User talk:Deep Atlantic Blue

I GO LONG PERIODS OF TIME WITHOUT LOGGING IN

messages left here may not get feedback

Please except my apologies

Hi, I am the one who did a rollback at [1]. My apologies because I really thought you meant for it to go to the talk page not the article. I made a non-edit after I did the rollback to explain because the rollback doesn't allow for explanation. I'm glad you readded it. I didn't know anything about what you added so I couldn't tell. Anyways, I hope you will except my apology and explanation. Have a healthy happy New Year and Happy editing, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synagogues in Sullivan County

Quite a few ... I have a few more to write about in my current batch of NRHP-listed properties from the Fallsburg area (Just look at National Register of Historic Places listings in Sullivan County, New York ... I can count about a dozen or so synagogues). The area was where the Catskills got the moniker "the Jewish Alps", after all, when Jews from New York began coming up around the turn of the century and opening farms and, later, resorts). Daniel Case (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Quotes

On a trip to Cooperstown, to attend a dinner, Phil Rizzuto commented to Yogi, "I think we're lost." To which Yogi responded "Yeah, but we're making great time."

- I noticed you removed this quote from his page. I am not positive whether or not he actually said it, but Phil Rizzuto definitely told this story during a Yankees broadcast during the early 1990s. Its probably not in print anywhere, which I guess is a shame because I really like the quote and its definitely a classic Yogism.

I don't know who put the note above, but I'll go to Yogi's page to check. I do not remember deleting the particular quote but I may have changed it. In the Yogi Book, Yogi says that that happened with his wife and not Phil. I wasn't aware of Phil's claim. Yogi's reply is really a classic. Maybe Phil was trying to look good though it didn't happen with him? Why would Yogi tell the story with his wife, if it had happened with Phil?

You are aware of the difficulty of ascertaining the exact circumstances of each quote as many were used by different people on several occasions. For instance he said to Phil that his new house "was just a bunch of rooms" to use that same line a few days on a radio interview. He also said to players "You can observe a lot by watching" as a catcher asking companions to pay attention, but he also gave the same line years later to news reporters when asked if he was qualified to coach.

I had thought of reviewing with qualifications a more complete list of Yogiisms, but attribution and the exact circumstances are exceedingly difficult to determine. Back in the day nobody anticipated the intense scrutiny these issues would have with us here in Wikipedia.

Thanks for the note, anyway.Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi Paradox

I reverted your addition to Fermi paradox, because the cited source is neither reliable, nor is the cited author the same given at the source. If I can help you in any way, please feel free to contact me. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

Warning. Deep Atlantic Blue, in this comment you say: "So the reliable source rules are something I would like to discuss a bit more at length." Do not do that on an article talk page. These talk pages is for discussing the article. If you want to "discuss the reliable source rules", then you go to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources or to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, which are the appropriate talk pages for that kind of discussion. Bringing that on article talk space is against talk page guidelines and is considered talk page abuse. Any further inapropriate discussion you conduct there will be reverted. Please take it where it belongs. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on a reliable source

Would you mind reverting your addition of a new section to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources and instead adding it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The first page is for discussion on the guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded at my talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portolan chart

On 5 November, 2009, you added the sentence "With the advent of the Age of Discovery, they were considered State secrets in Portugal and Spain, very valuable in the description of Atlantic and Indian coastlines for newcomer English and Dutch raiding ships," to the article's introduction. Did you mean "trading," as I'm not aware of any large scale raiding activities undertaken by the English or Dutch except for some in connection with the Atlantic slave trade. Also, as it seems from your summary of the edit that it was an extrapolation, I would be cautious of including it with regard to the Wikipedia rule on original research, and I think a citation would really be of help as that particular point isn't given attention to in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.177.101 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly aware of Francis Drake and his privateer activities. Spanish galleons carrying silver were routinely attacked in the Caribbean and Central America and that is not a Hollywood myth. And when Portugal, 1580 to 1640, was under Spanish rule, Portuguese fortresses in Brazil were frequently attacked by the Dutch. I have a book written by a scholar on the subject documenting such activity, but because it is a bit long, and I do not have much time to put into reading at such lengths, I have been postponing it. The book is not in Amazon, an English translation seems not to exist, and Portuguese booksellers say the book is no longer available for sale. You can see that here http://www.wook.pt/ficha/o-grande-livro-da-pirataria-e-do-corso/a/id/107133 If I get around to read it, I will walk Wikipedia a bit with the information gleaned. Hope this information helps a bit. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some things to think about

1) Wikipedia is a volunteer project
2) Wikipedia is founded on the idea of WP:CONSENSUS
3) Wikipedia is big and has LOTS of people involved
4) Because it is big, not everyone is involved everywhere
5) Wikipedia has no centralized command and control dictating who works where or comments on what
6) What appears to be consensus in a local area/topic/discussion may not reflect a greater consensus achieved elsewhere
7) What appears to be consensus is constantly changing and refining based on how local consensus decisions impact and influence each other.
8) Most people involved are trying to "improve Wikipedia"
9) No two people involved agree on what exactly "improving Wikipedia" means.
Active Banana (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Please do not put unreadable characters and/or foreign language messages on other user's talk pages as you did here. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning. Please stop putting unreadable characters and/or foreign language messages on other user's talk pages as you did here. DVdm (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:DVdm, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - DVdm (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 week, for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Peter 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Also please note that editing without logging in or using other accounts to continue these personal attacks or any other editing is strictly against policy, and will likely result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely if you continue. Peter 14:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for ignoring the above warning. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Peter 20:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)