are interested in associating yourself with the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink--Christopher Tanner, CCC 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll certainly look at Food once I'm satisfied with French cuisine. El Ingles 21:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Do you have a source you can suggest? I know I have one but I thought maybe you could save me a bit of time so that I can properly cite the entry.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 18:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I sourced it form a book I have, just let me take care of that later tonight. I need to get ready for my class this evening.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 18:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

French cuisine[edit]

Just as a note, don't bother grammar editing under the restaurant portion until I have rewritten the sections, it will be a waste of your time as I will probably be completely changing the sections and you time would be better served editing my horrible grammar instead.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the mangold which is what chard is called in that region. I did not add the wine comment yet (just so you didn't think I forgot it) as I am going to add a small section on French wine to denote the grapes used in each region along with a short blurb on AOC laws. I'm going to do the same for cheese and distilled spirits.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 14:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Viaduc de Millau[edit]

No, I just messed about with a section. Others have done more - you can see from the page history who has edited it most. Anyway the general Wikipedia rule applies - anyone can edit at any time. You don't even have to supply an accurate translation, since you are free to improve on the original if you can, aiming for an end result that is encyclopedic and well-sourced. Sounds like it's right up your street. I got stuck on some of the technical terms. Itsmejudith 17:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Really good article now. There are some very small quibbles, not related to the translation. Causse rouge should probably have its own article. These days, articles are not supposed to have a Trivia section: material is meant to be moved around appropriately or deleted. Other than that, it could be assessed for Good Article status. Itsmejudith 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject France[edit]

Flag of France.svg
Welcome StuHarris, to the WikiProject France! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on France-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject France}}.

A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
  • We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.
Clipboard.svg Wikipedia:France-related tasks
You can help! Vous pouvez aider!
Here are some France related tasks you can do:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project!

STTW (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Buying fame[edit]

Oops, thought I got that. Thanks. KP Botany 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Point taken, but the tags do exist for a reason. I've re-ordered and fixed filmographies many times before but no one's good enough to get to all of them. Furthermore, this is the first time I've added the tag (after having asked for a similar action to be taken on the talk page sometime last week, and no one has risen to the occasion since it's been unlocked). What I'm trying to say is that there is no policy against tagging articles for clean-up, so there is no need to chastise those who utilize them -- as long as it gets fixed. María (críticame) 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Right on. :) María (críticame) 17:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I manage quite well by myself, but thanks for the link! I appreciate the thought, and maybe I'll check it out. María (críticame) 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

List inverter[edit]

I've created a simple list inverter, using the perl operator

@list = reverse(@list);

It's available to anybody for inverting filmographies etc.

Brassière vs. Brasserie[edit]

Your edit was gratuitous. There is actual confusion of the two terms to be seen on the talk page of Brassiere and . 11:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. Robert Jarvik[edit]

You're welcome. Keep up the good work! Regards, Húsönd 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


I know - see that talk page for the episode page. Jooler (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User Boringguy keeps removing it. I note that he removed the reference ot Horizon from the Nova page several times. Jooler (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Jolly good. It's a shame that the BBC catalogue site [1] is currently offline, making it hard to find good references. Jooler (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You Tube Link removal[edit]

The link was removed because it's copyright status was unclear.. if you can find a clip compatible with WP:EL, then use that :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi Stu. Sorry to bother you, but just to let you know that I've removed an image that you added to Cydonia Mensae. I'm afraid I couldn't see what it added to the article. Especially since there was already a much clearer comparison between the new and Viking images. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That's OK Plumbago, I didn't think it was that good a job myself. However, either intentionally or not, you've also removed the highest resolution image currently available, HiRISE face.jpg. Seems a little harsh. You might also consider whether the image that purports to be from Mars Global Surveyor is correctly labelled. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. You're right about the image resolution, and I wrote to the editor who added that to see if it could be rotated (it's upside-down relative to the other images on the page) to replace the slightly worse image that's still there. I'll maybe look into doing that myself. As for the attribution of the image to the MGS, thanks for pointing that out, but I'll have to get back to you on that one - needless to say, I'm no space scientist.  ;-) Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The image that purports to be Mars Global Surveyor is actually from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The MGS image was notably low-contrast due to atmospheric conditions at the time. Two versions of it, compared with the original Viking image (on the left) are here: --El Ingles (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I've done what I suggested above. So the MGS image has been replaced by the MRO one. I checked up on the MGS one, and as far as I can tell, it's really from the MGS (I followed the links from the image itself). Anyway, this means that the article now shows a greater diversity of versions of the Face. I hope this helps. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sample deleted"[edit]

(Copied from User talk:Michael Hardy):

Music samples are "generally" not supposed to be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. They're also generally 96kbps, when "reduced quality" is suggested to be 64kbps. I would send them through IFD normally, but this particular uploader had uploaded a few hundred such samples, even after realizing in 2005 or 2006 that the length was problematic, and has since stopped uploading media, and ignores the IFD postings.

I sent one of his uploads through IFD a few weeks ago, and there was no objection to that one, so I've been speedying about 10-20 at a time every few days, waiting to see if anyone objected; if you or anyone else would like to have some of the files undeleted, cut them to below 30 seconds and 10% of the original length and reduce the song quality, I have no problem with that. Ral315 (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Martha[edit]

Hi buddy, thanks for your note. My edit removed numerous instances of POV, peacock words, and unencyclopaedic/informal/colloquial writing that isn't welcome on Wikipedia. My {{fact}} tag was picking up on this: "Her sexual desires seem to have been driven by the need for the companionship of alpha males rather than any kind of lust." (Emboldened myself) "Seem" is the key word here. That's an observation by the writer which you know we can't do. So that's my reasoning. I don't think I will revert as my edits were wholly constructive, I'm an experienced Wiki-editor and I know what I'm doing. Additionally, next time you leave myself or anyone else a note, please could you be a bit friendlier; I found your message to be slightly aggressive when you referred to my edit (albeit, in part) as "laughable". Please read WP:AGF. Thank you for your message anyway. If you still find fault with my clean up, I am willing to bring in a neutral-third opinion. :-) Thanks again. Utan Vax (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Roll back use[edit]

[2] Please only use rollback on blatantly obvious instances of vandalism. The IP's removal of that entry was not only correct per our policies but it also included an A-Okay edit summary (Usually a good sign!). Try to be a bit more careful in the future please. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Utan Vax (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You can tell the edit was not a direct rollback by the fact that an edit summary is present. Rollback gives no opportunity for summary. Try to be a bit more careful in the future please. --El Ingles (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it was rollback. That is the default summary that the rollback feature gives. Please don't use rollback except for Vandalism or your rollback rights could be removed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, you're right, I was looking at the wrong edit. The user who deleted that section with the edit summary "incorrectly quoted" was not logged in and therefore I had no opportunity to discuss with him or her what was incorrect. I re-verified the citation and restored it. This is, by the way, the very same citation that you are now suggesting is OR. I have no idea why -- it is taken from a correctly-referenced biography. That's what wikipedia articles are supposed to do. --El Ingles (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not suggesting anything; perhaps you're talking about something else. I'm simply asking you to not use rollback except in cases of vandalism. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In Re: Amy[edit]

Alright there Stu? I saw your goodly efforts on Amy Alkon and thought you may like to check out some exquisite distillations of her latest at the excellent (and required reading for all sane expats stateside) anti-wingnut pissup Sadly, No [3]. I'll look out a barnstar jobbie for you meantime. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just enter the name on the Sadly search. She was in particularly splendid form, early to mid-September, threatening to sue and all she was. Enjoy. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm about to go offwiki, but I strongly recommend you revert yourself here. I think it's uncivil. Even if you disagree with that, you must agree that the comments at the end are not in any way constructive, so there's only to gain by removing them. Please do. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Julius Caesar[edit]

Thank you for re-writing the introductory paragraph on this play as it far exceeds the previous edits. Being such an excellent classical tragedy, I'm glad someone knows how to use correct grammar. Lordknave (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cydonia geometry is a quite separate issue [from Hyperdimensional Physics][edit]

LOL:) Maybe you should care to spend ten minutes studying his proposed model? Dubiten (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really not possible to "study" the topic in any meaningful sense, Dubiten. All that can be derived from reading Hoagland's essays on the subject is conjecture, and a few irrelevant references to other people's work. Over time Hoagland has been notably self-contradictory on this topic, which makes me believe that he has no coherent theory at all. But as far as Cydonia geometry goes, it is not mentioned in this summary, is it? The Mars connection is to Olympus Mons, and it's an inaccurate one at that. --El Ingles (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your conclusion. The 'physics' that he refers to is a field of study itself - with no ready books. Though, saying that geometry is a separate issue from his theory is like saying quantization is a separate issue from quantum theory. It is the basis and I will expand the section on regular basis, as my time allows. Dubiten (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

>>saying that geometry is a separate issue from his theory is like saying quantization is a separate issue from quantum theory.<< That's not what I'm saying, however. I'm saying (writing, actually) that Cydonia geometry is a separate issue. If I may say, I believe you're hoodwinked by Hoagland in the same way many people (including the producers of Coast to Coast AM) are. Because Hoagland makes his essays sound like science you assume that they are science. It's simply not the case. They're ENTERTAINMENT, without any scientific merit whatsoever. --El Ingles (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint. I'm a bit amused to see how "skeptics" confidently believe they have the answers, also knowing that "the forefront of modern physics" is extensively crippled and full of utterly embarrassing paradoxes. You cannot think outside the box unless you escape its bounds. An individual freed from his mental bounds is subject to ridicule and opposition - the inescapable dogma of our "scientific method", which ultimately is about satisfying one's ego and self-interest. All the answers lie in the history of physics all the way back to ancient times, a field rarely given much attention. Dubiten (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, the "They all laughed at Galileo" argument YET AGAIN. What an insult to Galileo, making any kind of comparison between him and RCH. Ridicule and opposition is not necessarily the fate of an individual with an unusual perspective on life. Ridicule and opposition is the deserved fate of anyone who, as RCH has done, publishes statements such as:
- NASA is a direct adjunct of the DoD
- Neil Armstrong likened himself to a parrot in his 25th anniversary speech
- NASA concealed the results of the Viking biology LR experiment
- The Brookings Report recommended concealment of evidence of alien civilizations
- Cernan and/or Schmitt could have retrieved a skull-sized rock from Shorty crater
- Farouk El-Baz was the most powerful figure in the entire Apollo Program
- NASA will never resolve the ECO fuel problem by conventional engineering
- The Explorer 1 satellite benefitted from an anti-gravity effect
All of the above statements are demonstrably, incontrovertibly, FALSE. Hence the ridicule. It has nothing to do with what you RCH-apologists like to call "an open mind." It's about TRUTH, plain and simple.
--El Ingles (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What a perfect example of dogma in action. Distortion and manipulation of messages as distraction from their actual meaning. Then really, for someone who is so "obviously wrong", why the strong urge to discredit and ridicule in the first place? One should think that, when ignored, their "false beliefs" would go away automatically, wouldn't one?

Ridicule and opposition is the fate of anyone who publishes statements in conflict with established beliefs. My deepest respect to Hoagland and others like-minded who dare speak their truth in the midst of a violent river of established dogmas.

BTW; Where did I mention Galileo? Dubiten (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

>>Ridicule and opposition is the fate of anyone who publishes statements in conflict with established beliefs.<< No, once again -- Ridicule and opposition is the fate of anyone who publishes statements THAT ARE DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. --El Ingles (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well then, conclusively you are right and I am wrong. How does that make you feel? Perhaps it depends on your belief in my conclusion:) Dubiten (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

>>How does that make you feel?<< What an extraordinary question. I think we're debating logical propositions here, aren't we? Feelings are utterly irrelevant.
>>Distortion and manipulation of messages as distraction from their actual meaning.<< Kindly indicate which messages I have distorted and which I have manipulated.
>>One should think that, when ignored, their "false beliefs" would go away automatically, wouldn't one?<< No -- not so long as RCH is given access to the however-many-million radio audience of C2C-AM, and given, moreover, the title of Science Adviser to that sorry excuse for an informative show. --El Ingles (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Alan G. Archer (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Gandy Dancers' Ball[edit]

This may be the least important question about a Wikipedia edit that anyone will ask you, but I was just curious. Why did you delete mention of The Gandy Dancers' Ball in the list of Frankie Laine hits at the beginning of his bio? It certainly isn't my favorite among the great man's repertoire (not like Lucky Old Sun, Jezebel, Cool Water, or the 3:10 to Yuma) but I believe it was at least a modest hit for him. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear anywhere on Frankie's official web site. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland[edit]

Good point. I figured the 403 was temporary, and in the spirit of retaining information rather than remove it, I left the dead link. But yeah, a 403 is rather permanent, huh? Cheers! Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2009 (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. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill[edit]

I missed seeing that someone actually had put in details of the static kill. That someone was you.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It belongs under "Permanent closure", in my opinion. That section was kind of short of material. A case could be made for the "Temporary closure" section in Efforts to stem the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I ended that section by referring to the "Permanent closure" process. In both articles I put your contributions in what I felt was the correct section. Now I'm starting to wonder, but the people in charge of doing it seem to think the static kill, combined with the relief well, is the permanent closure.19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a fine point. We were all thinking of the "top kill" as the temporary closure, and the relief well as the permanent. But I can see how some people might think that only the mud counts as temporary, or even only the capping stack. I don't have a very strong opinion. Please sign contributions to talk pages. Thx. El Ingles (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm always forgetting to sign. Sorry. Well, I hope my changes meet with your approval.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no worries chimp. El Ingles (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Coast to Coast AM. Thank you. milonica (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland[edit]

You seem to be aware of WP:3RR, per this edit summary. I would very strongly urge you to look at the history of the article in the past twenty-four hours; if you revert again you will be in violation of 3RR, but I would not be. However, WP:BLP is the more important policy here - you are adding defamatory material with either no source or (more recently) a source that does not support the assertions attached to it; and both BLP and 3RR allow any number of reverts of those additions. If you have a source for the assertion that Hoagland has no scientific training at all - and you probably don't, even if you think that you do - then I urge you to post on the talk page, in the section Talk:Richard_C._Hoagland#Assertion_that_Hoagland_.22does_not_have_any_scientific_training.22, regarding what I have already posted there. Gavia immer (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Richard_C._Hoagland for today's slightly amusing edit-skirmish.El Ingles (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for watching my back. :-) Alan G. Archer (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Hoagland's hypnosis claim in Dark Mission, it looks like you are right about his saying that it was administered only to the twelve Apollo moonwalkers. Alan G. Archer (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There would hardly be any point in hypnotizing people who could not possibly have seen the SEEKRIT alien artifacts anyway. El Ingles (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Space Nazis! Did Hoagland have anything to do with the movie Iron Sky? Alan G. Archer (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Heavens, no. He pays a great deal of attention to sci-fi movies (in fact, his extravagant praise of John Carter possibly deserves a mention in the Mars section of the article) but in view of his age and total lack of experience in the movie business as it is today, nobody would consider giving him a job. El Ingles (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Youtube non-tollerance[edit]

Hello, Stu. I've noticed that over the years you have made great contributions towards expanding the article on Look Back in Anger and keeping it tidy, which has made it (and its related articles) a great source of information.

This morning (2011-2-2; 14:37 UTC) I added a note on the critical reception of this play at the time, after watching a 1992 obituary of drama critic Harold Hobson. I did so because I thought he was influential and differed from the critical reactions currently in the article. I tried to add the video as the source of the quote using the <ref> tags and the citeweb template, but it didn't show up in the preview, for which reason I put the link directly (allowing it to appear as a number in brackets).

At my next click I get the message from the bot saying that my edit has been reverted due to including a you-tube link. "Well, its just an automation," I thought, "it can't know the video is a reference," and undid it. To my surprize, when I re-loaded the article in the afternoon for separate reasons (around 17 h UTC) I find that a human editor removed the link.

I am truly bewildered by this, since I thought Wikipedia policy required everything to be sourced whenever possible (and Google shows that particular review to not exist in text on the Internet). How, then, is a multimedia clip put as a source when the article has no "references" section?

Respecfully yours, (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

I appreciate your positive comment about my edits of Look Back in Anger. I try. The reason why links to Youchoob are discouraged are explained briefly here. You are correct that material in articles should be sourced where possible, but it's my opinion that your addition is not likely to be challenged and therefore the risk of copyvio takes precedence. After all, the Tynan quote hasn't been challenged all these years. I'm glad to see your quote, actually—if Tynan, why not Hobson? You might consider moving it up above Sillitoe, perhaps, to keep the Great Critics of the Day together. El Ingles (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dark Mission[edit]

StuHarris I don't want to engage in inappropriate edit warring with you indefinitely. The complaint about not having certain material in Dark Mission's revised edition is a matter of publishing and promoting logistics. Changes in a book between author and publisher happen daily in the publishing business, and the promotion was changed, and thus it is a meaningless issue for a Wikipdedia entry. As a result it's used as a personal attack against the writer and publisher. Can we discuss this off the Wikipedia entry page? Thank you. -Carrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarrieLorraine (talkcontribs) 20:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let's discuss Adam Parfrey's irresponsible promotional tactics here rather than in his talk page. As a published author myself (7 books) I'm perfectly aware of the daily changes in the biz. What is irresponsible is to pretend, for the purposes of promotion, that these changes HAVE NOT HAPPENED. I invite you to inspect my citations. You will see that the false promo is still on the Amazon and Borders pages, nearly TWO YEARS after the decision was made to exclude that chapter. The material is adequately sourced, and relevant to Mr Parfrey's attitude to the readership he's supposed to serve. Ergo I maintain it's wiki-appropriate. El Ingles (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to work this out:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Adam Parfrey". Thank you. CarrieLorraine (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

centrifugal force[edit]

centrifugal force is fictitious, StuHarris. it is a "pseudo-force," an illusion created by the opposing interaction of inertia and centripetal force (a real force). When an object is spinning in a circle it wants to go in a straight line due to inertia, but some force is holding it back (maybe a string or something). That string creates the centripetal force holding the object back. The illusion of an outward centrifugal force is created by inertia wanting the object to move out in a straight line. Consult any science or physics source and they will tell you centrifugal is a fictitious force. The proper term to use when refer to an opposing force counter to centripetal force is inertia. - Cadiomals (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest. I refer you to this 1995 article. El Ingles (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Apollo 1[edit]

I want to thank you for your efforts to maintain the encyclopedia by reverting the blanking of a large amount of content from the Apollo 1 article. Without such anti-vandal efforts, Wikipedia would go downhill fast. When you revert vandalism, it helps to let the vandal know their efforts have been swiftly undone, encourages them to edit productively, and moves along the process of eventually getting the vandal blocked if they persist. There are warning templates at WP:WARN or editing tools such as Twinkle can aid in placing the warnings. I went ahead and placed a level 1 warning on the talk page of the IP account, however little effect such a warning may have. Thanks again. Edison (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

George Devine[edit]

Dear Stu -- I have completely rewritten the George Devine entry, though I have kept a very small amount of your material including the useful reference sections. I have added a good deal of material and taken out the far too personal stuff which you kept putting back in when I did minor edits. Please do not replace this as it is quite inappropriate for Wikipedia -- if people want gossip they can read about it all in my book which is in the refs anyway. I respect your enthusiasm for the subject but I really think it will be more useful for people to read something fuller. Harriet Devine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drharrietd (talkcontribs) 10:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not really OK for a daughter to write or rewrite a wikipedia article, but it looks OK, I'll pretend I haven't noticed. El Ingles (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

We don't add original research to articles on wikipedia. That includes debunking someone, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism[edit]

Hi Stu, thanks for reverting the vandalism at Marlon Brando. However, when you find vandalism to a page, please check the contributions of the user or IP who made the vandalism to check if they have made any other bad edits. In this case, the IP address had made many such edits that needed to be undone as soonas possible. The IP's edit to Marlon Brando lasted for 46 minutes, not 2 as you claimed in your edit summary, and some of the user's vandalism lasted for a little over four hours. You should also warn the vandals, and do not insult them, as you did at the above-linked Marlon Brando edit. Thanks! Graham87 15:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris Evert Abortion/Jimmy Connors Bio.[edit]

Hi. Thanks for stepping up with the offer to share the Chris Evert abortion claim by Jimmy Connors. If you provide me with the quote/s and page citation/s, I will boldly fucking edit on this one. I'm sick of Wikipedia's pitty-pattying around DOCUMENTED contoversy in its articles. Thanks.User:JCHeverly 08:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I so agree. Obviously, wikipedia should not devote itself to tabloid gossip, but there's a phenomenon at work whereby all articles "regress to the bland" over time. A perfect example is Biosphere 2, which was interesting until it got watered down by (presumably) vested interests.
Here's Connors -- "Listen , an issue had arisen as a result of youthful passion and a decision had to be made as a couple. I was staying in an apartment and Nasty [Ilie Nastase] was there when Chrissie called to say she was coming out to LA to take care of that 'issue.' I was perfectly happy to let nature take its course and accept responsibility for what was to come. Chrissie, however, had already made up her mind that the timing was bad and too much was riding on her future. She asked me to handle the details. I said something like 'Well, thanks for letting me know. Since I don't have any say in the matter, then I guess I'm just here to help.'"
The Outsider by Jimmy Connors. Bantam/HarperCollins, 2013. ISBN 9780593069271. pp. 132-3
Thanks. I have cited three credible sources, including the above quote, on both Evert's and Connors's articles talk pages. I have tagged each article. Out of courtesy and protocol, I will give the articles' creator/s the opportunity to edit. If he/they fail to do so in 48 hours, I will take the bull by the balls. (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The Pusillanimous Puke Pile that created the Jimmy Connors article took down my tag and berated me on the talk page. I decided it was time to Boldly Edit both the Connors and the Evert articles. Now lets wait for the fallout from the gutless wonders friends.User:JCHeverly 15:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

You should know better. I don't know you but I hope this isn't something you do often. Saying that an editor has assassinated an article is not conducive to a fruitful discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What I meant was that Nasa-verve is threatening to assassinate the article. That's not a personal attack, just a fear. Stu (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
no harm no foul Nasa-verve (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

R Hoagland[edit]

Hey Stu. So I thought I would ask you over here first before resuming the convo about Hoagland. So based on your comment about removing, are you serious? If so, how will this go a different way than the previous deletion request which was unsuccessful? Thanks. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I will say, removal wasn't my intention at all with this article, but I understand how it may be the best outcome. I just wanted WP give less coverage to all the details of RH, because it appears to give credit to them. It's that simple, nothing more, nothing less. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't expect a deletion rq to go through now any more than it did before. So while I am serious, yes, I don't expect to win. Interesting that you think the text appears to give RCH credit. I think "only 2 of the 6 Moon landings conform to Hoagland's claim of "obsessive, relentless" NASA ritual" tells its own story. Stu (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the feedback. Nasa-verve (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2014 (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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Food and Drink editathon[edit]

Chef cooking clip art.svg
Globe icon.png

November 2016

An opportunity for you and your country to contribute to the
Women in Food and Drink online editathon
Faciliated by Women in Red

Women in Red logo.svg

--Ipigott (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, StuHarris. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, StuHarris. 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)