User talk:Faedra

NOTES 2 self:

Messages to users should be put on their talk page, reached via the "discussion" tab from their user page.

Thanks to:

Thue

Burgundavia

for valued advice and assistance.

---

REF: useful Wikipedia pages:

Wikipedia:Cleanup

Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

---

Useful and constructive comments from other users recorded here. Offensive comments will be deleted, but can be found in history.

I moved your article Alexanderholborne to Alexander Holborne. Cool article, thanks.Arminius 00:02, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. You're filling in some age of sail material of interest to me! A couple notes: we don't add people's job titles to article titles because more links from elsewhere work that way; also we italicize ship names. It's a little more work because you have to do pipe trick and make sure the "HMS" is not in itals, but the result looks better for readers. Stan 05:32, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello Again, this time regarding Airports

Hey Faedra,

I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Also, the current categorization scheme, created by me and certainly flexible, is to categorize each airport under Category: Airports of (country). Thus Manston Airport, which you created in under Category:Airports of the United Kingdom. Cheers. Burgundavia 07:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

---

Hello, Faedra, I like your user name. To avoid other people (like me) carrying out wholesale editing of your articles, you might like to consider the following actions:

1. Check your facts for accuracy and consistency as far as possible. In several cases, you are including errors that even a lay person can spot, eg. members of the Dudley family buying houses in years they weren't alive.
2. Look at the relevant pages to find out wikipedia standards on topics such as article naming. This will save you from committing solecisms such as "John, 3rd lord Dudley" instead of "John Sutton, 3rd Baron Dudley". Remember that the point is for would-be readers to be able to find an article easily.
3. Start your articles by saying what they are about, instead of beginning with a preamble.
4. Run everything through a spell-checker before you put it on the page. If that's not possible, use a dictionary to check correct spellings.
5. Use the "History" and "Talk" pages to keep in touch with what amendments are being made and why.

Hope you take these pieces of advice kindly and are not frightened off. Deb 18:02, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Re: deletion debate for User talk:82.34.83.208, someone will remove it for you when the time has elapsed. It's ok, it's not easy to find where it's written down that these things get automatically deleted after a certain time period and I didn't know when I first started. -- Graham  :) | Talk 18:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

It's only fair to let you know that I have listed Ramsgate Flat Earth Society on votes for deletion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it deals in facts. There's nothing wrong with providing an alternative for those who are "bored and frustrated with conventional history" - but this isn't the place to do it. Sorry.-- ALargeElk | Talk 12:07, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. However, there is a difference between this and the Star Trek-type articles. Wikipedia writes about fantasies, and it does so in a way that makes it very clear that they are fictional. It must not, if it is to have any authority, contain fantasy. -- ALargeElk | Talk 14:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Guttenberg

Hi, you might not be aware that your article Guttenberg is listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup.

You're obviously enthused about this topic, but the article is very difficult to understand for a general readership. Could you please rewrite it somewhat to make it clearer? I gather the article is about a ship that sank in the 19th century, but beyond that I'm not sure. Additionally, it seems to contain a lot of speculation. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, unless it is attributed to somebody. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Finally, do you have a source for your information? If this is your own original research, unfortunately Wikipedia is not the venue for it.--Robert Merkel 02:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dudd Dudley

Please see Talk:Dudd Dudley for my reply to your recent query. A further response from you would be appreciated. -- Jmabel 17:22, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

---

It seems from some of your comments to other users that you don't understand the basis on which you are contributing. Please read the article on copyleft. Deb 22:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Faedra, I've moved the paragraphs below from the article "Derivative work". They do not belong there, because they are about a completely different subject.

"Observing the rules.

As a contributor to Wikipedia, I authorise my submissions to be altered beyond recognition or improved, complimented and used freely under the terms of the gnu licence. All subsequent changes thus made are derivatives of the original text. I never the less maintain the original copyright, and have to acknowledge those parts of the original work thus licenced as such. This, as far as I know does not mean I am prevented from selling the entire product with the original copyright.

Further clarification on the technicalities of this principal need to be established, or at least made easier to find."

As far as I can understand, you believe that you still hold the copyright to your work after you have place it in wikipedia. This is not the case, as the very act of contributing to wikipedia means that anyone can copy your work. For example, there is a rival encyclopaedia on the web that just downloads everything we do here. It doesn't mean that you can't go ahead and publish what you've written, but it does mean that you don't have the sole right (copyright) to it. If you want to keep your copyright on your work, then don't use yoru work here.

It must be said that a lot of what you are contributing doesn't really belong here - or at least not in the way you are doing it. Why not spend some time re-working your original research so that it is suitable for the encyclopaedic context, leaving out the bits that are not, eg. the detailed genealogies of non-famous people? Then you could still protect the copyright of your original work, whilst also contributing something. Deb 21:42, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi. Just to say I read your note on my page, and hope that my comments were helpful rather than discouraging. Deb 16:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tangier Garrison

Hello. POI: I think the Palace of Placentia became the Royal Hospital at Greenwich around 1696-1712, and was distinct from the other Royal Hospital at Chelsea, now home to the Chelsea Pensioners. The Tangier Garrison was sent to (Falmouth and) Chelsea - the other side of London from Greenwich. So the link to the Palace of Placentia is incorrect. Regards, Icairns 16:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)