User talk:Tuckerresearch/Talk Archive 2013

Article on Joseph Davidovits

Hi, I have done some copy edits to the lead section[1] hoping to achieve neutrality. FYI, while makingthat edit, he wrote the in summary: "I just added details on my scientific career and did not touch the controversial archaeological section. After this he explained it in the talk page at Talk:Joseph Davidovits#Adding details on my scientific career:".

He has his autobiography originally published in his won website http://www.davidovits.info/ . I think he has almost adhered to Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you].

Now, the only part containing his direct contributions is the section Career (ncluding its subsection). But it is written like a timeline of events. Can you please help in finding the parts which are biased. Kind regards···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 20:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy edited and removed the tag.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 18:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I was just worried he was going to continue editing. Your edits soften his tone a bit. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Tuckerresearch; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Doyle article deletion

I'm not going to start a delete/ redo war with you, but I resent your deletion of my work and don't agree that what I contributed was irrelevant. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Tkbwik (talk • contribs) 13:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! You need to calm the heck down, jack! First, you "resent" my actions? How silly. You need to remember WP:OWN, which states: "No one 'owns' an article or any page at Wikipedia. If you create or edit an article, others can make changes, and you can not prevent them from doing so." If me removing your work gets you so worked up, you need to get out of the kitchen!

Second, what you added to the Canon of Sherlock Holmes page is not canon, it is aSherlock Holmes pastiche. That is because it bears no direct relation to Arthur Conan Doyle and nobody, then or now, believed it may have borne a relation to him. If you can find a reference that he wrote it, or that another author believed he wrote it, then it can go here, otherwise it does not belong here, it goes here: Non-canonical Sherlock Holmes works.

Do you understand the difference? If not, here are the explanations from the canon page:

• "Traditionally, the canon of Sherlock Holmes consists of the 56 short stories and four novels written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle"
• "In addition to the canon Conan Doyle wrote (occasionally with a co-writer) a number of vignettes, play adaptations and essays involving Holmes"
• "These are works which have in the past been thought to have been written by Doyle"

The story you gave does not belong here. Instead, read here, the non-canon page:

• "Sherlock Holmes has long been a popular character for authors and creators other than Arthur Conan Doyle"

This is where the story you gave belongs.

That, is how you make a reasoned argument; telling me you resent me is not. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what. I won't tell you to p*ss off if you don't tell me to calm down. Only infant isn't interested in the effect his actions have on those around them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkbwik (talk • contribs) 13:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Central Texas College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Leonard Wood (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 theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bibliography of Scientology may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• goldenageofknowledge.net/package-contents.html Description of "Scientology, Science of Survival"]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed what caused the problem. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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 theDPL WikiProject.

Hans Staden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Portuguese

Thurber, Texas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saloons

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. TuckerResearch (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ray Price

Please stop changing "passed away" to died. The family does not want that verbage. It means the same thing, but respect the wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by69.88.252.237 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I love Ray Price, but (1) there is nothing wrong with "died"; (2) how do you know what the family wants on Wikipedia?; and (3) "passed away" → "died" per WP:EUPHEMISM.TuckerResearch (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kindness, understanding and such a quick response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by69.88.252.237 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fasold

Were you ever in email touch with Fasold? I was - he was a bit incoherent though. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I was but 18 when he died and I didn't know if he had an e-mail address. I think he posted on message boards back in the early days of the 'net, though. I do know brain cancer probably wasn't conducive to his coherence. Don Patten was in personal contact with him, at the time, and a few months before Fasold's death I sent Patten (who used to have a website back in the day) an e-mail concerning Fasold. Thus, my own bit of original research:

• Patten, Donald W. to G. R. Tucker, Killeen, Texas, March 18, 1998, page 1
• Patten, Donald W. to G. R. Tucker, Killeen, Texas, March 18, 1998, page 2

So, I guess Patten's name should be removed from the David Fasold and Durupinar site articles because it has no citable source. But Deal and Dawes (coupled with my Patten e-mail) show that Fasold probably moved back to believing something was at Durupinar. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't find the emails I had, but see [2]. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

He was adamant that Drupinar was a geological formation at the end. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, talk.origins - the heady early days of the interwebs. Brings back memories. I guess the best we can surmise is at the end, he may have thought one way, he may have thought the other, and, hell, he may have thought both. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tuckerresearch. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 18:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)