This is an archive of past discussions about User:Michael P. Barnett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Citation numbers, references, links
1. Can I coalesce a run of sequential citation numbers, i.e get supescript [1-5] or [1]-[5] instead of superscript [1][2][3][4][5]
2. Any way getting citation numbers in line? Alternatively, how to reword in style acceptable to Wikipedia "This has been discussed extensively. Early and recent accounts include [1] and [2] respectively."
3. How do make multiple references to same citation without it repeating in list of references. This is what happens when I use the ref coding: [1] (just referred to blah) now will refer again [2]
4. I have linked from one site to a section of another. Is there a way to link from one site to an unambiguous phrase within another.
5. Where could I have found answers to these questions without asking for help?
Hi.
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
1. No, not really. You can have one numbered reference which contains multiple links, if you want - e.g.
Chzz is 109.<ref>[http://www.example.com This website]<br/>[http://www.google.com Another website]</ref>...
...but that goes against our referencing style guidelines, specifically the external links policy - because external links should only be either a) a footnote reference, or b) in the special section for == External links ==
3. You use 'named references'. Chzz is from England<ref name=mybook>Page 92, The Book of Chzz</ref> and plays the oboe.<ref name=mybook/>...
Hi. Sorry I did not reply to your question on this person / rose earlier. Can I ask if Mrs Hobbs was a noted rose grower, or did she have a rose named after her? If the latter, then her name might be better off included in List_of_rose_cultivars_named_after_people. If she was a notable rose grower, then perhaps you could contribute a sourced article about her, so that she is not the only person listed currently without a linked article. Thanks, Imc (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of Mrs. Foley Rose beyond the presence of her photo in the cited book and the caption that a rose is named for her and seeing, from a Google search, that it is sold by several rose suppliers. I moved her name from Garden roses to List_of_rose_cultivars_named_after_people but left it at end of list of Tea roses. Is it a sufficiently important item to be mentioned in the Tea Roses? Incidentally, Even though the Empress Josephine has a Wikipedia entry and a rose is named after her, was SHE a notable rose grower and, if so, should there be a citation to a reference work that states this? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Justification for mentioning the association of a Notable person with a particular place
In getting some startup practice by editing the articles about towns where I lived, I ran into some nonstandard ways to justify the inclusion of people I knew personally in those towns. I would like to find out which might be acceptable.
1. "Personal acquaintance" is not verifiable in the long term because of human mortality.
2. Is private correspondence (snail mail or email) with the person who confirms his / her association with the place acceptable? How can anyone verify the exchange? If person mentions association in article on him / her will that make it acceptable?
3. In editing an article about a town where I worked in a research lab, I justified presence of one colleague (the article about whom was very shoddy and did not mention it) by finding records of several articles in major research journals that gave the lab as his affiliation. Another editor found obit in major journal that made mention safe. But would mention of the affiliation in the journal have been adequate? About the only information in print that shows where I was at particular times is affiliation in journal articles.
4. Obituaries in major newspapers and professional journals is safe. But what about obits in small town newspapers, particularly in another country (people from England living in U.S. etc)
5. For a particular eminent scientist who does not have an article, a web search found a passage in an Encyclopedia of Computing that mentioned his attendance at a private meeting that made major decisions, and gave his affiliation. Would this have been enough? Here again, another editor found a major obit.
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
3, yep, sure; as long as the cited journal was reasonably 'available', and you gave enough details of it (ISSN, publisher, title, page, etc) so that a person could reasonably check the facts, e.g. by ordering a copy in their library.
4. Yes, most small-town newspapers are considered reliable sources but see 5.
5. Yes, possibly. if the person met the notability requirements. The people listed should be blue-links, with articles about them. That means, these people should meet the notability requirements - so, bottom-line is...well, see WP:VRS.
Hope that helps. Please do ask if you need more clarification, but remember - Wikipedia does not have concrete, black-and-white rules; we have to treat cases individually. If a specific suggestion is queried, we discuss it, and form a consensus. Having said that, feel free to be bold and add as you feel appropriate; if - and only if - there is an objection, then we can talk about it. For example, if the reliability of a source was in doubt, we could chat on WP:RSN.
Hi Michael, just to let you know I've moved the information you added to Carleton, Lancashire to the talkpage for now. Please don't be discouraged, but for the reasons I explained there, as well as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, I think it needs a bit of work first. I'm sorry to have to remove some of your early edits and, as I say, I hope you're not discouraged. Wikipedia can be a huge learning curve for people wanting to help out by adding what they know. I hope that doesn't sound patronising, it's just that Wikipedia can take a bit of getting used to, often especially for people from an academic background. Unfortunately, it can put people off, and we badly need editors who know what they're talking about! I see from some of your other edits and questions that you're getting the hang of things round here though! I'm trying to generally improve articles related to the Fylde area, so I look forward to working with you if you decide to edit those kinds of articles. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll try and get to the Carleton article soon. --BelovedFreak01:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
How do I find out if there has been discussion of the following kind of situation, which has a vast number of potential parallels for putting information into many articles from one source. I used a photographic history of Malvern, Worcestershire to add a list of people, objects of historical interest, buildings, landscapes that are in photos from early 1900s. Then I put references to these photos in articles that deal with the people, objects,... that they depict. This can be streamlined, but does need fine tuning that takes account of each article the reference is put in. It is an activity that students can do, initially under supervision but then with increasing independence, that can contributes to their professional development. Maybe I should have asked where I look for this kind of discussion. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't fully answer your question, not the first part, anyway. A couple of things to bear in mind though:
Be careful of adding lists to these articles. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, UK settlement articles shouldn't have a list of notable people, this should be written in prose, and link to a separate list if necessary. People who don't meet WP:N (ie. don't have their own article and are unlikely to in future) shouldn't be mentioned. That is a guideline, and of course there is some leeway, for some reason the Malvern article still has such a list. Be very careful about adding them on a massive scale though, it's best to get consensus on an article-by-article basis. (Not necessarily for adding to a list, but for adding a list where there is none). Be careful of creating/adding lists that you don't see a similar example of. Of course there are lots of articles that don't exist yet, but if you mass-create list-articles that are later thought not to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion, a lot of hard work will be wasted. Notice with Poulton-le-Fylde, I created an article on the listed buildings of the town, and have linked to it from the main article (under "landmarks"). The list of notable people is also linked to from the main article. We try to keep lists to a minimum in articles that aren't actually list articles per se. (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists)).
Be careful when editing featured or good articles that you're keeping to the relevant criteria (FA criteria, GA criteria), or you're likely to be reverted pretty quickly. You can tell if an article is a good article, or a featured article, by looking at the article talkpage.
If you're thinking of getting students of yours involved with Wikipedia, Wikipedia:School and university projects will give you some help/ideas. Please bear in mindthough that there is a strict policy on user names, and that any students you collaborate with will have to have their own individual account. (see WP:NOSHARE).
I hope this helps. I realise I probably haven't answered the main point of your question, so I won't remove the {{Help me}} template. I would say though that if you are going to be making similar changes to lots of articles, try to make sure there is consensus for such a change, and keep checking back to see if your edits are being reverted. Different articles are "watched over" by different editors, and what might be thought a good idea in one situation, might be undesirable in another. People do sometimes run into trouble making changes on a mass scale, if they don't pay attention to how their changes are received. So maybe take it slow for a while!--BelovedFreak10:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting me, and I'm sorry if I messed up and thought you were a vandal. It might be as you said, but I must say I know nothing about the topic of that article in question, I was just on recent changes patrol, and reverted edit that took away a lot of content without explanation. So if you have a good reason to do that again, just go ahead, but you could provide a reason in the edit summary, so it wouldn't be easily considered as vandalism. DARTH SIDIOUS 2(Contact)15:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
1. Questions prompted by the "Someone has replied to your request for help" box at the top of the page.
1.1 What is the WP name for boxes like this?
1.2 Where is the taxonomy of a WP page described.?
1.3 How do I find how to code the different typographic and pictorial objects that WP supports.?
1.4 How do I get rid of the box? I have changed the {{helpme}} to {{helpme-helped}}. But this has not worked. I want to get rid of the box so that I will be able to see when my next request for help has been helped.
1.5 Is {{tn|...}} equivalent to {{...}}?
1.6 If not, What does {{tn|helpme}} encode?
1.7 What WP site explains this?
1.8 What search keys could I have used in Google or Bing to find this?
1.9 Correspondingly for {{tlp|helpme}}
2. There seems to be considerable overlap between topics of discussion on Article pages (and their associated Discussion pages) with different titles that begin with "Wikipedia" or which contain this word.
2.1 What is the protocol for getting the same idea into multiple discussions to which it is relevant? Cutting and pasting would be most convenient for readers, but is NOT a tactic I care to use. Is it acceptable to put into discussion on page titled X a comment that I have made a comment that I think relevant in discussion on page titled Y?
3. If I think the styling of an article could be improved e.g. by a rearrangement of material, or by using numbered instead of bulleted lists, or by other changes that do not alter content (but possibly expand it slightly) and I ask if anyone objects, and no-one objects for a week, should I assume it ok to make the changes?
4. Please remind me where I can find ways to construct list depiction of tree of items that acquire appropriate divided numbers automatically. (And how I could have found this without asking).
I haven't time to answer all your questions, but this will answer some:
The yellow box at the top of the page is an example of a "template" - see WP:TMP. Templates are keywords, sometimes accompanied by one or more parameters separated by "pipe" | characters, between double curly brackets. The wiki software interprets them to produce, often quite complex, results.
To get rid of the box at the top of this page, edit the page by clicking "edit". You will see the raw, editable text which the Wiki software processes to make the displayed page. At the top of the editable text you will see {{helpme-helped}}. That is the "template" which generates the box. Delete that, click "Show preview" to check that the result is what you intended, then click "Save page".
As a general piece of "how to find out" advice, try typing "WP:", plus the name of what you are interested in, into the search box. For instance, if you want to know about userboxes, "WP:USERBOX" will produce this.
For your question 3, see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. In summary, if you see a change you think will improve the encyclopedia, be BOLD and make it; if then someone reverts it, do not re-revert and start an WP:Edit war, but discuss your proposed change on the talk page and try to reach WP:Consensus.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Procedures
We met at Talk:Rosalind Franklin (and I hope to take more interest in the article in due course). I noticed a couple of things that I thought you might want to know about (I saw your deletions at the talk page, then had a very quick look at your contributions). It is extremely unusual to delete comments from a talk page (actually, on some contentious pages, it is common to delete soapboxing or promotional nonsense, but one needs experience to judge when that is desirable). The WP:Talk page guidelines have the details, but I see they do not really convey how unusual it is for comments to be deleted in the manner that you did (on Wikipedia, the general rule is that the policies and guidelines follow community norms). The replacement text ("I have deleted what I posted here...") should at least have been signed (i.e. add four tildes to each). I think the best thing to do now is nothing (i.e. leave the talk page in its current state), but please be aware for the future that such refactoring is not desirable. Alternatives to deletion are collapsing (see {{hat}} although that is advanced and only used on contentious pages) and archiving (moving text from the talk page to a dedicated archive page (if interested you could look at WP:ARCHIVE but I suggest forgetting about it at this stage). I see that I should configure automatic archiving of the Franklin talk page. Because talk page comments (once replied to) are almost never deleted, one needs to develop the habit of never posting personal information.
Re Charles Coulson: I did not examine the changes, but I did notice a couple of things. In references, notes like "see earlier reference" are not helpful because after a month or two of editing the "earlier" item may now be later, or may have been removed. Again, do not worry about that at the moment; there are wikignomes who go around fixing citations. We never use a Wikipedia article as a reference (Wikipedia fails our reliablity requirements, and the linked article may be totally changed so what you saw as helpful is not present in six months). Instead, use an external reference directly.
Re Talk:Charles Coulson: It is very unusual to email or speak with people re material for an article, and mentioning it is not helpful. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, there are hundred of cranks running around Wikipedia and it is totally unacceptable to use material "because so-and-so said it was true". One might investigate an issue via email in order to satisfy oneself about a point. However, results of that satisfaction must not appear in an article (original research). An example of good research might be to think "X is in the article, but I thought that was wrong". If you could contact someone and confirm that X is wrong, you could then pursue the matter with reliable sources; if found, such sources could be used to change the article. However, the fact that you contacted someone is not relevant, and mentioning it will only cause concern about the possibility of OR (original research). This is one of the many ways that editing Wikipedia is totally different from writing a paper.
I just lost three hours work when I tried to save page because of an edit conflict I do not understand. Possible that it conflicted with you posting your helpful comments. I know I should have saved, but I slipped. I want to focus on reconstructing now so I will not reply fully. In general I am so disgusted with WP this was to be my last attempt at contributing. I deleted the material on the Franklin page as redundant because I thought it cluttered and was irrelevant. I enumerated proposed action on Coulson page as aide memoire to myself as much as anything else. I realize that WP may be geared primarily to the dissemination of garbage that is WP verifiable but I intended to play by the rules. I am NOT emailing for verifiability. I am emailing for sources of verifiability. There is an outside world that is highly sceptical of WP -- I have been trying to reassure people that they should not be so negative but ...Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. I only lost an hour. If my efforts to make things easier for someone skimming through the Franklin site broke policy I'm sorry -- I thought I had signed each deletion. I do not think I put anything personal that was inappropriate -- I am vividly aware that not only can people read what is sent "in clear" but so can browsers. I see the ability to collect verifiable data by discussion on Discussion pages a major strength of WP. I do NOT see email as verification -- I know full well it can be faked. My disgust mentioned above is the number of WP articles I have seen that are garbage, and seemingly irreparable garbage. Fortunately I have seen enough that is excellent to have been willing to give it a try. But I doubt very much that circumnavigating the legalisms makes trying to contribute to WP worthwhile. When I started, I thought it might be optimal way to provide help, based on my recollections of material that not only is WP verifiable but also accurate. Since starting with WP I have learned of other ways of recording material that is getting lost as my contemporaries leave us. I really do not need WP as an outlet and it is becoming counterproductive to effective use of my time, in relation to what I hoped to contribute. And if this is polemical enough to get me banned, so be it Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sometimes conflicted about whether I should interfere and post long opinions directed at other editors because whereas the core information is useful, the attention may not be welcome. Please be assured that my intention was to assist because it is obvious that you are a very useful contributor. I am sorry about your lost work (it has happened to all of us, although I usually use copy/paste with an editor when doing something long). On Firefox, it is often possible to use 'back' (Alt+Left) after a disaster and return to your edit box. The software here (MediaWiki) is pretty bug free, although there have been reports of rare corruptions during edit conflicts. It should have been impossible to edit conflict with what I did because I clicked 'new section' which should append a new section to the page after any in-progress saving has completed. Of course many things could go wrong when saving an edit.
The advantage of having good material on Wikipedia (rather than on some other site) is that such material is likely to be more available to more readers (e.g. very high Google ranking), and it can be the basis for even better content as other editors build upon the work. However, editing is bound by WP:5P, although the rules are pretty obvious once their purpose has been absorbed, and in fact only outrageously bad behavior (like extreme vandalism) is actually prohibited. If you ever want my assistance with Wikipedia's ways, please get in touch. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Michael, I really understand your frustration- I spent most of New Years weekend figuring how to navigate the Wekipedia copyright maze to post a 1935 (UK) family photo, and STILL haven't got it posted. While it is very frustrating when your intentions are good, I do understand why they make you jump through so many hoops. I DO hope you continue to participate here. Your help with the J.B Gunn and Gunn Diode articles has been extremely useful, and has inspired me to take a stab at some other articles. But if you end up contributing your RRE information somewhere else, please let me know where it is. Jpg1954 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Rosalind Franklin
Hi, Michael. Thank you very much for your interesting additions to Rosalind Franklin. I noticed (through the History tab) your discussion on the talkpage of the "Sexism at King's College" section. The section certainly seems dubious, in view of the contradictions between different sources, and, as you point out here, there are no page references given for Maddox. I'm not crazy about the name of the section, either. It seems to assume that King's was a sexist institution and that there's no room for contradiction or discussion about it.
Have you thought of rewriting the sexism section yourself? I found a 2008 version of it here which might perhaps be useful to you if you want to rewrite. It has a better section name than the current one, in my opinion, and is very well sourced. There's a bit of a grammar problem, but I think it has far better flow and structure than the current version. (The bit about the preponderance of theologians is sort of amusing—and it's properly sourced!) Best, Bishonen | talk21:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
I agree. The version you pointed me to seems completely adequate basis. Thanks. I have the Sayre and Maddox books at hand, and extensive material on women in Biophysics -- representation substantial and impressive. More later. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
reply to Johnuniq -- Some problems of verifiability
I appreciate your help and really would like to learn how to handle the several editorial problems that I find problematic, working within WP guidelines.
In principle, I should read these, but they are extensive. The Discussions need to be read too. This is time consuming, and I need to contribute substance that is useful as fast as I can. There is overlap between articles that I now realize are "official" by dint of prefixed Wikipedia: (and exemplary) and articles that are not (and may be quite bad e.g. Scientific citation). Is there any way for administrators to put box at top of latter to warn and reroute the beginner?
Verifiability and its interconnection with NPOV and COI are my main concerns. I agree totally that these are absolutely essential. Repeatedly, since I started Editing WP articles, I have found that some of my recollections were quite wrong. I have put considerable effort into the provision of verifiability. For some matters, this is routine but time consuming.
I have made extensive use of email to ask people who are expert in various fields (some who I knew already, others who I contacted cold) for citable references, e.g. purchasable museum publications with ISBNs that list paintings of places where I lived, citable maps that show tidal behaviour, geological reference works that describe topography, and so on. I will use email to ask organizations which have posted information on individual websites to transfer these to more durable form. I mention some of this emailing in Discussion to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort.
I use the Web of Science and other bibliographic databases to run literature searches on the work of people who published in professional journals. I save the front matter of the papers that I find, to serve as verification of where the people WORKED at particular times (which is not always when they did the work that is reported, though that is usually indicated, if different.) Need this verification of where the people worked be mentioned in article?
I use references to official college documents, alumni newsletters and comparable material , that I obtain by email from college and university officials. Is this ok?
Is it ok to use, e.g, the "Quarterly Progress Reports of the Solid State and Molecular Theory Group at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology." These were issued over a period of about 20 years, distributed to hundreds of institutions and individual scientists, kept in major libraries, and are on file at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. These are typical of numbered and catalogued reports from thousands of laboratories over the years. Can the more accessible of these be used for verifiability?
In case this is not part of your working environment, I mention here a major move in the U.S., paralleled in some other countries, to set up vast web sites with addresses that will never disappear, to store research data. Are "Dataspace" sites like this and present web site of major labs considered verifiable sources?
The critical problem with verifiability is the accuracy of the source, and the accuracy with which it is invoked.
The worst situation I have encountered starts with X writing a book Q. This gets a large number of favourable reviews, in citable periodicals and newspapers, that all say the book Q contains the statement Y, even though it does not. The author does make a repudiation. This can happen when the publisher distributes advertizing material that states, falsely, that the book Q states Y, perhaps to increase sales. From the standpoint of "verifiability", this campaign produces a concensus that the book Q contains the statement Y. The situation is compounded when the book is cited in a WP article as stating Y, without page number. How can the statement that the book does NOT contain Y be made WP verifiable? Requiring someone to write an article that is published in an acceptable magazine or newspaper or scholarly journal is burdensome and impractical.
How is a void, e.g. X did not receive a doctorate, made verifiable? If an article states falsely that X did receive a doctorate and cites a document that does not contain the false assertion, what can be done? If the fact that X did not receive a doctorate, and this is relevant to a biography, but the author does not mention it, how can absence of a doctorate be included in an article as a verifiable fact? Is it permitted to write "the university records (with full reference to these) do not include X amongst the people who received doctorates"?
Enough for now. I have problems with value-laden statements, and articles containing downright errors, hijacked titles, misrepresentations, but leave these for another time, if this has not been too much.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Scientific citation has a box at the top which might have obfuscated the line underneath which includes "see Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines" (that single line in italics is the standard "see [some other topic]" method; it is known as a hatnote). Please do not pay much attention to the myriad "Wikipedia:X" pages at this stage because content trumps format: if you add good content (perhaps with plain-text references given in brackets), there will be plenty of editors to do the routine work of fixing the format and so forth (although that may take a couple of months on little-known pages). When in the mood, a good starting reference is WP:5P which shows all the important points, and has many useful links.
Most editors here are amateurs (myself included), and the kind of research you are outlining is not what we do. I can see that you are approaching the whole issue extremely well, but I suggest you avoid mentioning your procedures unless someone specifically asks. The problem is that someone who encounters your comments may misunderstand, and may jump to the conclusion that you are performing OR (original research). That conclusion would be correct for 99% of cases, so please do not be offended if someone ever misapplies it to you. Ultimately, each piece of information in Wikipedia must be verifiable (i.e. a reference could be found if a reasonable request for a source was made). So, if you add "X worked at Y", there needs to be a reliable source to verify that fact (where "reliable source" has a special meaning here; such sources must be available to other editors, although access may not be inexpensive or easy; for example, to see a source, an editor may have to travel to a certain library and be a recognized researcher in the field). Mentioning your behind-the-scenes work is not relevant because you will either manage to find a source (in which case the source speaks for itself), or you won't (in which case the exercise was not fruitful).
Yes, quarterly reports and so forth are great sources. As just mentioned, if a report were only available to a single editor (say it's the only existing copy), the report would not be usable. But anything published in any form, in any language, in any place, is fine. The principle is that other editors would be able to verify the source, if they went to enough trouble. There are restrictions on reliability that I do not imagine will influence your work, but for completeness I will mention that, for example, a journal published by some creationist organization would not be a reliable source for use in a biology article (although such a journal would be reliable for information regarding the organization itself).
Yes, websites for major labs and so forth are reliable sources. If you have a specific example you would like me to offer an opinion on, please mention it. Otherwise, I would imagine any site that you think is reliable is likely to be regarded as reliable here. I will mention one example of an exception I encountered some months ago because it explains the principles. A certain person had a prolific career and they worked in various interesting fields. On retirement, they donated their archives to a university library. An enthusiast then started adding claims to various articles citing documents from the archive: the certain person was the first to invent X, they were one of the first to do Y, and so on. Those additions were eventually removed because they were redflag claims: if the claim had been that the person worked at some place for some period, the documents may have been regarded as reasonable; however, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and the fact that a university library allegedly had a box of papers proving the claims was not regarded as sufficient.
Regarding book Q and statement Y: That is tricky and a big problem in many contentious areas. We have silly articles about topics like someone who lives on sunshine, and who has not eaten for decades. A couple of gushing news reports are provided as sources, and there are no contrary sources because of course no competent organization is going to bother to refute such nonsense. There is no good way to proceed. In the Q/Y case, if you are confident, just remove the claim with edit summary something like "not supported by the source" (sometimes "failed verification" is used). If you like, get me to look at the specific issue and I can offer a more informed opinion.
Re the nonexistent doctorate: Again, after checking the source, remove the claim with an informative edit summary. If no page number is given, you do not have to read the whole source. If a good-faith attempt to verify the information fails, and if you believe the information to be false, just remove it. Bear in mind that someone may restore it, and a long and tedious (but always civil!) discussion may occur on the talk page of the article.
1. I will watch carefully for hatnotes. I looked at hatnote and need to print and read it carefully, to see if it can cover comments such as, for [[File:The Fylde map.svg]] "this map omits Poulton-le-Fylde, one of the main towns in the area" (verifiable from any atlas or road map; for Crystal growth "this deals with only a few aspects of the topic" (I cannot refer reader to Crystallography -- I just looked at it and wished I hadn't -- the same comment applies). May I put "this deals with ..." remarks, with references to textbooks that provide verifiability, in the Discussion and use a hatnote to refer to these? In principle I could put a comment in body of article, e.g. under a heading "==Main stream coverage of topic==" followed by "A more comprehensive treatment of the subject is provided in textbook or survey article references, or search keys for Web Of Science that bring up several hundred references, which also deal with the topics considered above in a more rigorous manner". But I am reluctant to do this, even if does not violate half a dozen WP guidelines. And the comment I think most appropriate for History of Computing Hardware is "this article is disjoint from the mainstream interpretation of its title", which might get me banned.
2. Wikipedia:5P really helpful and reassuring, particularly "WP does not have firm rules". BUT, the question of "interpretation" is not trivial. In Rossall School, I changed "the government seized" to "the government requisitioned" because I interpreted "seized" as "took possession by force, plundered" (definition 6 in OED). The Editor who used the word "seized" could argue that "seized" was legitimate usage under another definition (there are 3 columns of these to choose from). But whichever view remains, it is a matter of interpretation. For the Rossall article, the only possible significance is how a reader, 100 years from now, might think the British government behaved towards helpless children. But for Rosalind Franklin, the interpretation of "sexism" is pivotal. And (verifiable in court records) intellectual property lawsuits involving multi-million dollar awards depended on which dictionary definition of a word was accepted, resolved by OPINION of an expert witness. Of course, WP is not intended or usable for such purposes -- I am only trying to show how difficult it is to avoid what can be considered an opinion (in itself an opinion). Sorry -- part of my training.
Maybe WP needs a "'Federal issue' versus 'not a big deal'" principle, in U.S. slang usage. In Charles Coulson, I state "his religosity was gentle and humorous" as a lead into his statement, in his inaugural lecture at King's that he had been "addressed as Professor of Theological Physics". This statement is verifiable, from the text for which I will (hopefully) get the citation in the next few days. But it is only my recollection that Coulson and the audience laughed, and my INTERPRETATION that it was humorous. I realize that my description could be replaced by Brenda Maddox' description as "Devout" because it is in her book, even though I think the prevalent interpretation of this word, amongst those listed in OED, is inappropriate.
3. WP cannot avoid being a medium in which material is reported, that would be acceptable as original research in scholarly journals on the history of particular fields of endeavour. One or more editors, in seeking verifiable clarification of detail, find facts that had not been juxtaposed previously, and which taken in conjunction cast new insights into the topic of the article, they have done OR. This has just arisen for the Charles Coulson article. The obituary published by the Royal Society list several dons who influenced his religious attitudes. The religiosity of all of these except Dr. Alex Woods is independently verifiable. I did some checking on Woods. By actions that I do not mention because you say this is inappropriat in the present context (but presumably would not be in an article about how to use the Internet to get material for WP articles) I found that Woods was a PACIFIST, verifiably. Coulson was a conscientious objector during WWII, verifiably. I do not know of any sources that discuss the reasons for Coulson being a CO. Many Methodists fought, so it could not have been Methodism alone. Now, if I mention, in the WP article, that Woods was a pacifist (verifiable from newspaper reports of his resignation from the Labour Party for their support of the war) in jusxtaposition with Coulson having been a CO, am I transgressing?
Publishing a mathematical formula that I derived and have not put in a journal article or a book or on a website would be flagrantly wrong. But what about a formula that is on a website that is ephemeral (I have absolutely NO intention of doing this). What about taking a formula in a research paper, and changing notation to make it look simpler? Is the verifiability of the formulas in Slater-type orbital stated adequately? I am not criticizing the article (at this time), just seeking clarification of WP guidelines.
I reiterate: I think WP guidelines ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL, well expressed, and I will conform. I hope that nothing in this posting has broken any of them. And apologize for verbosity.
The comments in the posting of Johnuniq, which I gloss here, on which I have not commented above, resolved and reassured to extent no further comment needed. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
1. No, hatnotes are to advise a reader that instead of the current article, they might have wanted to read some other article (with a related title) instead. Your examples are advising of defects in the article. Some editors like to add "tags" (boxes which go at the top of the article, or at the top of a section, if only applicable to that section). See WP:TC. Other editors think those who add tags are wasting time and making a mess (the attitude being "fix it or go away"). Normally, defects are just noted on the article talk page (i.e. there is no change to the article; only a note on the talk page). The message needs to succinctly spell out what is wrong, and (if known), how it should be fixed. Any reference should be given just in plain text (not a formatted reference that would normally be used in an article). If you want to link to an image, include a colon before the "File". For example, [[:File:The Fylde map.svg]] renders as File:The Fylde map.svg. No, do not add meta comments to articles like "the following is not correct", or "see xxx for better treatment". Each edit has to improve the article. Editorial comments must go on the article talk page. Sometimes people use html comments; they type <!-- Example html comment --> which does not display. However, such comments are generally useless, and they just clutter the wikitext and irritate editors (and like comments in programs, they are seldom updated as the article is changed). It is true that there are hundreds of bad articles (hundreds of thousands if you venture into popular culture, some geographic areas, and more). It's best to focus on just a few things, and not worry about all the problems. Wikipedia has just finished its first ten years: ten years ago, none of this existed. So, whereas it is quite valid to despair at the piles of poor quality pages, a lot of progress has been made, and there is also lots of good stuff. There are over 3000 featured articles and over 10,000 good articles. If you do leave talk page comments, please avoid any flowery descriptions of how bad the problems are; just report the facts in neutral language.
2. I won't take the time to examine Charles Coulson at the moment, but text like "his religosity was gentle and humorous" won't work here because that is clearly someone's opinion (the opinion might be correct and backed by decades of high quality research, but it is still an opinion). Opinions should not appear in "Wikipedia's voice" (when an article says "birds can fly[ref]", a statement is being made in "Wikipedia's voice"; that contrasts with "Gould states that birds can fly[ref]). Knowing that anyone can edit shows why this rule is firmly followed.
3. Tricky. In general, when an editor takes sourced fact A and sourced fact B, then puts them into a sentence which could be interpreted as implying conclusion C, that editor has performed WP:SYNTH (synthesis: an egregious form of original research). This comes up all the time in articles on politicians. I can't think of an example now, but opponents of the politician will combine facts A and B in such a manner as to cast negative light on the politician. To justifiably use A and B together, the editor needs a source which uses A and B together when discussing the subject. This is a limitation of Wikipedia: we can't have cranks adding their strange arguments to articles, so no one can write in the way they would if they were publishing an article under their own name. Mathematical formulas are another thing because in a sense, many formulas are "obviously" true to anyone with the requisite background. Most math articles have lots of unsourced formulas which math editors have agreed are of "the sky is blue" variety. Occasionally, an outsider will look at one of these articles and strenuously object, because to them, 99% of the article is incomprehensible. I'm mentioning that to point out that all the policies and guidelines cause trouble when applied in some areas. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Converging rapidly.
1.1 Tags enable necessary warnings. I put one into The Fylde. If I did this acceptably I will do more.
1.2 "Fix it or go away" is cavalier. I do not know how to fix the map. Finding out how, and doing it are so low on my list of priorities that I could never get to 1t. I have been trained not to leave errors unnoted. I know enough about many scientific topics to see that an account contains a serious error, but do not know enough to fix it authoritatively, and fixing it as an amateur would be presumptuous or worse. If I see a statement that a particular action is legal, but doubt this, I can question it but I may not state it is legal or illegal because that would be practicing law without a license.
2.1 I will leave "gentle and at times humorous" for time being, in the spirit that it is DESCRIPTION rather than "OPINION", justified by verifiable remark about "Professor of Theological Physics" and verifiable statements about Coulson's personality -- I have several references for these that I have not put in yet -- I have to prioritize putting substantive information on record, and I find it most productive to work sequentially from material I have at hand.
2.2 I would describe problem as "suggestive association" rather than original research. But whatever it is called, I agree that the dangers of misuse far outweigh the inconvenience of exclusion. A college student told me recently that he spends considerable time as a political volunteer changing WP articles about candidates and elected officials to make them look bad in this way. The question is moot re Coulson's conscientious objection -- he ascribes it to Wood in a published lecture for which I have a reference.
2.3 My overwhelming concern is the statement, as verifiable fact, of an opinion (interpretation) that has been published in a book or article.
Every statement in WP that is not "common knowledge" (and what does that mean?) has to be verifiable and, in consequence, needs a reference.
Qualifying every statement in the style "in Gould's opinion, birds can fly" would be untenable. BUT, at first sight, "the speed of light is ..." just needs a reference. However, whilst there is no disagreement as to the value, say to 10 figures, there may be when it is given to 12 figures. So, when a book states "Coulson was devout" can I request wording "Coulson was described as 'devout' by ..." if I think definition of "devout" makes its application an opinion? Does the statement in a book that "X looked like a housewife" make it verifiable that she did? Also, how can a WP editor (e.g. me) who does not know how to distinguish housewives from non-housewives by their appearance, and/or considers "housewife" ambiguous, express their uncertainty? Has the possibility that highly tendentious views can be got into WP by finding someone to publish them, and then including them as verifiable and, if so, what can be done about it? Is this back to NPOV? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
1.1 Re the missing map info: I spent an interesting time at OpenStreetMap and WP:WikiProject OpenStreetMap and the map source. The current OSM (OpenStreetMap) version of the map is much more up to date and detailed than the version exported and uploaded to File:The Fylde map.svg (note that the file is actually at Commons as shown by the "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons..." box). I like fiddling with techo stuff, so I tried to export the current map from OSM, but it was 7MB (the current map is 1.3MB), and the text labels were much smaller (illegible). I suspect one would need to spend a lot of time getting familiar with OSM to work out how to get a good result, so I abandoned it.
1.2 Yes, recording errors is desirable, but I am more inclined towards the negative view of tags (I previously outlined the fact that some editors like tagging, while other editors despise tags, and many others are in the middle). I think only serious errors need to be recorded in a tag on the article; things like the fact that a map is missing a major item should be simply noted on the talk page. Everything on the article page should be aimed at improving the experience for the reader. There is very little chance of an editor taking the time to respond to the tag and fixing the problem (because that particular problem is tricky and needs a specialist; unfortunately the OSM project linked above is inactive). The result is that an ugly tag will stay on the article, distracting the reader.
1.2.1 You and I are taking different views on tags. That is a tiny example of a very common phenomenon: different people have different views, and some of them get very worked up about it. For example, I am currently slightly involved in arguments about "did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?". You might want to have a very quick look at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question to see how much bickering can occur when people dedicate serious energy to an issue. I am just alerting you to the fact that a lot of arguments go on here, and it is almost always best to walk away from a dispute because there are other more productive things to do (I am breaking that rule in the Shakespeare case in order to support some good editors). However, while I disagree with your tag on The Fylde, I can see the case for such a tag, and I would just leave it; it's one of those of minor disagreements that is not worth resolving.
2.1 What I'm saying about "gentle and at times humorous" is that an opinion like that can be added provided it is attributed: specify who said it (the description should also satisfy WP:DUE). A description like that is never satisfactory without attribution here, because an article has no particular "author" (if an article in a major newspaper included that description, it would be under a byline, so the reader would understand that they were seeing the journalist's opinion; here, an article is collaboratively written, and consequently must not express its own opinion).
2.3 I'm not sure if I have explained this properly. An article can say "birds can fly" because that is a fact. If a particularly dull editor insisted, we might add a reference to confirm the fact. Therefore, you do not need to write "Gould states that birds can fly". By contrast, you would need an attribution in something like "Gould says the nightingale has the most melodious song" because "most melodious" is an opinion: in principle, it is a question that could be resolved scientifically by sampling various groups of people in a double-blind trial, but in practice such an investigation will never happen, and would be unlikely to produce a result that we could confidently assert will never be overturned by a later study. There are no rules which cover all situations. Knowledge moves from 2+2=4 to "birds can fly" and onwards to "all life has a common ancestor". In my opinion, the word "devout" is too imprecise to be regarded as certain knowledge. I would not object to an article claiming that the Pope is devout, but other examples may need case-by-case consideration. My opinion is that it is fine to describe someone's religious views if reliable sources show that the person expressed those views. A journalist writing an article that will appear under their name could claim, for example, that someone was "devoutly Catholic" (the person fits whatever definition the journalist feels is appropriate for that description). However, such a label is problematic here. There is no precise method to handle these situations, and tricky cases can lead to a lot of argument. The "X looked like a housewife" statement would probably be excluded on the basis of WP:DUE (it's meaningless opinion because "looks like a housewife" is undefinable; many people would fit any postulated definition—so what?). A common situation is that a public figure (often female and attractive) will have some misadventure (perhaps someone has a video of a sex scene); the bloggers and many media outlets will go wild and report the issue for a week, and editors will want to add titillating extracts to an article. Again, there is no really good way to handle that. Such attempts are usually rejected on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE; also the sources often fail WP:IRS (blogs are not reliable sources). The reliability issue, or one of the other policies I've mentioned, is usually sufficient to reject attempts to use dubious information that has been added to some website. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
1.0 Thanks for exploring the issues I raised and preparing such detailed comments. I think I should reiterate, my WP efforts are intended (1) to provide information to readers of articles on topics concerning which I have specialized knowledge, particularly where my recollections as an octogenarian enable me to provide VERIFIABLE information that, otherwise, might be lost to all time, (2) to study the WP as an object of research in Information Science. I now recognize the contentiousness of some WP contributors, to the extent that contention seems to be the primary interest (particularly in setting guidelines), and will "walk away" from discussion that seems interminable, taking due note of this for the commentary that I will write in due course on WP. My intention is entirely supportive. I would not be spending the time on WP that I am unless I thought it very worthwhile.
1.1 Thanks for exploring the map problem. Your comments are very useful as an indicator of an endemic WP problem -- the possibility of flawed maps and the difficulty (near impossibility?) of correcting them. This suggests a useful student project -- compare 1000 WP maps with reliable sources and list major omissions.
1.2 I would like to make as much use of tags as I can, within the limit that at least another 100 editors use tags as much or more. I do not see them as ugly as an undisclosed error or omission. I see them as a warning rather than a distraction.
I read sequentially, and I need to know if what follows is defective -- not find out after I have read it. For me, turning to the Discussion is a distraction, and warnings about serious errors and / or omissions can be obscured by other material when there is a lot of it.
My measure of the "seriousness" of an error is the trouble it might cause me -- embarrasment, expenditure of time, etc.
My difficulty with tagging is knowing which tags to use. For example, your comment on map errors reminded me of the possible confusion of Meroe and Merowe on the Nile in the Sudan. This took me to the articles on Merowe (disambiguation), Meroë and Merowe Dam. I would really have liked to put ONE note in ONE place, listing minimal changes that these needed. But I "played the game", and made minimal changes myself. Could I have put a tag somewhere, and which one could I have used? I have gone through the lists of templates and hatnotes several times. There are several articles that I think I could hatnote or tag by stretching the guideline for its use slightly and / or completing sentences that are awkward. Of I can try "Help" -- can I use a template or hatnote to ... . But is either of these likely to get me into trouble?
1.2.1 I took a brief look at the Shakespeare authorship question. Fortunately, I have not had to deal with non-Stratfordians since 1956 -- when I was responsible for the Service Bureau (amongst other things) of IBM UK. The Managing Director was instructed by a VP of the US company (IBM World Trade Corporation) that a friend of his (the VP) was coming to England to prove Shakespeare was Bacon (a colleague later argued that the intent was to prove Bacon was Shakespeare -- asymmetry of copulative verb) -- and I had to set up the computerized word count studies to prove this -- because, in the view of the VP, "nothing was closer to the hearts of the British than Shakespeare, and this would put us on the map". I read the lead (lede) of the WP article -- I think it is impeccable, and I read further enough into the article to be willing to recommend it. I am not surprised by the intensity of the non-Stratfordians (and WP is ideal environment for them to let loose -- another interesting aspect of sociology of WP) just do not understand causes of it. No way do I want to get involved in anything that bad.
2.1 Instead of "religiosity was gentle and humorous", is it acceptable for me to write: "His religiosity is recorded in the 15 articles he published on science and religion* *, the "Honest-to-God debate"* and "perfect love".* In commenting on his BBC broadcasts "one of the popular London newspapers referred to his position at King's as the holder of the 'Chair of Theological Physics', a story he used to tell with glee."*. In the preceding draft sentence, successive asterisks are place-holders for references to, respectively, Coulson's 1st and last articles on the topic, and to articles with titles that contain the quoted phrase, that are listed in the bibliography of his obituary in the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, and to the quoted passage in the body of the obituary (page 84, 2nd full paragraph, final sentence). This is much longer, but I think it is worth the space, considering a statement in the obit that he spent as much time on religion as on science (can provide exact quote and paragraph and line number if needed). I interpret your remarks as excluding justification of the "gentle and humorous" by reference to the material just described, on the grounds of synthesis / interpretation / inference.
2.3 If there has been inadequate explanation of my concern about "Devout" and "looked like a housewife" the fault is mine. I do not want to quote these in articles about Coulson or Kathleen Lonsdale, even though Brenda Maddox describes them in precisely these words. I mention them because I think they cast doubt on the quotability of Brenda Maddox' book on Rosalind Franklin, which contains them.
But, following more directly from 2.1, the Rosalind Franklin article states "Rosalind Franklin worked in a research community that acknowledged women as scientists, but was infused with both conscious and unconscious sexism." This has the reference "Maddox, Brenda (2002) Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA. HarperCollins. ISBN0060184078." without a page number. Ir has been flagged {{Page needed}} without response. I have not found it in the book. How does an editor show that a statement attributed to a source of verifiability is not there? (In the article on Charles Coulson, the reference that supposedly verified Christopher Longuet-Higgins was at Oxford did not mention him). If the statement about sexism is not a direct quote from the book, is it acceptable under some WP doctrine that overrides the synthesis / interpretation / inference exclusion of "Coulson's religiosity was gentle and humorous"? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
1.2 I'm not quite the right person to give advice on inserting tags because, as mentioned, I avoid them (although I know they are occasionally useful). However, no, there is not one tag you could have put in one place: this is a bazaar, not a cathedral. I had a very quick look at what you did at Merowe et al: excellent, improving the encyclopedia! Do not worry about bureaucratic details, but if you find yourself editing a number of dab (disambiguation) pages, you should look over WP:MOSDAB because they have some counter-intuitive (but sensible) guidelines. Re Talk:Merowe Dam: you should always click "new section" to add a new topic: that prompts you for a section heading (keep these brief and neutral, like "Corrections", or "Flood corrections"). On such a short page it does not matter, but when more and more stuff is added, the initial section (with no heading) stands out as a problem (for example, the ToC goes after that no-heading section). If you do edit a whole talk page and want to add a section, just manually insert the heading by inserting a line consisting of only ==Flood corrections== (for example).
1.2 "stretching the guideline": Not sure exactly what you mean. It is best to use templates (tags) exactly in accordance with the documentation. As mentioned, there are editors who do not like tags, and they would particularly not like them being stretched. Re Help: you may be referring to the Help reference desk where succinct questions often receive a good answer. You might look at the Science refdesk to see examples of the extraordinary range of talent that there is here.
1.2.1 Very interesting story, thanks!
2.1 I have just put Charles Coulson on my watchlist and will notice any changes. I think it's best if you just do whatever you think, and I will join in if there is something I think needs editing. If I change one of your edits, please feel free to revert or discuss on the article talk page. There are no precise rules regarding OR, RS and NPOV. We can easily identify clear examples: "birds can fly" is a fact which might require a ref, but does not need to be given as an attributed opinion (of course it's only some birds that can fly, which leads to WP:WTA where we strongly avoid words like "some", preferring to express facts more specifically when possible). The statement "X was gentle and humorous", while true, is not the same kind of fact—it is an opinion. In general, we try to avoid opinions: they do not work. When needed, an opinion must be attributed (who said X was gentle and humorous). It's best to find a source and stick to the language of that source (paraphrasing or quoting). I don't think this has anything to do with you, but the last para of the Coulson lead starts with "Regrettably"–that kind of language is routinely removed by experienced editors (it's flowery and is an opinion; an extremely accurate opinion, but nevertheless an opinion; we aim to just state facts without editorial). Writing a bio for publication under one's own name is entirely different from writing a bio here. Apart from the fact that it is our aim to use neutral and encyclopedic language and avoid value judgments, we have to consider practical issues, such as the fact that people with a COI will often attempt to add warm sentiments to a story about their favored person. Accordingly, I do not think it would be possible to find a way to express ideas like "a story he used to tell with glee" in an article here. Usually it is perfectly satisfactory to let the facts speak for themselves: if Coulson published 15 articles on science and religion the reader can quite easily see that the subject was deeply interested in religion. It's likely that not much more than that is needed here. Assuming the "Chair of Theological Physics" was a clever title and not a typo, that simple fact is worth stating.
2.1.1 I noticed you added two students. In general, we only add such names where the person has, or should have, an article. Use "search" in the sidebar to see if articles exist: if they do, put the name in double brackets: [[Charles Darwin]] produces Charles Darwin. If articles do not exist, the information should probably be removed (WP:N discusses whether an article should exist).
2.3 Re claims with missing page numbers: That is handled as mentioned by requesting the information, possibly with a tag, or on the talk page. Then (after say two or more days), if your informed opinion is that the claim is not justified, remove it with an appropriate edit summary such as "not found in source". No, a poorly sourced claim of sexism is no different from an opinion on religiosity. It's just that any experienced editor can instantly identify that the latter needs an attribution, and further, that as someone's opinion, the information may not satisfy WP:DUE. While difficult, it is a least in principle possible that the claim "X was sexist" is sustainable as some kind of fact (although I agree it is essentially an opinion). Typical problems with such a claim include that the source for the claim might have no reputation for being an authority on the subject of the claim, and such a claim might also fail WP:DUE. Also, of course, sexism is somewhat in the eye of the beholder and unclear cases will always be opinion.
3.1 Another point I should mention: You should be aware that secondary sources are strongly preferred. For example, it would almost always be unsatisfactory to find some primary sources that are critical of the views of some person, then add factoids from the primary sources to an article on that person. I am thinking of some recent edits to Richard Dawkins where an editor wanted to list a couple of scientific papers which rubbish some of Dawkins' views (I think they were critical of the "selfish gene" metaphor). An editor is welcome to find an article published by a news outlet with a good reputation, and paraphrase its comments about Dawkins (where DUE), and it is fine to use a secondary source which lists a few primary sources as significant criticisms of Dawkins. The principle is that some independent secondary source has performed an analysis (however brief), and has concluded that the few primary sources are significant. By contrast, it would be OR/SYNTH for an editor to go and find those primary sources themselves (for example, there may a hundred much better primary sources that support Dawkins' views, and we do not want an editor to cherry pick from the primary sources to find just those which promote the editor's view).
3.2 You may soon want to clear out this talk page. It is allowed to delete sections from your own talk page, but archiving is strongly preferred. Automatic archiving is possible, but is complete overkill for most user pages. You could work out what to do by looking at my talk page (which is too long at the moment as I have deferred archiving because there is something I want in the middle of the page). However, I would be happy to put an archive box on this page (which you could tweak to suit whatever wording you want). You should be aware of WP:Copying within Wikipedia which says that if you copy text from page A to page B, you should give a link to B in the edit summary if deleting the text from A, and must give a link to A in the the edit summary when adding the text to B (that is to provide proper authorship attributions). That requirement is usually ignored when archiving text from a user talk page because it is obvious where the text came from. I mention this in case you copy text between articles. So, please say if you would like me to setup a manual archive here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Michael P. Barnett. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to The Surgeon of Crowthorne has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
