![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Perhaps all I need to do is just ignore/avoid the notability discussions. I guess I just shouldn't take things too seriously and use this site for what's enjoyable and ignore/avoid what isn't. Anyway, I made some minor cosmetic changes to the article. What do you think about looking for reviews of the authors' books and using those for in-line citations? If you think I should take that approach, let me know. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
See Beverly Eckert.
I saw your comment on WP talk for What WP is not. It started as a result of me seeing a news article about Mrs. Eckert. Little did I know that hours later, someone else created an article. It was subject to an AFD which was closed as speedy keep. Speedy keep not just regular keep? Chergles ( talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave some comments on the Talk Page for the template.
Aaron carass ( talk) 03:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but I think there's a big difference between "wood in popular culture" and "Ryan Giggs in popular culture". Football is hardly ever mentioned in The Simpsons, so I think it's appropriate for a mention of Giggs himself to be noted on his article. – Pee Jay 11:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Your edits to the Infobox Radio Show template have removed caption capability. Please review the Talk page of that Template thoroughly, and fix the template. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 20:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, I disagree with part of your edit on this article. Propulsion suggests engine/powerplant type (eg Marine Turbine, Petrol engine, Nuclear Reactor) Chassis is the arrangement whether a hovercraft, wheeled, tracked, half-track etc. Douglasnicol ( talk) 16:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
In your edit of the DAT article in November 2008, you've removed the "archived audio" section reasoning that it's ludicrous, because "commercial discontinuation does not imply elimination of the technology".
I'm involved in archival processes of large audio broadcasters, and they do suffer from these problems, so they are neither fictional nor easy to overcome, if you find that you can't even get spare parts for existing playback machines anymore, simply due to "commercial discontinuation". And believe me, it's not ludicrous at all, especially when you have literally tons of DATs to transfer in order not to lose over 2 decades of cultural heritage - This problem affects almost any audio broadcasting station with a medium archive of DATs.
I will revert your removal of the "archived audio" section. I hope you consent. The rooker ( talk) 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've merged the SCE Studio Liverpool and Psygnosis articles that you nominated for merging back in November. There had been no discussion/opposition so I went ahead. - X201 ( talk) 13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your edit regarding the reference to Transformer in World War Z. I wanted to contact you though to say I didn't do it out of malice, spite or anything like that. I have no special attachment to the line and would be willing to delete, but I want to know if it could be reworded to mention that Brooks intentionally added pop culture references throughout the novel and use it as an example? See the talk page for more of my reasoning, but like I said I'm willing to hear your opinion and if its against keeping it I will delete it. Zombie Hunter Smurf ( talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Marionnet, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! We can discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
-- positron ( talk) 17:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Is there any chance you can reconsider your position on this? {{ unreferenced}} automatically adds articles into Category:Articles lacking sources, whilst {{ unreferencedsect}} used to put them in Category:Articles needing additional references. Whilst I'd agree that a rename of Category:Articles lacking sources may be in order ( maybe to Category:Articles with no sources or Category:Unreferenced Articles or something like that), this merge means that articles such as Cat and Ohio with unreferenced sections are in the same category as the article Adolecent's orquesta. The latter is clearly in more need of attention than the first two. I do admit I have picked some extreme choices to make the point. Category:Articles lacking sources, was a category containing articles with no sources and is used by the WP:URA project (of which I am a member of) to identify articles which have no sources at all- i.e. might need to be deleted. I think there is a need to distiguish articles with no references at all, from those that need more references which could be any article with a {{ fact}} or {{ refimprove}}, {{ rs}} {{ Primary}} or until now a {{ refimprovesect}} and there's probably other templates I'm missing out..
Any thoughts? (or if you would prefer to move this discussion to the template talk page, please do?)
regards,
ascidian | talk-to-me 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I know that you've quite a bit of work on various templates, so I was wondering if you can take a look at my idea in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 5 ( permalink), and tell me what you think? Thanks. - Drilnoth ( talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
{{In-universe|topic=Star Wars|date={{{date|}}}}}
to the article, rather than being it's own template). -
Drilnoth (
talk)
19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Despite being the creator, I agree with your merge of Spider webs in space to Spider web. However, please discuss this kind of thing in future. merges should not be undertaken without adequate discussion, and they certainly shouldn't be done without notifying the creator or other major editors as common courtesy. Best, — Anonymous Dissident Talk 08:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Just out of interest if you have a free moment (this isn't important to me except for self-improvement), what's wrong with And you are lynching Negroes ( Soviet propaganda)? Is it a style/consistency thing? Would And you are lynching Negroes (Soviet propaganda) have been better? Thanks for any feedback - Pointillist ( talk) 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Gronky listed a lot of examples. This is really not good, so please stop doing it. -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop interfering with editing and improving the set of media gateway control protocol pages. Thank you. Kbrose ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Do U(knome)? yes... or no 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. Unfortunately I am new to wikipedia but joined simply because i could include my knowlegde of suh things as sport in an article. I realise that some of the edit's are not entirely appropriate and i shall remove them. However, the Rangers FC article is missing so much information but I can't access this page yet as I am new. If you look at the Celtic FC article there is far more information in this one and I believe (not just beacause i am a Rangers fan) that the Rangers FC article should be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny 1873 ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
[1] That's what I meant by, I think it looks much better when the | or · and the years align with each other vertically. — CHAN DLER #10 — 16:30, 27 February 2009 (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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Perhaps all I need to do is just ignore/avoid the notability discussions. I guess I just shouldn't take things too seriously and use this site for what's enjoyable and ignore/avoid what isn't. Anyway, I made some minor cosmetic changes to the article. What do you think about looking for reviews of the authors' books and using those for in-line citations? If you think I should take that approach, let me know. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
See Beverly Eckert.
I saw your comment on WP talk for What WP is not. It started as a result of me seeing a news article about Mrs. Eckert. Little did I know that hours later, someone else created an article. It was subject to an AFD which was closed as speedy keep. Speedy keep not just regular keep? Chergles ( talk) 20:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave some comments on the Talk Page for the template.
Aaron carass ( talk) 03:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but I think there's a big difference between "wood in popular culture" and "Ryan Giggs in popular culture". Football is hardly ever mentioned in The Simpsons, so I think it's appropriate for a mention of Giggs himself to be noted on his article. – Pee Jay 11:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Your edits to the Infobox Radio Show template have removed caption capability. Please review the Talk page of that Template thoroughly, and fix the template. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 20:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, I disagree with part of your edit on this article. Propulsion suggests engine/powerplant type (eg Marine Turbine, Petrol engine, Nuclear Reactor) Chassis is the arrangement whether a hovercraft, wheeled, tracked, half-track etc. Douglasnicol ( talk) 16:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
In your edit of the DAT article in November 2008, you've removed the "archived audio" section reasoning that it's ludicrous, because "commercial discontinuation does not imply elimination of the technology".
I'm involved in archival processes of large audio broadcasters, and they do suffer from these problems, so they are neither fictional nor easy to overcome, if you find that you can't even get spare parts for existing playback machines anymore, simply due to "commercial discontinuation". And believe me, it's not ludicrous at all, especially when you have literally tons of DATs to transfer in order not to lose over 2 decades of cultural heritage - This problem affects almost any audio broadcasting station with a medium archive of DATs.
I will revert your removal of the "archived audio" section. I hope you consent. The rooker ( talk) 18:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've merged the SCE Studio Liverpool and Psygnosis articles that you nominated for merging back in November. There had been no discussion/opposition so I went ahead. - X201 ( talk) 13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your edit regarding the reference to Transformer in World War Z. I wanted to contact you though to say I didn't do it out of malice, spite or anything like that. I have no special attachment to the line and would be willing to delete, but I want to know if it could be reworded to mention that Brooks intentionally added pop culture references throughout the novel and use it as an example? See the talk page for more of my reasoning, but like I said I'm willing to hear your opinion and if its against keeping it I will delete it. Zombie Hunter Smurf ( talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Marionnet, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! We can discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
-- positron ( talk) 17:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Is there any chance you can reconsider your position on this? {{ unreferenced}} automatically adds articles into Category:Articles lacking sources, whilst {{ unreferencedsect}} used to put them in Category:Articles needing additional references. Whilst I'd agree that a rename of Category:Articles lacking sources may be in order ( maybe to Category:Articles with no sources or Category:Unreferenced Articles or something like that), this merge means that articles such as Cat and Ohio with unreferenced sections are in the same category as the article Adolecent's orquesta. The latter is clearly in more need of attention than the first two. I do admit I have picked some extreme choices to make the point. Category:Articles lacking sources, was a category containing articles with no sources and is used by the WP:URA project (of which I am a member of) to identify articles which have no sources at all- i.e. might need to be deleted. I think there is a need to distiguish articles with no references at all, from those that need more references which could be any article with a {{ fact}} or {{ refimprove}}, {{ rs}} {{ Primary}} or until now a {{ refimprovesect}} and there's probably other templates I'm missing out..
Any thoughts? (or if you would prefer to move this discussion to the template talk page, please do?)
regards,
ascidian | talk-to-me 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I know that you've quite a bit of work on various templates, so I was wondering if you can take a look at my idea in User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 5 ( permalink), and tell me what you think? Thanks. - Drilnoth ( talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
{{In-universe|topic=Star Wars|date={{{date|}}}}}
to the article, rather than being it's own template). -
Drilnoth (
talk)
19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Despite being the creator, I agree with your merge of Spider webs in space to Spider web. However, please discuss this kind of thing in future. merges should not be undertaken without adequate discussion, and they certainly shouldn't be done without notifying the creator or other major editors as common courtesy. Best, — Anonymous Dissident Talk 08:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Just out of interest if you have a free moment (this isn't important to me except for self-improvement), what's wrong with And you are lynching Negroes ( Soviet propaganda)? Is it a style/consistency thing? Would And you are lynching Negroes (Soviet propaganda) have been better? Thanks for any feedback - Pointillist ( talk) 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Gronky listed a lot of examples. This is really not good, so please stop doing it. -- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Please stop interfering with editing and improving the set of media gateway control protocol pages. Thank you. Kbrose ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Do U(knome)? yes... or no 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. Unfortunately I am new to wikipedia but joined simply because i could include my knowlegde of suh things as sport in an article. I realise that some of the edit's are not entirely appropriate and i shall remove them. However, the Rangers FC article is missing so much information but I can't access this page yet as I am new. If you look at the Celtic FC article there is far more information in this one and I believe (not just beacause i am a Rangers fan) that the Rangers FC article should be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny 1873 ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
[1] That's what I meant by, I think it looks much better when the | or · and the years align with each other vertically. — CHAN DLER #10 — 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)