User talk:Gerry Ashton/Archive 3
Waterbury Photo Postcards[edit]
I regard these Photo Postcards as Public Domain because they are prior to 1964 and did not have the copyright renewed 28 years after they were first published. I have added the appropriate copyright tag to each one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exwaterburian (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Re[edit]
Well, common sense™. Would you care to point out something that makes the statement invalid? I'm not being sarcastic, and I understand your source concern however this statement is painfully obvious from the very definition of CE dating. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm well aware of policies like WP:OR, however this doesn't fall under them as it cannot be classed as research, it is an obvious fact arising from the very nature of CE. It is an obviously stemming criticism. Would you require a source to say that a policy of genocide is bad? +Hexagon1 (t) 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the statement is wrong, and more important, I doubt that many people oppose CE for that reason, so I challenge it. Another user has already removed it, and I'm pretty sure you will have no success in reintroducing it without a source. Actually, it isn't necessary that the source prove the statement is true; it suffices that the source demonstrate that a notable number of CE opponents oppose it for the that reason. --Gerry Ashton 04:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure this is easily resolved without duels or over-confidence by either side. If you take issue then by all means remove it. However I'm slightly surprised, as that is the most fundamental objection that jumps to mind with ridiculous CE dating. I'll see if in the future I come across a source. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the statement is wrong, and more important, I doubt that many people oppose CE for that reason, so I challenge it. Another user has already removed it, and I'm pretty sure you will have no success in reintroducing it without a source. Actually, it isn't necessary that the source prove the statement is true; it suffices that the source demonstrate that a notable number of CE opponents oppose it for the that reason. --Gerry Ashton 04:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
On the basis of the discussion at WikiProject Council, I have been BOLD and set up WikiProject Measurement. I hope you are still interested and that you will join the discussion as to how to progress from here. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Geregorian Calendar[edit]
Gerry please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gregorian_calendar#Gregorian_Calendar_and_the_Age_of_Pisces regarding your recent comment and removal of an external link. If you care to respond then, I believe, that the response should be included on the Talk page (link provided) so others may provide some input or insight. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Charles Webb (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 June 2007 UTC.
Please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gregorian_calendar#Gregorian_Calendar_and_the_Age_of_Pisces for posted Request for Comment.
Electricity over IP[edit]
Why did you revert the link here? Looks like a genuine RfC.Anwar 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! It is a joke!! Never guessed anyone bothered to waste a RfC on a regulatory body.Anwar 16:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- It took me about a minute and a half to think to look at the date, which was April 1. I don't have anything against jokes, but I don't know which countries are aware of April Fool's day. Readers outside the U.S. and the U.K. might be confused. --Gerry Ashton 19:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
99.238.28.147[edit]
It wasn't hard to find out the WHOIS information. They have had that info posted on the page and they have been given a second-level warning. Daniel Case 02:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Electricity[edit]
Hi, re your reversion here, the quote has already been broken up by another editor, who added his own text into it. Rather than quote (somewhat unencyclopaedic text) at all, a better solution is to rewrite the text, which is what I shall do. Regards, — BillC talk 06:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the earlier damage to the quotation. I would prefer to see a quotation from a reliable source, because so may people think they "know" the Franlkin kite story, that they tend to alter anything that isn't a quote. (Unfortunately some people don't even know that you can't change a quote and still leave the quotation marks or block). I wouldn't oppose leaving out the warning about not flying kits in thunderstorms and replacing that part with ellipsis. --Gerry Ashton 15:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe[edit]
From the edit history you worte:
- Revert attempt by Philip Baird Shearer to claim ownership of this article by using the phrase "I believe"
I don't believe I said "I believe", it is a quote. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are quite right. I blame whoever decided to put "references-small" at the beginning of the footnotes section. I just didn't see the quotation marks. --Gerry Ashton 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)