This page 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. |
You voted for
Karyotype and this article is now the current
Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article. |
NCurse work 06:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested.-- ragesoss 17:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely true (please excuse spelling mistakes, my English has not yet perfected) but how does anyone know it is true? Only I know. Chat?| ~-$*Kimberly*$-~| Contribs 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that you are not too advanced and moi, too newby, not to drive you nuts, but at least I am glad to be adopted by a biology maven.
Caroldermoid: t/ c --caroldermoid 23:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) PS I did that signature with t/c by copying someone else above, but I still have not figured out how to save the thing! DOH!
Davodd 03:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
For this [1]. -- Guinnog 11:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why you blocked me, what on earth is wrong with my username ? Penetrating Fluid
Huh, are you serious ??? penetrating fluid has nothing to do with sexual practices it is a light oil used to free sticking components ! see http://www.google.com/search?q=penetrating+fluid I chose the name because I have a can on my desk and it seemed very appropriate to what I was trying to do in unsticking the wiki feud. I have tried to be a good editor and have corrected numerous factual errors but this is the last straw, don't unblock me, I give up.
Because it is Penetrating Fluid in the U.K. and Penetrating Oil in the good ole USA where I guess in the Mid West there are some who might actually think it is a sexual practice. You blocked my name out of ignorance of it's meaning. When I objected tou didn't bother to follow the Google link and find out it's meaning. You jumped to the incorrect assumption that it was a trademark. Now you are in danger of introducing a US bias against us Brits. Honestly do you think you are fit to be an administrator ?
So there are more of you who act in ignorance, does that make you feel justified ?
How am I supposed to create an account when my IP is blocked ?
I repeat, you censored a perfectly innocent name because you were ignorant of it and made a false assumption. Now you want to protect others who may also be as ignorant and make the same false assumptions. Isn't the point of Wiki to educate people not to protect their ignorance. Furthermore the percieved offence is only in your (or their) mind, thus you are censoring something that is purely of your own invention. If their must be censorship (and I personaly have problems with it in any form) shouldn't it not be restricted to reality in some way.
I do not wish to discuss policy, I have read the guidelines, nowhere does it say a user can be banned because their name is offensive only in the imagination if an administrator. And I do not want you to 'fall to dust' I merely want you to correct a mistake. It seems you are taking this personally and I assume that is why you are being so pig-headed, please try to be objective.
OK, if you believe that you are in the right then please have the courage of your convictions and complete my article on penetrating fluid Penetrating_fluid If you are willing to put to your money where your mouth is so to speak I shall bow to your better judgement and drop my fight against unjust censorship. If it a term of offence it should be noted as such in the wiki and I should be censored, if it isn't I should be unbanned.
I contend that most people seeing the username would know instantly what it means and think "hey that's a cool name". And OK perhaps a small childish minority a la Beavis & Butthead would think "hee hee that sounds a bit rude". But I cannot imagine who on earth would be offended by it ? tell me honestly were you really offended ?
I just wanted to stop by and say "Thank you" for the kind post to my talkpage. I really appreciated it! :D ~Kylu ( u| t) 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
He had a son called Robert who was living in Corvallis, Oregon at the time of his death; I'm pretty sure the obit would have mentioned if he was a notable zoologist or sociologist. It looks to me like a coincidence. However he could be Robert (Bob) L. Stebbins from the Department of Horticulture Oregon State University; but there's no way to confirm it; and there isn't much info around on him.-- Peta 02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As you know, a dispute has been going on for some while between me and User:Ulritz. I feel you are also involved and invite you to say you share. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Ulritz
Rex 13:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Samsara, I'm wondering if you feel that Tuberculosis has progressed enough to avoid FARC, or if we need to move it to FARC for further work? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tuberculosis. Sandy 13:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I am going to have a guess, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have an erotic fascination for the dead pope? -- liquidGhoul 11:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is something which I think stable solutions could part solve, though I would only like a software solution for it. We also need to encourage people to stand up for good prose. There may be more "discussions", but we can't just let an article degrade. If someone makes an article worse, then revert it and ask them to explain the changes on the talk page. As for the Ubuntu (sp?) article, I recommend you revert it to the article it was featured with, and if there are any good changes, reinstate them. Otherwise, leave them out. But I also recommend you get a few people to watch the talk page first (e.g. Tony, Peta, Guinnog, me etc.), so we can help if there is anyone who doesn't know what they are talking about wanting to argue the point. Thanks -- liquidGhoul 11:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Who told you that? pschemp | talk 15:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not an attack on anyone, and I am aware of WP:U. Also, did you mean to put that comment on the talk page for my address instead? 192.75.48.150 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk FloNight 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I was confused. I had noticed that other templates where improperly named in the category, and didn't understand how the PAGENAME tag worked. Got it now, thanks. jugander ( t) 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I have put a lot of work into the article. There's probably a lot that could be improved though. Alun 11:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully ask that you refrain from making snide comments and personal attacks on my talk page. >Radiant< 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I know from our previous unhappy interacion over the Bad Nenndorf affair that your German is better than mine. If you have a chance, I wonder if you could review my edits of Sepp Kerschbaumer. Most of what I added there came from my translation of the :de article, and there were bits I wasn't sure about and left out. (There were also bits I left out deliberately as being too verbose.) Be grateful if you could have a look. Best wishes -- Guinnog 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey. I have been doing some community work, as you know, in categorization. This seems a way to learn a lot about editing for one thing. I have been to the talk pages on the big subject of categories and see that there are different ideas amongst wiki people as to what the purpose is ... as a big index or as some sort of unifying concept. I got into a categoy scuffle with a long time wiki admin (see my talk page if you are not already bored) who removed what she thought were redundant categories. No problem. I just wanted your opinion about the purpose of the whole thing since it is not really heirarchical as far as indexing goes ... should you put in both cat:Victoria Cross recipient and cat:WWI Victoria Cross recipient?
Another question: some things are very hard to categorize because of no appropriate category available (academic business scholars for eg.) I need to learn how to make new cats? or is that off limits for a newby? Thanks -- Caroldermoid ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Question of the day. (I am sure you find this categorization stuff boring!) If I add the appropriately categorized stub tag (as in the little lesson on my talk page), should I then remove the uncategorized tag? I am not totally 'getting' all the ways cats and tags are used by all the sorting bots now. Wiki culture is confusing! -- Caroldermoid ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
should I then remove the uncategorized tag?
New Question: I am wanting to start adding to my Dog Skin Diseases article, including some photos. But I find myself a bit intimidated by the whole photo thing on wikipedia. Some of the help pages are confusing (doh). I have uploaded one and added it to Dog skin disorders. Want to give me a pointer about making it all work together better before I press ahead? Thanks again, -- Caroldermoid ( talk · contribs) 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Another New Question: Did I get too bold with deletions trying to clean up the mess that was this article? Bakersfield, California? I saw that deletions are amongst your pet peeves, lol.
Oh, and another thing... do you want to unadopt me? :( Carold e rmoid ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I've made the suggested changes, I hope this most recent improvement will let you support this nomination. TimVickers 18:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for editing Charles Darwin to bring references and notes into line with Wikipedia:Guide to layout. However, the See also section was deliberately placed at the end to include templates listing related articles, several of which use the same sequence for the same reason. I've therefore moved that section back, and queried the sequence at Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#Order of appendices. .... dave souza, talk 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the disambig page. I should have realized there would be more than just two and gone looking for the rest but I wasn't thinking. Anyway, the fix is appreciated especially since Thogo has never made a disambig page on this wiki before. pschemp | talk 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Samsara: numerous editors have long bugged me to FAC Tourette syndrome. I have resisted, because I'm convinced the coprolalia vandalism will go through the roof if the article becomes more visible, and I don't think the star is worth it, but it's come to the point that if I don't FAC it, someone else will. Would you mind having a look before I nominate it? And if/when I do nom it, can you keep it on vandal watch? Thanks, Sandy ( Talk) 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Samsara
I'm planning to send Stegosaurus to Featured Article candidacy. The article failed its first nomination, but user:Casliber and I have been hard at work fixing stuff. As you're listed as a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, and since I've seen you around at FAC anyway, I figured I'd drop you a line and see if there was anything you thought should be added/removed/cited on the article before it is sent to FAC. We definitely want it to pass! :)
(Feel free to make any edits on the article itself, comment on the talk page, or leave a note on my talk page). Thanks for your time, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
27-October-2006: Hello, User:Samsara. On "1 January 2006" your user ID tagged article " Ernst Haeckel" with the "{expert}" template. After over 110 revisions (by others and myself), which have addressed expert issues in that article, I believe the issue has been resolved enough, so I have UNTAGGED the expert-tag. If you wish to continue the tagging, feel free to reactivate the expert-tag. For more details, see Talk:Ernst Haeckel#Theory controversial. Thanks. - Wikid77 10:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the lead section for this article a sufficient summary now? I'm interested in your opinion. pschemp | talk 13:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Check the size of edits 3 and 4. It is 2477x1982. Olegivvit 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I finally followed your advice and tried to edit the image myself. What do you think now? - Alvesgaspar 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for your prompt action. I'm feeling ridiculous.
David Latapie (
✒ |
@) 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
– Clockwork Soul 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks very much for chipping in to this debate, your contribution was helpful. I am not as sure as Rebecca seems to be from Hmains contributions that he is using an automated method to remove the links, which seemed to be a focus of her annoyance. On your second point, I heartily agree, and have warned Hmains that this was not a helpful thing to say. Best wishes, -- Guinnog 11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You asked some questions about my editing. I examine many things when I an editing articles: punctuation, word choice, word order, spelling, clarity, links, categories. etc, etc. Using your example, I changed links and references to World War I to 'World War I', since that is the name of the article on this subject, not 'The Great War', 'First World War', 'WWI', etc. Also, the WP guidelines indicate only the first reference to a WP article should be linked, not subsequent references, so I try to remove the excess links--difficult to find manually, I must admit. I saw the link and reference to 'Orient' and recalled the discussion of that term including the lack of clarity about it (was it Near East or Far East or what?) Since I saw that the article was really talking about the Ottoman Empire, I changed the sentence to show that fact. Thanks for your interest. Hmains 03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This page 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. |
You voted for
Karyotype and this article is now the current
Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article. |
NCurse work 06:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested.-- ragesoss 17:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely true (please excuse spelling mistakes, my English has not yet perfected) but how does anyone know it is true? Only I know. Chat?| ~-$*Kimberly*$-~| Contribs 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that you are not too advanced and moi, too newby, not to drive you nuts, but at least I am glad to be adopted by a biology maven.
Caroldermoid: t/ c --caroldermoid 23:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC) PS I did that signature with t/c by copying someone else above, but I still have not figured out how to save the thing! DOH!
Davodd 03:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
For this [1]. -- Guinnog 11:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why you blocked me, what on earth is wrong with my username ? Penetrating Fluid
Huh, are you serious ??? penetrating fluid has nothing to do with sexual practices it is a light oil used to free sticking components ! see http://www.google.com/search?q=penetrating+fluid I chose the name because I have a can on my desk and it seemed very appropriate to what I was trying to do in unsticking the wiki feud. I have tried to be a good editor and have corrected numerous factual errors but this is the last straw, don't unblock me, I give up.
Because it is Penetrating Fluid in the U.K. and Penetrating Oil in the good ole USA where I guess in the Mid West there are some who might actually think it is a sexual practice. You blocked my name out of ignorance of it's meaning. When I objected tou didn't bother to follow the Google link and find out it's meaning. You jumped to the incorrect assumption that it was a trademark. Now you are in danger of introducing a US bias against us Brits. Honestly do you think you are fit to be an administrator ?
So there are more of you who act in ignorance, does that make you feel justified ?
How am I supposed to create an account when my IP is blocked ?
I repeat, you censored a perfectly innocent name because you were ignorant of it and made a false assumption. Now you want to protect others who may also be as ignorant and make the same false assumptions. Isn't the point of Wiki to educate people not to protect their ignorance. Furthermore the percieved offence is only in your (or their) mind, thus you are censoring something that is purely of your own invention. If their must be censorship (and I personaly have problems with it in any form) shouldn't it not be restricted to reality in some way.
I do not wish to discuss policy, I have read the guidelines, nowhere does it say a user can be banned because their name is offensive only in the imagination if an administrator. And I do not want you to 'fall to dust' I merely want you to correct a mistake. It seems you are taking this personally and I assume that is why you are being so pig-headed, please try to be objective.
OK, if you believe that you are in the right then please have the courage of your convictions and complete my article on penetrating fluid Penetrating_fluid If you are willing to put to your money where your mouth is so to speak I shall bow to your better judgement and drop my fight against unjust censorship. If it a term of offence it should be noted as such in the wiki and I should be censored, if it isn't I should be unbanned.
I contend that most people seeing the username would know instantly what it means and think "hey that's a cool name". And OK perhaps a small childish minority a la Beavis & Butthead would think "hee hee that sounds a bit rude". But I cannot imagine who on earth would be offended by it ? tell me honestly were you really offended ?
I just wanted to stop by and say "Thank you" for the kind post to my talkpage. I really appreciated it! :D ~Kylu ( u| t) 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
He had a son called Robert who was living in Corvallis, Oregon at the time of his death; I'm pretty sure the obit would have mentioned if he was a notable zoologist or sociologist. It looks to me like a coincidence. However he could be Robert (Bob) L. Stebbins from the Department of Horticulture Oregon State University; but there's no way to confirm it; and there isn't much info around on him.-- Peta 02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
As you know, a dispute has been going on for some while between me and User:Ulritz. I feel you are also involved and invite you to say you share. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Ulritz
Rex 13:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Samsara, I'm wondering if you feel that Tuberculosis has progressed enough to avoid FARC, or if we need to move it to FARC for further work? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tuberculosis. Sandy 13:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I am going to have a guess, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have an erotic fascination for the dead pope? -- liquidGhoul 11:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is something which I think stable solutions could part solve, though I would only like a software solution for it. We also need to encourage people to stand up for good prose. There may be more "discussions", but we can't just let an article degrade. If someone makes an article worse, then revert it and ask them to explain the changes on the talk page. As for the Ubuntu (sp?) article, I recommend you revert it to the article it was featured with, and if there are any good changes, reinstate them. Otherwise, leave them out. But I also recommend you get a few people to watch the talk page first (e.g. Tony, Peta, Guinnog, me etc.), so we can help if there is anyone who doesn't know what they are talking about wanting to argue the point. Thanks -- liquidGhoul 11:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Who told you that? pschemp | talk 15:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not an attack on anyone, and I am aware of WP:U. Also, did you mean to put that comment on the talk page for my address instead? 192.75.48.150 17:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ulritz/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Clerk FloNight 19:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I was confused. I had noticed that other templates where improperly named in the category, and didn't understand how the PAGENAME tag worked. Got it now, thanks. jugander ( t) 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I have put a lot of work into the article. There's probably a lot that could be improved though. Alun 11:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully ask that you refrain from making snide comments and personal attacks on my talk page. >Radiant< 14:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I know from our previous unhappy interacion over the Bad Nenndorf affair that your German is better than mine. If you have a chance, I wonder if you could review my edits of Sepp Kerschbaumer. Most of what I added there came from my translation of the :de article, and there were bits I wasn't sure about and left out. (There were also bits I left out deliberately as being too verbose.) Be grateful if you could have a look. Best wishes -- Guinnog 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey. I have been doing some community work, as you know, in categorization. This seems a way to learn a lot about editing for one thing. I have been to the talk pages on the big subject of categories and see that there are different ideas amongst wiki people as to what the purpose is ... as a big index or as some sort of unifying concept. I got into a categoy scuffle with a long time wiki admin (see my talk page if you are not already bored) who removed what she thought were redundant categories. No problem. I just wanted your opinion about the purpose of the whole thing since it is not really heirarchical as far as indexing goes ... should you put in both cat:Victoria Cross recipient and cat:WWI Victoria Cross recipient?
Another question: some things are very hard to categorize because of no appropriate category available (academic business scholars for eg.) I need to learn how to make new cats? or is that off limits for a newby? Thanks -- Caroldermoid ( talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Question of the day. (I am sure you find this categorization stuff boring!) If I add the appropriately categorized stub tag (as in the little lesson on my talk page), should I then remove the uncategorized tag? I am not totally 'getting' all the ways cats and tags are used by all the sorting bots now. Wiki culture is confusing! -- Caroldermoid ( talk • contribs) 23:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
should I then remove the uncategorized tag?
New Question: I am wanting to start adding to my Dog Skin Diseases article, including some photos. But I find myself a bit intimidated by the whole photo thing on wikipedia. Some of the help pages are confusing (doh). I have uploaded one and added it to Dog skin disorders. Want to give me a pointer about making it all work together better before I press ahead? Thanks again, -- Caroldermoid ( talk · contribs) 20:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Another New Question: Did I get too bold with deletions trying to clean up the mess that was this article? Bakersfield, California? I saw that deletions are amongst your pet peeves, lol.
Oh, and another thing... do you want to unadopt me? :( Carold e rmoid ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I've made the suggested changes, I hope this most recent improvement will let you support this nomination. TimVickers 18:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for editing Charles Darwin to bring references and notes into line with Wikipedia:Guide to layout. However, the See also section was deliberately placed at the end to include templates listing related articles, several of which use the same sequence for the same reason. I've therefore moved that section back, and queried the sequence at Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#Order of appendices. .... dave souza, talk 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the disambig page. I should have realized there would be more than just two and gone looking for the rest but I wasn't thinking. Anyway, the fix is appreciated especially since Thogo has never made a disambig page on this wiki before. pschemp | talk 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Samsara: numerous editors have long bugged me to FAC Tourette syndrome. I have resisted, because I'm convinced the coprolalia vandalism will go through the roof if the article becomes more visible, and I don't think the star is worth it, but it's come to the point that if I don't FAC it, someone else will. Would you mind having a look before I nominate it? And if/when I do nom it, can you keep it on vandal watch? Thanks, Sandy ( Talk) 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Samsara
I'm planning to send Stegosaurus to Featured Article candidacy. The article failed its first nomination, but user:Casliber and I have been hard at work fixing stuff. As you're listed as a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, and since I've seen you around at FAC anyway, I figured I'd drop you a line and see if there was anything you thought should be added/removed/cited on the article before it is sent to FAC. We definitely want it to pass! :)
(Feel free to make any edits on the article itself, comment on the talk page, or leave a note on my talk page). Thanks for your time, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
27-October-2006: Hello, User:Samsara. On "1 January 2006" your user ID tagged article " Ernst Haeckel" with the "{expert}" template. After over 110 revisions (by others and myself), which have addressed expert issues in that article, I believe the issue has been resolved enough, so I have UNTAGGED the expert-tag. If you wish to continue the tagging, feel free to reactivate the expert-tag. For more details, see Talk:Ernst Haeckel#Theory controversial. Thanks. - Wikid77 10:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the lead section for this article a sufficient summary now? I'm interested in your opinion. pschemp | talk 13:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Check the size of edits 3 and 4. It is 2477x1982. Olegivvit 16:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I finally followed your advice and tried to edit the image myself. What do you think now? - Alvesgaspar 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
Thank you for your prompt action. I'm feeling ridiculous.
David Latapie (
✒ |
@) 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
– Clockwork Soul 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks very much for chipping in to this debate, your contribution was helpful. I am not as sure as Rebecca seems to be from Hmains contributions that he is using an automated method to remove the links, which seemed to be a focus of her annoyance. On your second point, I heartily agree, and have warned Hmains that this was not a helpful thing to say. Best wishes, -- Guinnog 11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You asked some questions about my editing. I examine many things when I an editing articles: punctuation, word choice, word order, spelling, clarity, links, categories. etc, etc. Using your example, I changed links and references to World War I to 'World War I', since that is the name of the article on this subject, not 'The Great War', 'First World War', 'WWI', etc. Also, the WP guidelines indicate only the first reference to a WP article should be linked, not subsequent references, so I try to remove the excess links--difficult to find manually, I must admit. I saw the link and reference to 'Orient' and recalled the discussion of that term including the lack of clarity about it (was it Near East or Far East or what?) Since I saw that the article was really talking about the Ottoman Empire, I changed the sentence to show that fact. Thanks for your interest. Hmains 03:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)