Contents

User talk:Philologia Sæculārēs

The full page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ann_Landers.jpg - already explains that it's Lederer.

But readers shouldn't have to go there to learn who the photo is really of. Anyhow, I've edited the photo caption since then. It is odd that the photo of Lederer was captioned only as "Ann Landers" but this bit of oddness comes from the LoC.

What's been bothering me is whether there was ever a real "Ann Landers".

According to [1], it was a name randomly chosen by Ruth Crowley, using the surname of a family friend. So I guess 'no' is the answer.

DS (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and I only now noticed that the article has been expanded to include material about Ruth Crowley. DS (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the discussion page, for the sake of delivering the historical facts in an objective way, I strongly feel there need to be 3 2 separate articles, 2 1 bios ( R Crowley & E Lederer) and one "Ask Ann Landers (advice column)" article. Lederer's use of the "Ann Landers" identity seems to have gone beyond journalism and almost into the territory of performance, and lots of Americans still think of her (& feel affectionately towards her) as Landers. However, this belief/feeling doesn't really reflect the actual history or make for a clearly-set-out encyclopedia article.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job in distinguishing Lederer from the column. Keep up the good work. (And I can see how to answer your question about Creme de noyaux, but not how to phrase it... gimme a little while to think.) DS (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DS!--Tyranny Sue (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope to see you again soon. I see you have found the helpme template, if you need any help beyond this, please let me know.

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Philologia Sæculārēs, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

 TyrS  blah 

 TyrS  blah 

The unambiguous instruction in WP:REFPUN has "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, it is placed immediately after the punctuation, except for dashes". I feel a revert coming on. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. I wasn't aware of that instruction. It's kind of a shame that that type of punctuation doesn't make any sense though (i.e. separating the reference number from the text to which it applies). That makes Wikipedia look kinda dumb (to me anyway). Ah well.--TyrS (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnabar has certainly been used to make buttons (and almost everything right up to furniture) as China has a huge tradition of highly carved (mercury) cinnabar lacquerwork.

However this isn't dragon's blood, and dragon's blood doesn't have anything like the mechanical strength needed to be used in layers this thick. It's not even (AFAIK) used for relief carving. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy!--TyrS (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a bummer, but American quotation marks go outside the comma. Being English myself, I feel your pain, but that's the way they do it here! Ravenscroft32 (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Ravenscroft32, we don't use the American format for quotation marks. WP:ENGVAR doesn't affect that aspect of punctuation, so I've restored TyrS' edits. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ckatz. Ravenscroft32, the guideline in question can be found here: MOS:LQ#LQ (example 2).--TyrS (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! Ravenscroft32 (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also section are not recommended per WP:MEDMOS Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The line of text is this one "See also: Avoid when possible; use wikilinks in the main article and navigation templates at the end." Will bring it up a WT:MED.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read (and understood) that, but my point is that I haven't created all of these See also sections, so I'm not sure if you have a problem with all of the See also sections in medical articles or just the ones I've created. (And if the latter, that requires more specific discussion.) Of course, feel free to bring it up wherever you want.--TyrS (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should be trying to make them small and eventually get rid of them IMO not make them larger. But we will see what others feelings are.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries.--TyrS (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TyrS how about creating a horizontal template to be placed at the bottom of the pages for Pregnancy related health problems such as the one for toxicology?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Risk factors in pregnancy, could I point out some guidelines on the selection of reliable sources for medical articles? These are at WP:MEDRS. I don't think the Merck Manual is the ideal source for such a subject, and recent high-quality reviews or professional textbooks in the field are more likely to be useful. JFW | T@lk 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. I'm working on finding better sources (as time permits, of course). :) --TyrS (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the gender word order discussion: The conversation seems to have fizzled out, but I find it really intriguing. I am personally against balancing the word order of gender references in articles, and prefer the more "conventional" (for lack of a better word) approach. But if you feel strongly about this, then I think you could make a very interesting case for it, and I encourage you to do so; which brings me to my point: I have (as you can tell) been thinking about this, and would suggest that you could create a Bot that would scan articles and identify phrases such as "man and woman" "he and she" etc. The Bot could reverse the word order in every other case, thereby creating a balance of word orders. I, myself, have no idea how to create a bot, but you could probably reach out to the help desk page and find someone willing to do it. Then I'd take the operational Bot to the Villiage Pump and ask for a consensus to launch the bot. I can only imagine what type of discussion that would prompt. Anyway, that may be way beyond the effort you want to put in to this. Regardless, I appreciate the food for thought regarding the gender word order issue. Happy editing! The Eskimo (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS- Feel free to delete this from your page if it rubs you the wrong way. I come here in good faith, but I won't take offense. The Eskimo (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template talk:Rights. Do you want to help find a more appropriate subsection heading?--SasiSasi (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]