User talk:DeanS
| This is my user talk page. To leave a message for me, click here |
- Thanks for fixing those cites on the mutation page, I haven't had time to figure that out yet. Appreciate it!
- Could you help with Brigham Young? Geo.Talk 02:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, I will work on that article. Thanks for the suggestion Geo. Crocoitetalk 02:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
- Would you care to define tolerance? The red color on that link, as you may know, indicates an article which has not been written yet. --Ed Poor 13:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, I will start the tolerance article. Thanks for the suggestion Ed. Crocoitetalk 13:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
article citations
You're welcome! Karajou 20:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Not quite
Sub-pages of your userspace are made with a "/", not a "\". Right now you're technically intruding into other userspaces. It's not urgent, but maybe ask a sysop to move the pages in question to the proper space next time you talk to one. --Sid 3050 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Moved pages in question
New pages have the exact title name as before, the exception being the change from \ to /. Karajou 17:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Template
Hey, if you're ever creating a template, to add it to the template category, add: <noinclude>[[Category:Template]]</noinclude>. To set templates to automatically add whatever page they're used on to a category put in: <includeonly>[[Category:whatever]]</includeonly>. Enjoy!
Thanks for copy editing Smithsonian-Sternberg affair
Just wanted to say thanks for copy editing the contribution. HeartOfGold 13:12, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Crazies to the left...
I restored the page. There was no copyright violation, as the article tells what the book is about. If you do use actual quotations from the book, dont forget the (Goldberg, pg. 50) at the end of the line in question. If you need a second opinion as well, Aschafly will also be glad to chip in. Karajou 18:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
- I don't agree that there was no copyright violation because "the article tells what the book is about", but probably there was no violation since it was only a limited portion that was quoted for legitimate reasons. Er, except that I'm not sure what those reasons are. Is this meant to be an article about a book, or what? If it is, I think it's more appropriate to actually describe the book in your own words than to have virtually all of the article being the publisher's description. So copyright may not be the issue, but I think it would be better if it was not mostly a quote. Philip J. Rayment 11:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
- P.S. And Conservapedia's desire to not have articles about every little thing makes me wonder if there is justification for articles about books at all (with a few obvious exceptions). Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
It was not me
It was not me. Thats not the first time that someone has tried to frame me see here [1] look who is making the change.Bohdan Talk 13:05, 22 May 2007 (EDT)