Welcome!

Hello, Prestonmcconkie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

|} writing for the enemy/Gaming the system

You should consider engaging in extended discussion on the talk pages of several articles, including Talk:Stem cell, about your additions. Wikipedia isn't a forum for speculation. If you want to provide content about the actual positions of people, such as the Mormon senators in the stem cell debate, you should use sources that represent their actual opinions and positions rather than a biased essay. Also, be sure NOT to keep adding it after others have removed it. You will end up getting blocked if you violate the 3 revert rule. Thank you. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm glad you've taken it to heart. Yeah, having someone revert your edits without good explanation is annoying, so I'm glad I was able to clear some things up a bit. Good luck with your future edits! -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:OgdenByFordPermissionGrante.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:OgdenAreaByFord.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please refrain from using remarks such as those you made in the page history of Anaphylaxis on 4 August 2007, as they are considered to be Uncivil (Refer to WP:CIVIL). Also please note that the edit summary is for that, an edit summary, not for editors to express their personal views. Thanks for your co-operation. Thor Malmjursson 12:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Iceflow Is a member of The Recent Change Patrol.[reply]

True, but the irony that you pointed out was pretty damn funny. Antelan ^talk 22:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki conflict dispute process includes mediation and as a last resort, arbitration. I think that arbitration may be inevitable. I liked Churchill's book called Agents of Repression but beyond that I think that he is a polemicist looking to sell his books, I am siding with Lulu on this one because I have read what Wiki has to say about Bios of living persons. Getaway seems to loathe Churchill but for me this has always been about wiki policy. That may be hard for you to believe but it is the truth. Anyway welcome to the article....... Albion moonlight 07:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am responding to you here because I have already commented enough on the Jesus talk page, and my comments there were becoming tendentious and I really am not trying to stir up more conflict. I am responding to you not to try to change your mind but because based on what you wrote there, I think you misunderstand the position of those who do not want to use AD/BC. At least, I wrote a lot on that page to explain why I don't want to use them, and your comment does not accurately represent my view (if you do not care whether you accurately represent my view ... well, you may as well stop reading this note). The reason that I myself will only use BCE/CE is not because I want to "the appearance of admitting that EITHER Jesus's spiritual or historical significance is the reason for the supposed year of his birth being used as the pivot for measuring recorded history." To be clear: I believe that most of the world uses the Gregorian calendar (and if they do not among themselves, they do when they enter international business or politics) is because Europe came to dominate the world economy and politics starting in the 1500s, and today Europ and the US still play a dominant role in the world economy and politics ... and yes, the reason that Europeans use the Gregorian calendar is because Jesus is, or for a long time was, of tremendous spiritual and/or historical significance to the vast majority of Europeans. I do not at all question this. The reason I myself will only use BCE/CE is simply because I personally do not consider Jesus my Lord or savior, and because I know that AD stands for "our Lord" and BC stands for "Before Christ (savior)," and if I ever said, "This is the year of our Lord 2006" I would view myself as a hypocrite and liar because he is not my lord. If other people do consider Jesus their Lord, or do not care about these matters, and want to use AD/BC themselves, I have no objection to them doing so. But I think most people who use BCE and CE are like me - they do so because they cannot in good conscience say that Jesus is their Lord or use words that give the impression that they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior. The only exception to this I know of is Christians who do accept Jesus as their personal Lord like Karen Armstrong (a former nun, who has written books about religion) who when writing for a popular audience uses BCE and CE because she knos many of her readers do not accept Jesus as their Lord or savior.

You do not need to respond to me - I am not trying to change your mind, and I am not trying to get into an argument. And you have every right to disagree with me but I assure you you won't change my mnd. The only reason I am writing this note is because in your comment on the Jesus talk page you supposed a reason for why people won't use AD/BC. Since you suppose a reason, I figured that meant that you were trying to understand them. Since your reason doesn't apply to me, I thought you might want to understand my reason (even if you end up still not agreeing with it). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note on my page. I too appreciate your courteous tone. I know that you are acting in good faith, I appreciate your willingness to explain our own motives, and am very glad you are taking mine on good faith. It is hard for me to say what I would do had I been bon into a world where there were no alternatives to AD or BC - I suspect that instead of AD, I would do what most Jews do when using current dates - we just don't say "AD." I don't know what I would have done instead of BC. Be that as it may, I was born in a world where people were already using BCE and when I went to Hebrew school and whenever we had a historical discussion in synagogue we just used BCE.

I appreciate your spirit of dialogue so if you don't mind, I would like to respond to your suggestion that the use of BCE/CE originated in an attack on the divinity of Jesus. Since this is such a contentious issue, and one I feel strongly about, I once did some research (I admit, relying only on Google). It is still not clear to me when BCE/CE started so honestly, I just cannot say what the actual motives were. However, would like to suggest to you an alternate scenario. This hinges on my felief that that “CE” has earlier antecedents. In a 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux, we find, “The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation” (I can't give you a citation, I found this googling). In 1835, in his book Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell, wrote “The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days.” “Vulgar” comes from the Latin word vulgāaris (from vulgus, “the common people”), meant “of or belonging to the common people, everyday,” (so the "Vulgate" version of the Bible was Jerome's atempt in the 400s to translate the Bible from Hebrew and greek into what was the comon language of the Roman Empire, Latin. So I think Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries used the phrase "Vulgar Era" to mean “common era.” Why they used this, in addition to AD, I can only guess – I suspect it was to acknowledge that the date was commonly used, even by people who did not believe that Jesus was Lord. Remember that before Columbus, only Christians used the Gregorian Calendar. By the 1700s Europeans had colonies around the world and were trading more extensively than ever before with non-Christians. Perhaps by the 18th century huge numbers of non-Christians, maybe for the first time in history, were using the Gregorian calendar too and these authors were using "Vulgar Era" to signal that even non-Christians were using their calendar - their calendar in other words had become common.

If I am right, people would have stopped using the term "Vulgar Era" when the principal meaning of "vulgar" had changed from meaning common to meaning obscene. Perhaps at that time people who would have used "Vulgar Era" would have started saying "Common Era." There is some evidence for this in the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia article on "Chronology." It says (and this is available on-line too): "Foremost among these [dating eras] is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living." This 1908 example from the Catholic Encyclopedia is the first use of “Common Era” I can find, and I believe it was used synonymously with, or to replace “Vulgar Era.”

The first Jewish use of this practice of which I know is from an inscription on a gravestone in a Jewish cemetery in Plymouth, England:

"Here is buried his honour Judah ben his honour Joseph, a prince and honoured amongst philanthropists, who executed good deeds, died in his house in the City of Bath, Tuesday, and was buried here on Sunday, 19 Sivan in the year 5585. In memory of Lyon Joseph Esq (merchant of Falmouth, Cornwall). who died at Bath June AM 5585/VE 1825. Beloved and respected."

This inscription, like most, uses the Jewish calendar (5585), but ends by providing the common year (1825); presumably the “VE” means “Vulgar Era,” and presumably VE was used instead of AD in order to avoid the Christian implications. But given that Christians were using the term as early as 1716, I would suggest that these Jews were adopting a Christian convention.

Preston, I know that since the late 1700s Europeans, including many Europeans who were born to Christian parents or even educated in the Church, have turned against Christianity. I don't mean to offend you (or be unsympathetic) but i think this is part of a larger assault on religion - Orthodox Jews who reject Jesus (and who would not use BC or AD) would nevertheless share your view that more and more people do not believe in God and are dismissive of those who do believe in God. I am sure you are right that some people who use BCE and CE have open contempt for Christians (but - and again, I hope I do not offend - I would like to suggest that there are many people who are contemptuous of Christians and yet who use BC and AD, just as they celebrate Christmas with a Christmas tree and presents ... they simply do not care about the religious content. I once had a small argument with a non-Jewish friend who was upset that I do not celebrate Christmas. I told him, I am not a Christian, and he said "Neither am I but I celebrate it!" I am gussing he uses BC and AD too which to me is inconsistent but I guess many people are inconsistent). Anyway, I do believe that there are people who use BCE and CE because they reject Christianity.

However, I still think it is interesting that Christians (or so it seems) were the first to use "Vulgar Era" and I speculate "Common Era" as well. I'd like to think that it was because they were acknowledging that there are people who share their calendar but who do not share their faith. I hope no Christian is ever offended by my using BCE and CE - by my celebrating Hannukah instead of Christmas, and Yom Kippor instead of Easter. I happen not to be living n the US right now (I got a job in England). One of the things I miss about America is that in America, in addition to the main broadcast TV networks wishing people a merry Christmas, at the appropriate time they also wished people a happy Hannukah - it made me feel included. I don't like it when anyone has contempt for the personal faith of another person (which by the way is why I do not object to people using BC and AD on the Jesus page). But I do think people of different faiths (including people of no faith, if that is really possible) also have to learn how to create a "common" space where they can meet and interact (which, for what it is worth, is why I also support using BCE and CE on the Jesus page). My own interpretation of the idea of a separation between Church and State in the US is not that the idea itself or the US government should ever persecute religion or exclude religious people, only that in a country with people of so many different faiths there should be some space (mental as well as phsycial) where - without abandoning our Christianity or Judaism or whatever - we can meet not as Christians and jews but as Americans. This is not something that the British are very good at and for all the conflict I have seen in America we still manage to give people of widely different faiths a lot of freedom. Oka, I am starting to get homesick. Anyway, I appreciate your taking time to read this. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems okay by me but I don't really consider it a reliable source. As always I can only speak for myself, Unfortunately sourcing isn't my main concern, BLP I wont delete or change that section but I may support others that do if and when they do it or propose it, Albion moonlight 19:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a step back and looking at what I was saying. Getting involved in an article that has so much around it is sometimes overwhelming. I've only so much time to devote and want to see a couple projects through before taking on others, though I've put Churchill on my future list. I try to spend a bit of time each evening checking contributions by new editors and reference checking, which is how I came across this article. My time is consumed at the moment with Columbine, which is a huge project. Trying to remain unbiased about things is hard sometimes. Anyway, thanks again. Wildhartlivie 03:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have misjudged you. You did a fine job working things out with wildhartlivie. You seemed to be coming on so strong that I thought you were trying to drive him off. I got too excited. I did not assume good faith on your part so subsequently I became verbally aggressive. It will probably happen again but I hope it doesn't, I am just a human being like everybody else. I prefer thins to be civil but I sometime behave in an uncivil manner. I hope we find a way to get along but if we don't we don't. Unlike you I am not a professional journalist but wiki is for everybody. Albion moonlight 07:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edits. FYI "the sinologist BK" is normal UK English, though I realize that "the" is often omitted in US English—particularly in journalism. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MOSDATE and do not change era notation without consensus. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My assertions pusuant to tagging were hasty but they were never intended to be a threat. I guess I just assumed you knew about about wiki policy on tagging pursuant to mis or dis sourced material. Please read the material below and you will see in part the point I was trying to make. Thanks.

Jimmy Wales has said it is better to have no information at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.^[1]

Albion moonlight 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I regularly delete material that is clearly speculative. However, the material in question on the Churchill page was not speculative; it was couched as fact. The only issue was whether it was properly sourced. I accept that I was too impatient with Wildhartlivie for not looking for documentation before tagging the section, but I don't think Wales's remarks on speculation apply to the issue.

Nevertheless, I welcome any educational feedback. It's always more helpful to get a lesson in policy than to have someone assume I know it and am purposefully ignoring it. Cheers, Preston McConkie 13:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right it didn't apply. I suspected that you were assuming that it wasn't speculative and I did not want to be the one who had to check it. Like I said I jumped the gun. I should have simply waited to see what Wildhartlivie and Lulu had to say and stayed the hell out of it until I was sure. I am glad that we got that settled. Thanks for your time. Albion moonlight 14:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment and thought it worth commenting on.

The word "has" implies ongoing or continuous ownership. By contrast, the word "experiences" conveys something that is episodic or occasional.

The statements "He has depression" and "He experiences depression" convey subtle differences.

Regards LittleOldMe 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I'm overwhelmed. I have just got back from lunch.Thanks for your kind reply and, in addition, a barnstar on my user page. Thanks a bunch! LittleOldMe 13:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks. I was surprised to see you as well. Don't worry about the edit. It's a good article, it just needs minor tweaks, I think. I like for text to flow smoothly and boy, do I hate those "blah blah, and then blah, and then blah"s that keep popping up in articles!! Wildhartlivie 12:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eeps, I think I just put in one stray "however." HOWEVER, it DID fit!! I want what I read to be as smooth as if I were speaking it aloud. When I run across run-on sentences or too many that use a semi-colon, my eyes start to cross and my brain smoulders. Someone once told me to "write like an adult, but gear it for an 8 year old." I try to keep that in mind. Cheers! Wildhartlivie 12:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston: Thanks for the Barnstar! I also thought that you did a great job dealing with the reference questions in Ward Churchill. Glad to have you in Wikipedia! Cheers!--Getaway 14:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to just re-create your article, will you please blank the original and add {{db-author}} to it? In the future, you can just move the page. If you need help, please drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks. GlassCobra 07:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. In this case, if you have two versions of the same article, remove all the content from the version of the article that you want deleted, and replace it with {{db-author}}, which generates a speedy deletion notice signifying that the author wants the page deleted. In the future, if you have an article that you want to retitle, click the "move" tab up on the top and enter the name that you would like the article to be moved to. Just make sure the destination is empty before you try to move it. Click here for more detailed instructions on moving pages. If you need any more help or if I wasn't clear enough, go ahead and hit up my talk page, okay? Happy editing! GlassCobra 09:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just checking in. I saw that you redirected "The spring" with a small S to the version with the large S, well done. Is there anything else I can help you with? GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sign but only after I see more good faith efforts on people's parts to discuss the matter on the Jesus page. And we don't go to mediation until we exhaust other means of resolving disputes e.g. mediation cabal (informal mediation) and RFC. --Slrubenstein | Talk 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the clean-up on the article. Please see my comments at Talk:Whaling#History_section; I'm more than willing to be convinced that the fact and reference you removed don't belong in the article, but without being convinced I'll probably put them back in a few days. Enuja 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preston - I appreciate your detailed explanation, and courtesy in providing it in a constructive spirit. Personally, while I don't think I will ever agree with you on this specific point, I actually do agree with you on most of the general points/principles you have raised. Now, you may not agree with what I am about to say but please know I mean it sincerely and with good intentions: I suggest that you need to think about Wikipedia in a very different way. One of the whole points of the "wiki" nature of this project is to encourage experimentation and change, rather than conservation. I don't want to get into a theoretical argument about whether change or conservation are intrinsically good or bad. I do believe that variety is good, though. Most encyclopedias are conservative if only because of the costs of revising themselves regularly. That is why great encyclopedias (e.g. Brittanica) are revised on every several years. There may be other reasons why Brittanica is relatively conservative, I am just singling one practical reason. Wikipedia by contrast can be revised at any time and in effect is being revised by the second. You can see how this will attract contributors who value change, and it is set up to encourage change. The point is not that EB has it right and WP has it wrong - nor vice versa. Can't we just say that EB's approach (which also includes PhD.s as authors whose work is then revised by an editorian review board - rules we do not have at WP) is one way of doing an encyclopedia, and WP another, and it is good that both exist and people have the freedom to choose between such different products, produced through such different ways? Another consequence of the "Wiki way" is that editors will (I would shout this out, because so many of our policies and customs derive from this hard, cold fact) attract editors of radically opposing, fundamentally different POV's. The wikipedia solution is not to tell people to be dispassionate and objective (let's say that is what EB or any good peer-reviewed journal claims ... although I am sure you are aware that despite their claims there are people on the left and right who claim that they are not really objective), it tries to come up with frameworks to encourage people with strongly opposing views to be able to work together. In the early days there were practically no policies! Why? Because "rules" may not be a way to enable everyone to get along, they may just be a way to get people to get along with whoever makes the rules! Review some of our policies and you will see that we have never eliminated ones like "be bold" and policies that encourage people to be unconventional. I would suggest this: when editors have to turn to a policy or a guideline to resolve a dispute, it really means that the "wiki" aspect of wikipedia has failed: it means that editors have not found a way in which each of them, acting freely, can reach a compromise that enables them to work together. Having failed, they turn to some rule, really abdicating their responsibility (some might say freedom) to work things out for themselves. All that I have said is in the way of general reflections on Wikipedia, and meant to be sincere advice that will spair you grief (however much it is an outcome of principles or good intentions) and heklp you contribute all you can to Wikipedia. I think this advice holds for other contentious articles like Fascism and Iraq war and Global warming and Capitalism and Evolution (obviously, just how contentious these articles can get depends on who is around). Now, when it comes to dating conventions at Jesus, most editors who have been working on the article for years - including Christians and Jews, pious people of faith and atheists - have reached this unusual compromise to use both systems. I realize EB and AP would NEVER do this, but here is why I know it is a good idea: it works. For years it has enabled a very diverse group of people work on an article about a person who has been an object of adoration and vitriol, and explained by both orthodox dogma as well as bizarre conspiracy theories. It has enabled most of us to work together in peace, to produce an article that satisfies both devout Christians and militant atheists as well as people with a wide range of scholarly backgrounds. And while I know you find the double-dates jarring, if you can look past it I hope you agree it is a pretty good article. I think the fact that this homespun compromise, not devised by a committee of experts, not a rule everyone everywhere has to follow, but a compromise we ourselves worked out, is actually something to be proud of because however awkward, it has enabled people who otherwise might not get along to do good things together. Please just consider this. And please consider my reflections on Wikipedia - what it really means to be "wiki." With reaspect, I would like to suggest that what may make you a great journalist may make you a lousy Wikipedian - not because the AP guide is wrong, but because journalism is a whole different kind of project and the mainstream products of journalism, whether the new York Times or US News and World Report or the Nightly news on TV are all produced in a radically different way than Wikipedia. I don't think this means you have to be a lousy Wikipedian. I have every reason to think you can make great contributions ... it is just my way of saying that skills you have honed as a journalist and that have served you well in journalism may just not serve you well here. I've never served in the armed forces but from what I have read soldiers know that different kinds of wars and battlefields require different kinds of tactics and weapons. If that is true in war it is certainly true in peace, especially here. My advice, again with respect, is that you put aside some of your journalistic skills and sensibilities, not out of shame but simply because they are not appropriate here. Think about the audacity of writing an encyclopedia by wiki, what this really means, and I think you will see that it requires and fosters a different set of skills and sensibilities. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: if you still want to press with mediation, I think you need to include User:Averykrouse and User:Jayjg Slrubenstein | Talk 14:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Biman Bangladesh Airlines is almost ready for FAC. It needs a proper copyediting oversight now. Can you, please, take a look at the article? If you're busy, you can always leave your comments at the peer review. BTW, fantastic user page you have there. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply made me so happy... I don't know what to say! When I was trying to get a copyeditor to look at Bengali Language Movement, it was lying around at the FAC for about a month. Before Riana, Kyoko and Truesilver stepped in, I was about to give up hope for the article. Ask me for any hep, clarification or bits of information you need while going through the article. Lucid prose or brilliant English or impeccable article structures are way beyond my league, but for everything else I may be of some help. Thanks, dear, and I mean it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks from me too. → AA ^(talk) — 21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's so nice to know that I am a part of your fist copyediting league project. For the placement and the design of the destinations part, I guess, it is how the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation likes it to be. But, well, that may not be the end of things. WP is very much an evolving collaboration. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Utah article you just went and changed all of the %'s to percents, written out. I don't understand this change and find it needlessly repetitive and wordy. I didn't want to revert because I don't want to get any hostile responses (I've done that too often for reverting people's long works), but I still find the change annoying, imo. bob rulz 09:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the manual of style says so, then I'm probably in the minority. It still seems redundant to me, but there's really no point in changing it back. Well, I just wanted to see your reasoning, and that works well enough for me (I've never actually read the Manual of Style, haha). bob rulz 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive edits on Sun Myung Moon. Keep up the good work here. Steve Dufour 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For having excessively good humor while cleaning up articles. I've never seen someone have so much fun doing it. Your edit summaries are just great. Keep it up! Maverick Leonhart (Talk | Contribs) 05:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not asking for a copyedit here. But this is currently a FAC and in wondered if you could tell me if you feel it passes 1a of the criteria. And if not what needs to be impoved. Buc 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Schlock Mercenary, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. If you feel the article needs a shortening, please make sure to leave a coherent result. -- /home/dalric/talk 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jesus. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 08:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Image-Preston McConkie as soldier.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell ^babelfish 06:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your summaries for your numerous edits of the article Audie Murphy, you posited several questions, which I would like to deal with.

• "Is anyone interred without military honors? And has anyone ever been buried with only partial military honors?" Gouveia2 has already pointed out there that there is a distinction between "full" and "standard"; as for the first, Robert F. Kennedy, a navy veteran, was buried in Arlington "with bare minimum military escort and ceremony" (Wiki's RFK article). Sounds like a military funeral sans honors to me.

• "As opposed for wounds received eating ice cream?" People have received Purple Hearts for "wounds" incurred from a behind-the-lines accident with a can opener.

• "Despite an invitation to Hollywood, he had hard times there? Do invitations usually ward off hard times?" When the invitation comes from a major movie star (with his own production company, yet) because he sees potential stardom, and even the beginnings of a film career don't happen for nearly three years, the "but" is definitely justified.

• "Do people name kids after someone out of a lack of respect?" It is not infrequently done out of an ulterior motive, hoping to impress for personal gain, such as being named in the will.

• "It was ACTUALLY ghostwritten? Wow, no kiddin', it was ACTUALLY ghostwritten. And whoa, the surprises don't stop. It was ghostwritten by a writer!" The byline indicates that Murphy wrote it, but in actuality (i.e., "actually") he did not. That is the context in which the word was used here. Just read a few pages of the book, and there's no doubt that this under-educated Texas (I'm a Texan myself, BTW) farm boy could not have written it, so I was glad to find a source that not only states that it was ghosted, but by whom. McClure was a personal friend of Murphy well before this project, so his status as a professional writer needs to be pointed out as well.

• Concerning Audie's older son playing "Joe Preston Murphy", "Wow, in fact? You're not yankin' my chain? Besides, this statement needs to be worked in somewhere other than out of the blue." In fact, it is the preceding line, about Universal allowing Murphy latitude in choosing his roles, that your closing sentence applies to, as the paragraph is otherwise about the Audie bio-pic, "To Hell and Back," wherein son Terry appears as kid brother Joe.

• Your deleting the opening phrase of the statement concerning Murphy's "Walk of Fame" star: They are given out for various fields. Gene Autry has several, so specifying the one for which Murphy's was issued is not entirly out of line. Your edit summary is not quoted here because it was completely non-informative, which Wiki guidelines recommends avoidance of (ditto sarcasm, BTW).

• "...talented is a needless paean." Not all musicians and composers are particularly talented. Murphy could have fallen in with individuals of lesser skills.

Note that this is far short of everything you did. However, I will now go and replace all of the above, not necessarily identically to what you deleted. Ted Watson (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preston, the edit summary for one of your recent edits to Sewage treatment reads:

No crap? Wow, I wouldn't expect that, being that it's in, like, an article about waste water treatment

That sort of uncivil, sarcastic remark is what drives people away from Wikipedia instead of encouraging them. It really was uncalled for. Regards, - mbeychok (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think I'm going to make anyone cry. And the point of Wikipedia is not the same as the "we don't care who you vote for, just vote" message we hear every election year. It actually is to encourage people to make helpful additions and improvements to articles. Maximum participation is not an end in itself. If you can't edit in a way that improves an article, leave it alone. Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 13:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just nominated Julie MacDonald for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. → AA ^(talk) — 23:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits on the F&A articles! Sjschen (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your constructive edits to this page. However, your edit summaries aren't that constructive and might be viewed as inflammatory. I don't mind the odd bit of sarcasm myself but WP isn't really the place for it. Just a thought. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: your remarks came across as arrogant and unhelpful.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your acknowledgment, and please keep up the good edits. I've learned a couple of things from them, which is great as I tend to spend most of my time proofreading in these days-of-limited-time. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your edits in the article. Most of your edits are ok and I agree with them. However I saw your edit summaries and would just like to inform you about the reasons as to why the article uses citations in so many places. When I started editing it way back then, as you can see from the edit history, the article was covered with citation needed tags in almost every other sentence. To avoid this I backed up all the statements with cites. Of course your method of adding the cites at the end of paragraphs instead of in very sentence is a good idea and it unclutters the article. However your edits are destroying some of the citations. Please be more careful. I will try and fix them. Also please do not remove the descriptions, they are needed as explanation for the readers. Please see also the talk page. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. You have destroyed too many links. Can you please slow down so that I can fix them? Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your message. You are actually doing a mostly great job. But please look at the bottom where all the citations are. You'll see some red links. That means you accidentally broke some citations. I'll fix them, just give me some time. As far as wikilinks, it's ok to take them out. My problem is the broken footnotes. 04:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for understanding. Dr.K. (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Najibofficial2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While many of your edits have cleaned up the article, in some areas you have gone too far and removed some essential meaning. Also your method of making numerous small edits rather than a single more comprehensive one makes it much harder for people to go and retrieve the bits that need to be recovered. Finally while you may think your edit summaries are amusing they come across as rather demeaning sarcasm against the editors who have worked very hard to get the article to featured state. Please try and restrain your humour which doesn't come across well. It makes you seem offensive not funny. Dabbler (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is ~~~ and I'm a howeveraholic. Many years of academic writing have destroyed my resistance to the point where I can't write a shopping list without using the 'h' word. Howe... But with the help of this group, I may be able to break the habit. Orpheus (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The appalling truth about the above comment is that the "Howe..." was not, in fact, a literary device. It was a genuine "whoops, let's reword that one" moment. Orpheus (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Dude, you are one hellacious copyeditor. Wish I had you to once-over all my articles the way you have Isaac Shelby. I'd have a lot less trouble at FAC if I did! Have a barnstar; you deserve it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 01:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Please stop removing descriptions from citations because they are needed for readers to verify the information contained in the article. I know they clog paragraphs but they are a necessary evil because otherwise the information would be difficult to find and people would start putting citation needed tags in the article. Also you destroy the citations after you erase the description. You keep doing this and I keep fixing it. You remember from last time. Please do not continue doing this because damaging citations is not the way to constructively edit an article. Thank you. Dr.K. logos 12:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, friend. I have mostly completed a mammoth rewrite of John L. Helm, and am thinking about nominating it for FA soon. Since my rewrite hasn't had the benefit of anyone's eyes but mine, I wonder if you could give it a thorough copyedit? I have a couple more sources I'm hoping to get on interlibrary loan next week before I go forward with the FA nom, so if you have any non-copyedit-related suggestions about how to improve the article toward FA, you can either leave them on the article's talk page or my talk page. Thanks in advance. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help. Hope you have a safe trip. Maybe by the time you return, the article will be FA, or at least FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping me a note to let me know of your availability, although I certainly wish it were under different circumstances. I did have one article that I was going to ask for your help on, but judging from your edit history, you weren't around much at that time. It just so happens that I'm prepping the article J. C. W. Beckham for FA at the moment. I hope to be done with it in the next few days, and I'd love to have a copyedit when you're available. I've also done some preliminary work on Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr. If you're interested in looking that one over, just don't go too hard on the section about his military career; I haven't worked on that much yet. I have one more reference to consult before that article is ready to go, but it's a fairly extensive biography, so I still expect a lot of changes before it goes to FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question about Beckham County, Kentucky, either the county itself would have been too small, or it would have made one of the counties it was carved from too small, but I don't know which. (I guarantee it wasn't that the county was too large; we've got 120 counties crammed into our state!) Also, I'll bet it violated the rules on how close a county line can get to a county seat, but I don't know if it was the Beckham County seat or one of the counties it was carved from. I can do some more looking and try to find out. I think there's an article just on Beckham County, Kentucky in the Filson Club Historical Quarterly. I'll bet a library near me can get it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response on the copyedit, and no problem about the confusion. Beckham's early political career is inextricably tied to that of Goebel. I had a hard time deciding how many of the details about Goebel to include in this article, especially since I also wrote the FA on Goebel a year or two ago. Anyway, I was able to find better info on Beckham County in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, so I've given more specifics there in response to your concerns.

Also, I'd like to point out a couple of style issues that came into play. First, per WP:MONTH, we aren't supposed to abbreviate months except where space is limited. I've gone back and de-abbreviated those. Also, I remember reading that we aren't supposed to leave footnotes in the middle of a sentence. I can't find the specific policy right now, but I got my hand smacked over it a while back. There were a couple of places where you combined sentences that this became an issue. Both together probably only took five minutes to fix, so it's not a big deal. Just thought I'd point it out FYI. I'll probably take the article to WP:FAC later today.

Besides Simon B. Buckner, I may do some more work on James B. McCreary to bring it from GA to FA, so if you're just bored and don't mind reading more Kentucky governor articles, be my guest to copyedit that and leave any concerns on my talk page. Thanks as always. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started through Arndt Stickles' Borderland Knight this morning (or at least the part that is on Google Books) and found the answer to your question. Apparently, Buckner served with the 6th Infantry Regiment. I'm frustrated that the details of why his family left him in Kentucky when they moved to Arkansas, and also how they ended up back in my home county of Muhlenberg appear to be on the pages left out on Google Books. Oh well. After I finish the parts that are available on Google Books, I guess I'll see if I can get the book on interlibrary loan.

This article will be changing for a while as I make my way through Borderland Knight; feel free to come back and edit after me, asking questions as you have them. I may not be able to answer them until I get the complete book, but having a fresh set of eyes on my work never hurts. I hope to have this ready for FAC in a few weeks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a report about your conduct on my talk page at the following page: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Prestonmcconkie. --13² 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm here from the WQA board. I've recommended that User:Thirteen squared stop merging the content while you're trying to write it. I would make one suggestion to you, which is this: In the future, if you find yourself wanting to say, "I don't know where you came up with the and only then criteria; it reeks of hubris and is still warm as if recently yanked from someone's rectum," then you've already passed the point where a third party should be involved.

Unsurprisingly, a statement of that tone has never resolved a dispute, and it almost always makes the situation worse. If you find yourself talking to people that way very often, you will find yourself earning blocks, eventually. Remember that there are a lot a reasonable people around here, and that it's much easier to find three of us and ask us to look than it is to convince the guy disagreeing with you that he's wrong.

Take care. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should strongly consider your actions before you proceed. You are currently edit warring over another user's talk page, which he has requested you not post to anymore. this is blatantly incivil and uncalled for, as is the "I win" comment before it. You should stop now, and owe 13 squared an apology. I would not be at all surprised if any more comments by you aimed at 13 squared resulted in a block. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the following exchange was on the userpage of the fellow who reported me for incivility. He actually erased the exchange and shouted from the edit comment, "LEAVE ME ALONE!" I reverted the erasure once, but I guess that's not really fair, since it is his page. Still, for the sake of posterity and because I simply find it funny, I'm preserving the exchange in the next section. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this article wouldn't be much use if it remained as is, but I am developing it. It will contain a link to the graham cracker article. There is only a tiny mention of the existence of graham cracker crusts in the article on the crackers. I plan to develop this into a bigger article, and just because I label it as a stub and invite others to contribute, doesn't mean I'm through with it, as you might see if you looked at the edit comments. Please give me some time. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I didn't mention in the edit comment that I was adding citations as resources for further development. My bad. But that is my intention. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a separate article for this until graham cracker gets too long to be easily navigated or until one section outweighs the others. Instead, you should develop and build up what you would have put in the article at the page for graham cracker in a section for the crusts. If, after you've developed and built it up, it's too long and overtakes the article on graham cracker, then, and only then, should it be split from the main article. --13² 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should consider creating a personal sandbox so that, if you really, really don't want to edit the main article for some inexplicable reason, you can develop a full-fledged article on the crust (without worry of it being reverted) and then move it to the article page once you are done. A good page for that would be the following: User:Prestonmcconkie/sandbox. I'm more than willing to help you out on this endeavor (I only disagree with the way you're going about it), so if you need help, feel free to ask. --13² 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've merged the information from the article you started into the main article under a section with "crust" for a heading. Please continue editing at the main article until it becomes too long there. Thanks. --13² 16:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you don't own this article. Under "merge" we find this criteria: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there."

I already told you I'm expanding this article. There's quite a bit that can be written about the graham cracker crust, which is the reason I want to make an article. I don't go around creating stubs and abandoning them. It's well and fine to redirect people when there isn't a unique article, but methinks when someone specifically enters "graham cracker crust" in the search bar, they might be hoping to find an article just on the crust, not on the cracker. And they might even contribute. I don't know where you came up with the and only then criteria; it reeks of hubris and is still warm as if recently yanked from someone's rectum. Sandboxes are for people who want to do their initial work without input from others; I'm inviting input.

Now, hands off and let me do this. I don't need your approval. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, you don't own the article either. By editing here, you agree to have your work mercilessly edited or even removed. Please explain how you are going to expand this topic so much that it can remain as its own article instead of a merged section. Besides, the graham cracker article needs MORE information on it, not less, which is exactly what you're doing by creating a separate article. No, you don't nee my approval, but you are required to act civil, which means working with me and any other editor. Telling me to get my "hands off and let [you] do this" is going against the very principles of Wikipedia. --13² 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was civil in my first response, but you've been discourteous at every step by taking drastic action without discussing it first. Besides, "hands off" is not uncivil. It's more assertive, but the next step is to seek involvement by an administrator. It's true, by writing in Wikipedia I risk having to deal with people like you, but editors are expected to explain and justify their actions. You haven't justified your aggressiveness in repeatedly wiping a new article out before it has a chance to grow legs. And whether or not you covet the information for the graham cracker article, I want to write about the graham cracker crust. If you want to make suggestions and proposals on the gcc user page, go ahead. But especially since the Wikipedia guidelines don't support your actions, you don't have license to undo a project started by someone else. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is explaining why I made the change, suggesting several avenues in which to continue, and offering to help discourteous? I have no vested interest in any of these articles, so your claim of coveting it is a rather large stretch. You can even check my contributions history. I never edited either article until today. I do have the license to undue projects started by someone else. That's the entire purpose behind Wikipedia. --13² 17:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assume that just because you suggest alternatives, that it's okay to leave me nothing but the alternatives you suggest. And the whole purpose behind Wikipedia is not to have people going around wiping out fledgling articles. The purpose is to create an encyclopedia out of shared knowledge, with voluntary and cooperative action. Yes, you do have the license to undo projects started by others, but there are guidelines for when that's appropriate, so that license is limited. You only have the ABILITY to do it at whim.

Yes, I was uncivil, and the administrator cautioned me on that. Your conduct is not courteous, though, simply because you close your messages by saying (I paraphrase), "If you want me to help you do things my way, and only my way, I'll be glad to contribute to this project done my way, and only my way." --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make assumptions about me and do not phrase things in a manner in which I did not. Thanks. Also, like I said in the Wikiquette alert, I dropped it. It's not worth it if my help and suggestions are to be refused and then I get harassed for offering it. Please discontinue commenting on this page about either of these topics as I am no longer interested in helping or working towards improving either article and admin has already said everything else. --13² 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I win! --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on your article, yet there are no refs and little info. Can you find any history or origins anywhere? And, you know, if you quickly developed an article of questionable topic to a full page, few will desire it to be deleted, and the above might've been avoided. I also plan to continue working on the article.ɱ 00:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Prestonmcconkie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --13² 19:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already know. Now stay off my comment page. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preston, what is this? Or this? Do you think that makes you look good? If you're trying to get yourself blocked, you're doing a decent job. We actually insist on civility here, and there simply isn't any reason to be rude to each other. If you're trying to "win", then you're contributing to the wrong project. Please consider how this conduct reflects on you. Be bigger than that; be too mature and classy for name-calling. This isn't middle school, man. You dig?

Do not restore content that another editor removes from their own talk page. Do not call other editors "wimps". We will block for this; do you want to test that claim? We do this because an atmosphere with that kind of crap flying around in it makes a terrible setting for collaboration. It's not arbitrary, and it's not that hard to stay within the lines. Just type rude things as much as you want, and then don't hit "save".

By the way, please see Wikipedia is not about winning. The above "Yay I win" reflects extremely poorly on you. He comes out looking a lot cleaner here. Think about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't tired of the whole Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899 (the one where William Goebel was shot) yet, I hope to have the article on his opponent, William S. Taylor, ready for a GA run by early next week at the latest. If you could give it a quick run-through about the middle of next week, I'd appreciate it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my friend. I think I'm pretty much done with the Taylor article. Go ahead and do any copyediting, and if you have any content questions, you can leave them on my talk page or the article's talk page. I'm going to go ahead and nominate the article for GA as-is. It usually takes weeks to get a review, so your work shouldn't interfere with that. Thanks as always. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone made a liar out of me. Only took a couple of days to get a review. The article passed GA, but you're still welcome to copyedit it if you want. I'm moving on to Augustus E. Willson and Augustus O. Stanley for now. I've also requested Simon Bolivar Buckner: Borderland Knight on interlibrary loan, so I'll be returning to finish that one up when I get it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuing studies has a long and distinguished history :-) Surprisingly enough, so does pursuing careers. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not that the phrase is unusual. It's that it's overused, and more stylistic than descriptive. I particularly dislike it when used as a knee-jerk phrase to cover a more particular and more interesting description of someone's work or study. The phrase originally had connotations of going after something with unusual determination, and both careers and educations are natural objects for such "pursuit." But now it's used the same way that "battling" is used. No one gets sick, they "battle" diseases. They "battle" cancer, they even "battle" the flu. When we take colorful phrases applied to special cases and turn them into stock descriptions for every instance of someone who works, goes to school, gets cancer or a cold ... well, then we have either the headlines on supermarket magazines, or a Wikipedia article.

My hope is to change this. Perhaps I would succeed more if I didn't point out that I am trying to. --Preston McConkie (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know; clichés are annoying, and it's great that you're watching out for them and removing them. I was just reacting to "people don't work any more"; I think it's been overused for a long time. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prestonmcconkie. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you are an active editor of Beekeeping, would you consider nominating it for WP:GA Status? I tried but was told I couldn't because I am not an active editor. Arlen22 (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, don't worry about it. It still needs a bit of work. Thanks anyway. Arlen22 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

While your intentions and most of your edit actions on Miami Vice are correct, a lot of the edit comments leave a lot to be desired. Some are even of an attacking nature towards previous contributors and editors, and rarely even reflect the true reason for the edit. This sort of thing appears to be a historic issue for you, judging by the multiple notes regarding Wikipedia:CIVIL. Please take this opportunity to tone it down and continue facilitating WP. Thanks Srobak (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but agree. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just been trying to re-write the Lobotomy article. I see that you have been a major contributor to that article and I was wondering if you would mind taking a quick glance over it in its present state. Thanks Freekra (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. While your edits generally seem to be of good quality, I've noticed that your edit summaries are frequently offensive and/or insulting. I see that you've been queried about this here before; but I wanted to mention it again. To give just one example, in this recent edit you correctly replaced the word "represented" with the word "was", but your edit summary was rather extreme and not at all helpful. I would just ask that you moderate this and provide neutral, descriptive edit summaries without invective. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prestonmcconkie. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

[1] - before stating things such as "Cracker" isn't much known outside England, please do some basic research before posting such information. You will find that Cracker has been shown (and is well known) in all parts of the UK, not just England. I believe it's been shown in many countries in Europe too, likely elsewhere around the world. Just because Cracker isn't well known in the USA; remember that the USA is not the whole world. Rapido (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preston: You have a strong grasp on the rules of clear and concise writing, but your grip on Wikipedia etiquette seems exceedingly weak. Lacing your edit summaries with obscenities and insults ([2], [3], [4], [5], etc.) simply is not acceptable. As a writer, you ought to know that that's not a productive approach to collaborative writing. It's also particularly disappointing since, to judge from other messages on this talk page, I'm hardly the first to have pointed it out. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Further instances of abuse in edit summaries and talk pages, in violation of WP:CIVIL will result in Administrator Involvement. Srobak (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prestonmcconkie. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie, where you may want to participate. Omnedon (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to respond to the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie. Your failure to respond to concerns about the tone of your edit summaries, which I and several other editors think are in general quite inappropriate, is being taken as an indication that you are not interested in working collaboratively or in Wikipedia polices on such matters. I urge you to review civility policy and the personal attack policy, as well as the comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie, and to respond to the RFC. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:CIVIL says: "A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks." and "Be careful with edit summaries. ... remember to explain your edit, avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with, and consider using the talk page to further explain your view of the situation." (emphasis added) WP:NPA says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." (emphsis in original) and "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing." DES ^(talk) 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are, IMO, generally very good ones. Please don't let your edit summaries get in the way of your helpful participation here. DES ^(talk) 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Prestonmcconkie. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie.
Message added 01:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 01:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A GA review has started on Straight razor. It was put on hold for seven days to allow issues to be addressed - the main one being the need for reliable sources. See Talk:Straight razor/GA1 for more details. As you have contributed to that article you may be interested in helping out. SilkTork *^YES! 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DackRambo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Hamlet chicken processing plant fire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently started patrolling new pages. May I refer any questions or issues of judgement to you? Greenmaven (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article EFiction 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/EFiction 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 template from the top of the article. Scopecreep (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you might like to have a read of Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria, which explains orphan criteria in better detail. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Soba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tsuyu (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) 11:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're doing okay these days. I've always appreciated your talent for spotting bad writing and your hard work cleaning it up. —Soap— 02:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Soap: I was adding someone to WP:RIP today and noticed that no note had been left on this userpage or talkpage about [6]. Thought you might want to know, albeit rather belatedly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've suggested a task force at the Novels Wikiproject to cover the Dune universe, and thought perhaps you might be interested. Please stop by if you think it a good idea or have any thoughts. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak. Since you had some involvement with the Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PrestonMcConkie2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Spring 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/The Spring until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]