![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Heya! i'm glad you were willing to help me with my User Page. However, i just want to know why the certain categories were removed, so i can better alter my page in the future, and possibly remove/add any further content in upcoming edits. Thank you and continue the great work, friend. Feel free to contact me on my user page for anything. :)
Raccoon Fox 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I will work on getting those cites. They are simple calculations bassed on pure physics calculations. I believe a Cold War era damage calculator for nuclear effects can show a simple set of calcs. Alyeska 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'd like to give you a barnstar for your referencing work on Mao (game)!
Some time ago now you locked the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy page from moves. I was hopeing that now that a new title has been decided on that you could move the page to Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians for us. I don't believe that the page move lock will be nessiccary any longer either. thanks -- T-rex 01:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Extreme amounts of media coverage. Very famous religion-motivated crime. Cf. Baruch Goldstein, Richard Reid and the nineteen 9-11 terrorists. - the.crazy.russian τ/ ç/ ë 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. You have proposed the article Alexander Koptsev for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{ prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! -- Mermes 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please move Code: LYOKO to Code Lyoko as per the the talk page discussion? The redirect page has an edit history preventing the move. - Someguy0830 ( Talk | contribs) 07:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
they werent created by the goa'uld, so, why put them there? who cares if they just took over the usage and started producing them? it is NOT goa'uld technology, and thats what the page is about, goa'uld tech... if you put it under, say, "Technology the Goa'uld have stolen", then, sure, maybe as a reference then. cause we all know the goa'uld steal most of their technology, it has been said multiple times... Xornok 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Just so that you know: by using [[Category:The Elder Scrolls regions<noinclude>| </noiclude>]] instead of <includeonly>[[Category:The Elder Scrolls regions]]</includeonly>, the template is sorted to the top of the corresponding category with every other article that icludes it sorted normally. That was the original intention all along. --
Koveras
07:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Cricket subcategories for deletion here. This is just a courtesy note because you took part in an earlier inconclusive debate on the same subject, and may wish to comment on this one. If you're not interested, please forgive the intrusion. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, a few days ago, I spent hours researching and writing DNA Resequencer. I am almost the sole author of the article. However, I had had very little expirence with refs and didn't know how to cite properly. Using another article, I managed to get 80 cites done. However, many were redundant, and i didn't know how to do the a,b,c, thing. I saw that you went in and fixed the only part of the article that wasn't perfect, the refs. Thank you very much for that. However, there were 3 messages at the bottom which said that the cite wasn't done properly. After expirmenting for a long time, I fixed two of them, however, I don't know what is wrong with the 3rd. I would appericiate it if you would fix ref 30. Also, did I fix the others correctly? Thanks. Tobyk777 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Do you think the article is good enough to be a good article, or a featured article? Tobyk777 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, again I just noticed 2 other things. There is some red text in the article that wasn't there before, saying that something wasn't cited right. I don't know how to fix it. Also, the external links have been un-split and sevral have been taken out. Do You think they're better that way? Tobyk777 03:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I think the article is pretty much as good as it can be. Do you think it has a chance of becoming a FA? Tobyk777 05:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your comments on the talk page Tobyk777 06:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is the page to learn how to use <timeline></timeline ? Thanks for any info. → ΣcoPhreek Δ 05:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you used Cyde Wey's cite converter to change the references in the Gray Wolf article. Do you know where I could get that? — Mir l e n 01:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Great work here on the references! Most of this was due to work I did last summer and I do have some sort of ambition to turn Lord Kelvin into a model article. I will probably come back to it this summer and do some more. There are a lot of references but not too many I think. I did toy with the idea of putting them on a separate page. They are only really of use to a serious researcher. What do you think? Cutler 08:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
We have a new user ( User:RRW jockey, who's making edits to the Reliable replacement warhead article, which I disagree with. I wanted a third opinion about whether his changes are Neutral POV or not, so I'm asking a few other wikipedians who have worked on nuclear related articles.
If you can pop over there and take a look, and if you have an opinion leave it on the article talk page, I would appreciate other feedback.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Your edits to references/notes in Thomas McKean are appreciated, especially since I've learned there's something new and better in the way of doing references, and will use it in the future. However, I would ask you to give some thought to making changes to the nav boxes and succession boxes as you have.
I have given a great deal of thought to these issues over many months, and have not casually tossed them out. I would ask that you not casually reject them because they are variations on what most are doing or what you are used to. Frankly, again IMHO, the designs in nav boxes and succession boxes is way out of control; many look simply awful, often including way too much information, unsymmetrical images, or strange sizes. Discussing changes is a mind numbing task, because it is often impossible to convince anyone, myself included, in these discussions. People need to see and experience the variation before they can let down their defenses and appreciate them. I'm simply trying to present a few slight variations on the norm to make the product better. Your thoughtful consideration of all this is much appreciated. stilltim 11:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I just had a look at the talk pages of the governor navboxes, and I can't find any discussion over their formatting. Checking the histories of the template pages themselves suggests {{ DEGovernors}} is the one there was disagreement over, you reverted Jack Cox at one point suggesting he discuss the matter on the template talk page. But I've looked at Template talk:PAGovernors, Template talk:DEGovernors, User talk:Jack Cox, User talk:Markles, and User talk:Stilltim, and all I could see relating to the governor navboxes was a brief discussion between you and Markles about the use of <small> tags. Did I miss a talk page? What was the actual dispute over, just the issue of alphabetic order versus chronological order? Bryan 07:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bryan Derksen. Thanks for being wikifairy to the Opus Dei article. Yes, we sure needed that assistance to improve the references and footnotes! Thanks to you, I have now realized that we have too many references there, and perhaps some of them have to be removed. Well, thanks again. Lafem 05:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for merging those references - I was kind of hoping someone would. It's a real pain when you footnote something, then work backwords through the article adding more footnotes. There's really no convenient way to avoid that mess - otherwise each time you have to update the previous footnote that actually defined it. Stevage 07:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get this term Luminous coefficient that seems to be the same as Luminous efficiency? Dicklyon 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice you are interested in editing the therianthropy article. See Talk:Therianthropy/Archive 1#Disambiguation for a disambiguation that was apparently accidentally wiped out because of all the recent vandalism. I've also got stuff on my user page about the disambiguation. Blue Milk Mathematician 21:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your very kind bug report. And my apologies for having done that botch. It should be fixed now. -- Ligulem 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping work on the reference links for the Chavez articles: there is so much work to be done there, and every little bit helps! Sandy 01:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Bryan,
Thanks for cleaning up references on the Ashkenazi Jewish page. At the same time you were making edits on one section, I was adding some new references. Sorry if our edits clashed. We could provide external links too. The New York Times and the AJHG are both available online.
Howard -- Metzenberg 08:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw your work on the references on Kofun and I want to thank you for your hard work. Tortfeasor 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
hey bryan, since youre an admin here and all, what is the wikipolicy on the use of quotes? i tried looking through the list of policies and couldnt find anything about it... - Xornok 06:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for revamping the notes and references on the Three Laws of Robotics page. I appreciate it. Anville 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
okay, i was wondering... when i type Firefly, i get the insect page. wouldnt it make more sence to link it to the disambiguation page since it is more likely that people looking up firefly are looking for the TV show. and i know it was named after the bug, i know that the the show isnt as famous as stargate but still. instead of typing firefly, having to click on the link to go to the disambiguation, and then clicking on the tv series link, i thing it should be that people type in firefly, and then they can choose to go to the insect page if they want to, instead of being forced to. the casual user wouldnt know to type Firefly (TV series) to get to the show... it would be more user friendly to navigate around... i was just wondering what you think since you are one of the oldest and more experienced users around here (you've been here since 2001, right?) anyways, thanks - Xornok 05:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
so youre favoring the ones who are looking for the beetle over all the other ones? - Xornok 08:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it, real life trumps fiction in all cases. -- Run! 11:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
isnt is also about naming articles? if someone got to the disambiguation page, and their were no summaries to tell what each link was, then only by process of elimination can someone deduce that regular Firefly is about the beetle... i thought it had to be 100% clear where each link goes to and Firefly (insect) takes away any doubt where it goes to... this is of course assuming that there are no summaries to tell what the links are about, which i think should be some sort of guideline as to establishing disambiguation pages... also, youre assuming that people know what theyre looking for when they search for firefly... someone may have thought they heard Firefly is a phone for small children, but dont remember... by automatically linking to the beetle its like "hmph, i guess its not called Firefly"... because some people might not know what disambiguation means... hell, i even dont, i just know it gives all the meanings of the word, which should always be the first place someone goes too... its like refining your search, you type in a word, its gives you all the possibilities, and then you go from there... so what if the insect was the first and probably the most relevant but unless all people are looking for the beetle when they type firefly, they should be linked to the disambiguation page first... - Xornok 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
i just did some research. if you type "firefly" into either yahoo or google, the tv show and the cell phone are the top searches... they have the most relevance according to the two biggest search engines around. i think thats proof enough that the beetle is not the top choice... also, people who are looking for the beetle generally use the term "fireflies", plural. i think this is significant because you generally see fireflies together in groups. you never say "look a firefly" its usually "look, fireflies"... i think this constitutes as compelling evidence to rename the articles... - Xornok 21:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As a recent editor on Hugo Chávez, can you review developments on Talk:Hugo Chávez and let us know which version you think we should move forward with, considering that either version we pick will need work? Thanks ! Sandy 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi: I am currently writing a series of articles on British Battleships of the Victorian era. The current article on HMS Triumph is down to you as author. I would like to ecpand this article, which will, in effect, obliterate what you wrote. I would like your permission to do this; you can always revert if it's not up to standard.(I know I could just do it - I like to ask)-- Anthony.bradbury 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
your edit removed the external links, why did you make this edit?-- Woogie10w 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nv8200p talk 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I've just found your reply to my note about spoilers in Bleak House. Of course I agree with you, and indeed it is Wiki policy. But the comment was put in relation to a single bracketed note to the character list. If you want to put that back in (it's marked in the history), and add the spoiler tag, go for it. And then make the spoiler note earn its keep by putting in a synopsis of the plot, which is of course what this article needs.
It was just a response to an addition that would mean nothing at all to a WP reader unless they were part way through Bleak House - in which case it would have blown the entire plot. So yeah, please fix all: take out the HTML note and go the whole hog - like you say, it's good for the encyclopedia. cheers, JackyR | Talk 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Must have taken you ages to get the references that far. Very commendable -- Samir धर्म 04:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Firsly first this is not a policy or a guideline, just a mere reccomendation.
Image:Star Trek Tos OF5d.png is the commander rank so it should be named OF4. I use the nato code to referance to the ranks. See: Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers. I thought you might want to follow that format. :) -- Cat out 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Heya! i'm glad you were willing to help me with my User Page. However, i just want to know why the certain categories were removed, so i can better alter my page in the future, and possibly remove/add any further content in upcoming edits. Thank you and continue the great work, friend. Feel free to contact me on my user page for anything. :)
Raccoon Fox 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I will work on getting those cites. They are simple calculations bassed on pure physics calculations. I believe a Cold War era damage calculator for nuclear effects can show a simple set of calcs. Alyeska 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'd like to give you a barnstar for your referencing work on Mao (game)!
Some time ago now you locked the Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy page from moves. I was hopeing that now that a new title has been decided on that you could move the page to Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians for us. I don't believe that the page move lock will be nessiccary any longer either. thanks -- T-rex 01:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Extreme amounts of media coverage. Very famous religion-motivated crime. Cf. Baruch Goldstein, Richard Reid and the nineteen 9-11 terrorists. - the.crazy.russian τ/ ç/ ë 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. You have proposed the article Alexander Koptsev for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{ prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! -- Mermes 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please move Code: LYOKO to Code Lyoko as per the the talk page discussion? The redirect page has an edit history preventing the move. - Someguy0830 ( Talk | contribs) 07:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
they werent created by the goa'uld, so, why put them there? who cares if they just took over the usage and started producing them? it is NOT goa'uld technology, and thats what the page is about, goa'uld tech... if you put it under, say, "Technology the Goa'uld have stolen", then, sure, maybe as a reference then. cause we all know the goa'uld steal most of their technology, it has been said multiple times... Xornok 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Just so that you know: by using [[Category:The Elder Scrolls regions<noinclude>| </noiclude>]] instead of <includeonly>[[Category:The Elder Scrolls regions]]</includeonly>, the template is sorted to the top of the corresponding category with every other article that icludes it sorted normally. That was the original intention all along. --
Koveras
07:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Cricket subcategories for deletion here. This is just a courtesy note because you took part in an earlier inconclusive debate on the same subject, and may wish to comment on this one. If you're not interested, please forgive the intrusion. Stephen Turner ( Talk) 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, a few days ago, I spent hours researching and writing DNA Resequencer. I am almost the sole author of the article. However, I had had very little expirence with refs and didn't know how to cite properly. Using another article, I managed to get 80 cites done. However, many were redundant, and i didn't know how to do the a,b,c, thing. I saw that you went in and fixed the only part of the article that wasn't perfect, the refs. Thank you very much for that. However, there were 3 messages at the bottom which said that the cite wasn't done properly. After expirmenting for a long time, I fixed two of them, however, I don't know what is wrong with the 3rd. I would appericiate it if you would fix ref 30. Also, did I fix the others correctly? Thanks. Tobyk777 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Do you think the article is good enough to be a good article, or a featured article? Tobyk777 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, again I just noticed 2 other things. There is some red text in the article that wasn't there before, saying that something wasn't cited right. I don't know how to fix it. Also, the external links have been un-split and sevral have been taken out. Do You think they're better that way? Tobyk777 03:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I think the article is pretty much as good as it can be. Do you think it has a chance of becoming a FA? Tobyk777 05:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your comments on the talk page Tobyk777 06:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is the page to learn how to use <timeline></timeline ? Thanks for any info. → ΣcoPhreek Δ 05:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you used Cyde Wey's cite converter to change the references in the Gray Wolf article. Do you know where I could get that? — Mir l e n 01:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Great work here on the references! Most of this was due to work I did last summer and I do have some sort of ambition to turn Lord Kelvin into a model article. I will probably come back to it this summer and do some more. There are a lot of references but not too many I think. I did toy with the idea of putting them on a separate page. They are only really of use to a serious researcher. What do you think? Cutler 08:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
We have a new user ( User:RRW jockey, who's making edits to the Reliable replacement warhead article, which I disagree with. I wanted a third opinion about whether his changes are Neutral POV or not, so I'm asking a few other wikipedians who have worked on nuclear related articles.
If you can pop over there and take a look, and if you have an opinion leave it on the article talk page, I would appreciate other feedback.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Your edits to references/notes in Thomas McKean are appreciated, especially since I've learned there's something new and better in the way of doing references, and will use it in the future. However, I would ask you to give some thought to making changes to the nav boxes and succession boxes as you have.
I have given a great deal of thought to these issues over many months, and have not casually tossed them out. I would ask that you not casually reject them because they are variations on what most are doing or what you are used to. Frankly, again IMHO, the designs in nav boxes and succession boxes is way out of control; many look simply awful, often including way too much information, unsymmetrical images, or strange sizes. Discussing changes is a mind numbing task, because it is often impossible to convince anyone, myself included, in these discussions. People need to see and experience the variation before they can let down their defenses and appreciate them. I'm simply trying to present a few slight variations on the norm to make the product better. Your thoughtful consideration of all this is much appreciated. stilltim 11:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I just had a look at the talk pages of the governor navboxes, and I can't find any discussion over their formatting. Checking the histories of the template pages themselves suggests {{ DEGovernors}} is the one there was disagreement over, you reverted Jack Cox at one point suggesting he discuss the matter on the template talk page. But I've looked at Template talk:PAGovernors, Template talk:DEGovernors, User talk:Jack Cox, User talk:Markles, and User talk:Stilltim, and all I could see relating to the governor navboxes was a brief discussion between you and Markles about the use of <small> tags. Did I miss a talk page? What was the actual dispute over, just the issue of alphabetic order versus chronological order? Bryan 07:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bryan Derksen. Thanks for being wikifairy to the Opus Dei article. Yes, we sure needed that assistance to improve the references and footnotes! Thanks to you, I have now realized that we have too many references there, and perhaps some of them have to be removed. Well, thanks again. Lafem 05:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for merging those references - I was kind of hoping someone would. It's a real pain when you footnote something, then work backwords through the article adding more footnotes. There's really no convenient way to avoid that mess - otherwise each time you have to update the previous footnote that actually defined it. Stevage 07:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get this term Luminous coefficient that seems to be the same as Luminous efficiency? Dicklyon 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice you are interested in editing the therianthropy article. See Talk:Therianthropy/Archive 1#Disambiguation for a disambiguation that was apparently accidentally wiped out because of all the recent vandalism. I've also got stuff on my user page about the disambiguation. Blue Milk Mathematician 21:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your very kind bug report. And my apologies for having done that botch. It should be fixed now. -- Ligulem 08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping work on the reference links for the Chavez articles: there is so much work to be done there, and every little bit helps! Sandy 01:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Bryan,
Thanks for cleaning up references on the Ashkenazi Jewish page. At the same time you were making edits on one section, I was adding some new references. Sorry if our edits clashed. We could provide external links too. The New York Times and the AJHG are both available online.
Howard -- Metzenberg 08:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw your work on the references on Kofun and I want to thank you for your hard work. Tortfeasor 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
hey bryan, since youre an admin here and all, what is the wikipolicy on the use of quotes? i tried looking through the list of policies and couldnt find anything about it... - Xornok 06:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for revamping the notes and references on the Three Laws of Robotics page. I appreciate it. Anville 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
okay, i was wondering... when i type Firefly, i get the insect page. wouldnt it make more sence to link it to the disambiguation page since it is more likely that people looking up firefly are looking for the TV show. and i know it was named after the bug, i know that the the show isnt as famous as stargate but still. instead of typing firefly, having to click on the link to go to the disambiguation, and then clicking on the tv series link, i thing it should be that people type in firefly, and then they can choose to go to the insect page if they want to, instead of being forced to. the casual user wouldnt know to type Firefly (TV series) to get to the show... it would be more user friendly to navigate around... i was just wondering what you think since you are one of the oldest and more experienced users around here (you've been here since 2001, right?) anyways, thanks - Xornok 05:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
so youre favoring the ones who are looking for the beetle over all the other ones? - Xornok 08:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The way I see it, real life trumps fiction in all cases. -- Run! 11:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
isnt is also about naming articles? if someone got to the disambiguation page, and their were no summaries to tell what each link was, then only by process of elimination can someone deduce that regular Firefly is about the beetle... i thought it had to be 100% clear where each link goes to and Firefly (insect) takes away any doubt where it goes to... this is of course assuming that there are no summaries to tell what the links are about, which i think should be some sort of guideline as to establishing disambiguation pages... also, youre assuming that people know what theyre looking for when they search for firefly... someone may have thought they heard Firefly is a phone for small children, but dont remember... by automatically linking to the beetle its like "hmph, i guess its not called Firefly"... because some people might not know what disambiguation means... hell, i even dont, i just know it gives all the meanings of the word, which should always be the first place someone goes too... its like refining your search, you type in a word, its gives you all the possibilities, and then you go from there... so what if the insect was the first and probably the most relevant but unless all people are looking for the beetle when they type firefly, they should be linked to the disambiguation page first... - Xornok 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
i just did some research. if you type "firefly" into either yahoo or google, the tv show and the cell phone are the top searches... they have the most relevance according to the two biggest search engines around. i think thats proof enough that the beetle is not the top choice... also, people who are looking for the beetle generally use the term "fireflies", plural. i think this is significant because you generally see fireflies together in groups. you never say "look a firefly" its usually "look, fireflies"... i think this constitutes as compelling evidence to rename the articles... - Xornok 21:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As a recent editor on Hugo Chávez, can you review developments on Talk:Hugo Chávez and let us know which version you think we should move forward with, considering that either version we pick will need work? Thanks ! Sandy 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi: I am currently writing a series of articles on British Battleships of the Victorian era. The current article on HMS Triumph is down to you as author. I would like to ecpand this article, which will, in effect, obliterate what you wrote. I would like your permission to do this; you can always revert if it's not up to standard.(I know I could just do it - I like to ask)-- Anthony.bradbury 19:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
your edit removed the external links, why did you make this edit?-- Woogie10w 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nv8200p talk 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I've just found your reply to my note about spoilers in Bleak House. Of course I agree with you, and indeed it is Wiki policy. But the comment was put in relation to a single bracketed note to the character list. If you want to put that back in (it's marked in the history), and add the spoiler tag, go for it. And then make the spoiler note earn its keep by putting in a synopsis of the plot, which is of course what this article needs.
It was just a response to an addition that would mean nothing at all to a WP reader unless they were part way through Bleak House - in which case it would have blown the entire plot. So yeah, please fix all: take out the HTML note and go the whole hog - like you say, it's good for the encyclopedia. cheers, JackyR | Talk 21:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow! Must have taken you ages to get the references that far. Very commendable -- Samir धर्म 04:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Firsly first this is not a policy or a guideline, just a mere reccomendation.
Image:Star Trek Tos OF5d.png is the commander rank so it should be named OF4. I use the nato code to referance to the ranks. See: Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers. I thought you might want to follow that format. :) -- Cat out 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)