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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thanks for fixing the Boston Ave. picture I couldnt figure out why it was messed up. User:Buaidh made alot of edits and didnt leave a edit summary.-- CPacker ( talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey I wanted to let you know that I nominated the Old Tulsa Panorama photo and its now featured. I belive that it is the only featured photo related to Oklahoma, I think it needs a spot in the Tulsa article. I know that you changed it before so I thought I would give you a heads up and see what you thought. Drop me a line and let me know what you think -- CPacker ( talk) 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I just dropped by to mention that I'd written on the proposed merger of Kiamichi Country and Southeastern Oklahoma at Talk:Little Dixie (Oklahoma). I think these concepts are rather different and should be treated separately. Indeed, I think there should be separate entries for each of ODOT's six kitschy travel regions. I love the entry for Green Country. Let's write one for Red Carpet Country, too. Best wishes, etc. GreenGourd ( talk) 00:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey just wanted to tell you that the photo you added today looks great it really adds to the page, I think its really nice that the page has improved alot in the way of photos. Keep up the good work.-- CPacker ( talk) 03:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For all your hard work editing and improving Oklahoma articles, I award you Barnstar! -- ♦ C Packer 22:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
You made a threat to have me barred from making edits for my change to the Tulsa article but you should check the definition of vandalism -- "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."
When I took out:
", the parent company to the Bank of Oklahoma, the Bank of Texas, the Bank of Arkansas, the Bank of Albuquerque, the Bank of Arizona, Colorado State Bank and Trust, and the Bank of Kansas City. [1]"
it was because it was gratuitous and basically redundant because the hyperlink says the exact same thing.
It was frustrating for you to undo my edit and your treat to have me barred felt like bullying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.33.0 ( talk)
Heads up. You're doing good work on the article about the Sonics moving to OKC, but look at the references at the bottom. You're not linking the dates properly. The dates will link on their own without formatting them in the references. There are a few other mistakes in the references you might want to look at also. Other than that, keep up the good work. Chicken Wing ( talk) 00:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea, but unfortunately I'm going to be out of the country without internet access for the next two weeks, so won't be able to help. But good luck on it! One thought that I'm having is that maybe a fan reaction section isn't a good idea. The reason why I'm thinking that is that a section dedicated solely to fan reaction will have a tendency to explode out of control as fans will magically appear and add their own reaction, or add multiple sourced reactions, etc, etc to the point that it'll become excessive. One idea would be to interleave the reaction of the fans throughout the article. So the fans reaction of Shultz's sale to Bennett and Co. could be included in the "Sale of team" section, reaction to the settlement could be included in the City v PBC section. -- Bobblehead (rants) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I have some concerns regarding your latest edit to meat. First of all, your reference for the claim Meat has been linked to significantly raised risk of diabetes and heart disease goes to the website [1] which is not a reliable source (at least for this article), for obvious reasons. Why don't you instead find the actual study they reference (The study, which was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology)?
Your next statement (the risks of heart disease for meat eaters being three times greater than for vegetarians, according to one survey) isn't quite supported by the study, which at best concludes (straight from the abstract): For 45- to 64-year-old men, there was approximately a threefold difference in risk between men who ate meat daily and those who did not eat meat.. I already updated the article to clarify this.
For your next claim (A large-scale study in 2008 also found that eating two or more servings of meat a day increases the risk of suffering from excessive fat around the waist, high blood sugar, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure by 25 percent compared to those who had only two servings of meat a week or less), I checked out the linked articles and unless I am misreading things, it seems the study measured meat eating in conjunction with drinking of diet sodas, versus doing neither of these things. In this case it is quite likely that other dietary factors were also not controlled, and the study's results have little to do with meat eating per se. Can you confirm whether this is the case, or point to the original abstract so it can be verified?
The reference for the next claim (One famous study, the Nurses' Health Study, followed about 100,000 female nurses and their eating habits. Nurses who ate the largest amount of animal fat were twice as likely to develop colon cancer as the nurses who ate the least amount of animal fat.) seems to go to the study's main page with no clear indication on how to find the reference for the aforementioned claim. Can you please find a better link?
Thank you. -- WayneMokane ( talk) 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- People who eat two or more servings of red meat a day are much more likely to develop conditions leading to heart disease and diabetes, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.
- Eating two or more servings of meat a day increases the risk of suffering from a cluster of risk factors known as metabolic syndrome by 25 percent compared to those who had only two servings of meat a week, the researchers reported in the journal Circulation.
Hello Okiefromokla, I've granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember to use rollback to revert edits that you are absolutely sure are vandalism: if in doubt, don't use rollback to revert. In addition, misuse of the rollback feature, either by reverting good-faith edits or revert-warring, can and will lead to its removal. For more information and practice, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 16:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
i work in the same lab as little alien (nate) i'm just joking around with him. is that really vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.133.67 ( talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Warren Kinsella here. I am writing about this process, a summary of which is found here: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080715-152011
Best wishes,
W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkinsella ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user-page! I cannot express my gratitude in words so, instead, I give you this plate of cookies. Thanks again! ŁittleÄlien¹8² ( talk\ contribs) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that warning from my talk page. I'm not sure who this user is, most likely a vandal I have reverted here recently. Once again, thanks for taking the time to deal with this. Cheers, Landon1980 ( talk) 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I meant to give you advice and review your contributions earlier, but unfortunately, it's now almost dinnertime where I live. However, I'd be willing to give advice and do a review tomorrow if that's okay. I can answer one point though: with topics we might of worked on together, I can't remember any exactly, but it's possible that you may have seen me on the Carrie Underwood article, which is one I've edited quite a bit. Best regards. Acalamari 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Gatoclass ( talk) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Best of luck for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 13:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Minneapolis went up front page today. Some talk on the talk page. Not a lot but a lot of points re-raised during your original review Talk:Minneapolis,_Minnesota/Archive_4. Might be useful to glance to see if you have anything to add, even if it's critical of the page. One user as usual cites "liberal" propaganda in the page. Lord I don't even know what that means anymore. .:davumaya:. 21:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
it has been reported that they have found a nickname and you even have it on the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhollywoodfan ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I changed it because it has been announced that they will be named the Thunder. You even have it written and have a resource on the page. So calm down. I was giving the latest info. Not my fault that u dont watch ESPN or read the resources on the page. Rwhollywoodfan ( talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)rwhollywoodfan
..is currently on hold. Please review the concerns addressed on it's review page.-- S R X 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, block anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion for more than 5 days (provided there's a consensus), protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.
Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»==Nichalp «Talk»= 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly><noinclude>~~</noinclude>
Congratulations on your successful RFA... Best of luck as an admin .. you may delete the main page occasionally ;) -- Tinu Cherian - 05:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, most of the time I've been wrong on that point. That's good. But hindsight is always 20/20. Without plenty of evidence up front, I have no choice but to oppose in the first place and pray that I continue to be wrong. Anyway, if only you could stop butchering Merle Haggard... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned recall in your thanks spam - could I please see your recall criteria? Congrats, by the way. — Giggy 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your recently acquired adminship. This is my favorite so far - "15:20, 26 July 2008 Okiefromokla (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "ThisIsaTest (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 10 seconds (Unblock)" Ha. Ten seconds. You can also use units of "fortnights". One of these days I'm going to try to block for "many moons". Anyways, let me know if you have any questions or whatever. Have fun, don't delete the main page. Tan ǀ 39 02:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome! Congratulations, well written article. I didn't even know you were an admin, may we keep in touch so I can come to you when I need admin help? ;)-- S R X 03:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on your new Adminship.
Regarding the material for the article, I checked that section and didn't notice any consensus to remove the material. While the subject of the article (Mr. Kinsella himself) has objected to the material, there is definitely no denying if it is backed up by third party sources, and furthermore, it does meet the notability test. Furthermore, given that he is a political strategist and blogger, these controversies are not out of the world for such a person. GoldDragon ( talk) 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. And congrats to you too, as I see you too have recently become an admin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation, I appreciate you taking the time. I think I'm ready to start doing some proper editing finally.
Thanks again, OddLot ( talk) 19:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
{{ aiv}} makes things a little easier. also, {{ admin dashboard}} if you haven't started using it yet (commenting template is included at no extra charge). – xeno ( talk) 05:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Okie, When I logged in there was a note at the top of the screen stating that I "have new messages". I checked my talk page and there is nothing new. Where are these messages stored? Thanks! Odd OddLot ( talk) 14:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response and explanation Okie! OddLot ( talk) 15:04, 2 August 2008 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Thanks for fixing the Boston Ave. picture I couldnt figure out why it was messed up. User:Buaidh made alot of edits and didnt leave a edit summary.-- CPacker ( talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey I wanted to let you know that I nominated the Old Tulsa Panorama photo and its now featured. I belive that it is the only featured photo related to Oklahoma, I think it needs a spot in the Tulsa article. I know that you changed it before so I thought I would give you a heads up and see what you thought. Drop me a line and let me know what you think -- CPacker ( talk) 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I just dropped by to mention that I'd written on the proposed merger of Kiamichi Country and Southeastern Oklahoma at Talk:Little Dixie (Oklahoma). I think these concepts are rather different and should be treated separately. Indeed, I think there should be separate entries for each of ODOT's six kitschy travel regions. I love the entry for Green Country. Let's write one for Red Carpet Country, too. Best wishes, etc. GreenGourd ( talk) 00:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey just wanted to tell you that the photo you added today looks great it really adds to the page, I think its really nice that the page has improved alot in the way of photos. Keep up the good work.-- CPacker ( talk) 03:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For all your hard work editing and improving Oklahoma articles, I award you Barnstar! -- ♦ C Packer 22:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC) |
You made a threat to have me barred from making edits for my change to the Tulsa article but you should check the definition of vandalism -- "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."
When I took out:
", the parent company to the Bank of Oklahoma, the Bank of Texas, the Bank of Arkansas, the Bank of Albuquerque, the Bank of Arizona, Colorado State Bank and Trust, and the Bank of Kansas City. [1]"
it was because it was gratuitous and basically redundant because the hyperlink says the exact same thing.
It was frustrating for you to undo my edit and your treat to have me barred felt like bullying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.33.0 ( talk)
Heads up. You're doing good work on the article about the Sonics moving to OKC, but look at the references at the bottom. You're not linking the dates properly. The dates will link on their own without formatting them in the references. There are a few other mistakes in the references you might want to look at also. Other than that, keep up the good work. Chicken Wing ( talk) 00:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent idea, but unfortunately I'm going to be out of the country without internet access for the next two weeks, so won't be able to help. But good luck on it! One thought that I'm having is that maybe a fan reaction section isn't a good idea. The reason why I'm thinking that is that a section dedicated solely to fan reaction will have a tendency to explode out of control as fans will magically appear and add their own reaction, or add multiple sourced reactions, etc, etc to the point that it'll become excessive. One idea would be to interleave the reaction of the fans throughout the article. So the fans reaction of Shultz's sale to Bennett and Co. could be included in the "Sale of team" section, reaction to the settlement could be included in the City v PBC section. -- Bobblehead (rants) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I have some concerns regarding your latest edit to meat. First of all, your reference for the claim Meat has been linked to significantly raised risk of diabetes and heart disease goes to the website [1] which is not a reliable source (at least for this article), for obvious reasons. Why don't you instead find the actual study they reference (The study, which was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology)?
Your next statement (the risks of heart disease for meat eaters being three times greater than for vegetarians, according to one survey) isn't quite supported by the study, which at best concludes (straight from the abstract): For 45- to 64-year-old men, there was approximately a threefold difference in risk between men who ate meat daily and those who did not eat meat.. I already updated the article to clarify this.
For your next claim (A large-scale study in 2008 also found that eating two or more servings of meat a day increases the risk of suffering from excessive fat around the waist, high blood sugar, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure by 25 percent compared to those who had only two servings of meat a week or less), I checked out the linked articles and unless I am misreading things, it seems the study measured meat eating in conjunction with drinking of diet sodas, versus doing neither of these things. In this case it is quite likely that other dietary factors were also not controlled, and the study's results have little to do with meat eating per se. Can you confirm whether this is the case, or point to the original abstract so it can be verified?
The reference for the next claim (One famous study, the Nurses' Health Study, followed about 100,000 female nurses and their eating habits. Nurses who ate the largest amount of animal fat were twice as likely to develop colon cancer as the nurses who ate the least amount of animal fat.) seems to go to the study's main page with no clear indication on how to find the reference for the aforementioned claim. Can you please find a better link?
Thank you. -- WayneMokane ( talk) 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- People who eat two or more servings of red meat a day are much more likely to develop conditions leading to heart disease and diabetes, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.
- Eating two or more servings of meat a day increases the risk of suffering from a cluster of risk factors known as metabolic syndrome by 25 percent compared to those who had only two servings of meat a week, the researchers reported in the journal Circulation.
Hello Okiefromokla, I've granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember to use rollback to revert edits that you are absolutely sure are vandalism: if in doubt, don't use rollback to revert. In addition, misuse of the rollback feature, either by reverting good-faith edits or revert-warring, can and will lead to its removal. For more information and practice, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 16:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
i work in the same lab as little alien (nate) i'm just joking around with him. is that really vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.133.67 ( talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Warren Kinsella here. I am writing about this process, a summary of which is found here: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080715-152011
Best wishes,
W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkinsella ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user-page! I cannot express my gratitude in words so, instead, I give you this plate of cookies. Thanks again! ŁittleÄlien¹8² ( talk\ contribs) 05:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing that warning from my talk page. I'm not sure who this user is, most likely a vandal I have reverted here recently. Once again, thanks for taking the time to deal with this. Cheers, Landon1980 ( talk) 18:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I meant to give you advice and review your contributions earlier, but unfortunately, it's now almost dinnertime where I live. However, I'd be willing to give advice and do a review tomorrow if that's okay. I can answer one point though: with topics we might of worked on together, I can't remember any exactly, but it's possible that you may have seen me on the Carrie Underwood article, which is one I've edited quite a bit. Best regards. Acalamari 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) Gatoclass ( talk) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Best of luck for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 13:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Minneapolis went up front page today. Some talk on the talk page. Not a lot but a lot of points re-raised during your original review Talk:Minneapolis,_Minnesota/Archive_4. Might be useful to glance to see if you have anything to add, even if it's critical of the page. One user as usual cites "liberal" propaganda in the page. Lord I don't even know what that means anymore. .:davumaya:. 21:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
it has been reported that they have found a nickname and you even have it on the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhollywoodfan ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I changed it because it has been announced that they will be named the Thunder. You even have it written and have a resource on the page. So calm down. I was giving the latest info. Not my fault that u dont watch ESPN or read the resources on the page. Rwhollywoodfan ( talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)rwhollywoodfan
..is currently on hold. Please review the concerns addressed on it's review page.-- S R X 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, block anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion for more than 5 days (provided there's a consensus), protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.
Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»==Nichalp «Talk»= 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly><noinclude>~~</noinclude>
Congratulations on your successful RFA... Best of luck as an admin .. you may delete the main page occasionally ;) -- Tinu Cherian - 05:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, most of the time I've been wrong on that point. That's good. But hindsight is always 20/20. Without plenty of evidence up front, I have no choice but to oppose in the first place and pray that I continue to be wrong. Anyway, if only you could stop butchering Merle Haggard... Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned recall in your thanks spam - could I please see your recall criteria? Congrats, by the way. — Giggy 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your recently acquired adminship. This is my favorite so far - "15:20, 26 July 2008 Okiefromokla (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "ThisIsaTest (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 10 seconds (Unblock)" Ha. Ten seconds. You can also use units of "fortnights". One of these days I'm going to try to block for "many moons". Anyways, let me know if you have any questions or whatever. Have fun, don't delete the main page. Tan ǀ 39 02:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome! Congratulations, well written article. I didn't even know you were an admin, may we keep in touch so I can come to you when I need admin help? ;)-- S R X 03:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on your new Adminship.
Regarding the material for the article, I checked that section and didn't notice any consensus to remove the material. While the subject of the article (Mr. Kinsella himself) has objected to the material, there is definitely no denying if it is backed up by third party sources, and furthermore, it does meet the notability test. Furthermore, given that he is a political strategist and blogger, these controversies are not out of the world for such a person. GoldDragon ( talk) 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. And congrats to you too, as I see you too have recently become an admin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed explanation, I appreciate you taking the time. I think I'm ready to start doing some proper editing finally.
Thanks again, OddLot ( talk) 19:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
{{ aiv}} makes things a little easier. also, {{ admin dashboard}} if you haven't started using it yet (commenting template is included at no extra charge). – xeno ( talk) 05:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey Okie, When I logged in there was a note at the top of the screen stating that I "have new messages". I checked my talk page and there is nothing new. Where are these messages stored? Thanks! Odd OddLot ( talk) 14:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response and explanation Okie! OddLot ( talk) 15:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)