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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Great job catching the vandalism/spam on PHP. Apparently this user is trying to get his website out their and known. He created an article for his website and is going through several other articles to inject his spam. He has been WP:AIV. Have a great day! Tiggerjay 12:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the pages on 'food irradiation' are under dispute; stating this is not at all a comment on other pages. Please refrain from eleiminating an indispensable improvement of some entries. If you feel forced to act, please edit my contribution appropriately instead of 'undoing' it. Dieter E 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! You changed the distcc article to say that distcc was included in Xcode, rather than is included. Has it been removed from Xcode 3? Even if it has, shouldn't we focus primarily on the "current" version of Xcode? (Feel free to reply here or on my talk page, whichever you prefer.) -- Steven Fisher 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Better" has got nothing to do with it; you cannot use a fair use image just to show what a living person looks like. By putting it in the infobox you are saying "Look, this is what she looks like". In comparison, by putting it in the career section, you are saying "She was in Jekyll. Here she is in that role". ( number 8) In any case, I'll upload a free use image of her. Brad 09:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi - long time no see! I have been working on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp article for which a real story exists, except that the article is being driven by a group of bloggers and their readers, causing nearly all information in the article to be sourced by the same blogs.
The story is fairly straightforward: Scott Thomas Beauchamp wrote an article for The New Republic that was critical of the military and alleged wrongdoing on the part himself and fellow soldiers. The military bloggers erupted in protest and pressured the New Republic to investigate the claims. The New Republic in turn investigated those claims and reported that they found them to be truthful. That isn't enough, however, for the bloggers and editors who want blood. In addition to the section with TNR claiming that they are satisfied via their research, the blogger brigade insists on including a section where they claim the allegations were NEVER proved and that they were in fact disputed. Unfortunately for them the only sources they have for these claims are their own blogs.
Please check it out an weigh in if possible. Thanks. -- AStanhope 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
But you're right, I apologized if I caused any trouble. Will try to read next time. TheBlazikenMaster 15:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please could you explain why on 8 March you moved three refs from inline citations to footnotes, which removes any clue as to what part of the article they were supporting? They were originally added by Morwen but the Press Republican citations are no longer found, so I'm wondering whether to delete these refs altogether, or just to unlink them. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Chris,
Thanks for your message. You're quite right: it is indeed a lot more sensible to have "kid" and "kids" pointing to disambiguation pages, rather than directly to the page about the goat. I originally did it like this because previously, the terms pointed towards "child" - and I felt it highly inappropriate that the slang usage of the word "kid" was referred to over and above the usage in proper English. However, the disambiguation page is of course a more preferable option! I have changed them now myself. Thanks for pointing it out to me. EuroSong talk 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summary on this edit isn't particularly nice, calling him a wingnut. Even if you disagree with him, try to stay respectful about it, please? - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Trolling? Actually all I had to do was look at your talkpage. You might have noticed it's at the bottom. No trolling required. I suggest you comment less on other editors ("wikicop," "trolling") and more on edits. Perspicacite 09:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the bulk of the accurize article, and while numerous edtiors complain of the how-to content, no one will give me any specific criticism that will let me actually improve the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accurizing). Policy states, "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." I don't think there's anything in the accurizing article that fits that description, but I will admit that the distinction between how and how-to is subtle. For example, the article states that a stiffer barrel is more accurate, and that a fluting a barrel makes it stiff but lightweight; I consider that a "how". A "how-to" to me would be step by step instructions specific to a given model of firearm, specifying which mill bit to use, and what depth to cut, or how to install an aftermarket part. Your dividing line may be different, and I'd like to come to a consensus, but you're going to have to give me an example to work with before I can make any improvement. scot 14:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
May I invite you to post a quick statement on this discussion branch? You have been involved with the edits, apparently "reported for vandalism", and seem to be more experienced with, let's say, difficult users than I am. Thanks. 85.181.98.201 00:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
for what reason are you removing the official website links of micheal moore? --
emerson7 |
Talk 20:07, 25 August 2007 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Great job catching the vandalism/spam on PHP. Apparently this user is trying to get his website out their and known. He created an article for his website and is going through several other articles to inject his spam. He has been WP:AIV. Have a great day! Tiggerjay 12:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the pages on 'food irradiation' are under dispute; stating this is not at all a comment on other pages. Please refrain from eleiminating an indispensable improvement of some entries. If you feel forced to act, please edit my contribution appropriately instead of 'undoing' it. Dieter E 13:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! You changed the distcc article to say that distcc was included in Xcode, rather than is included. Has it been removed from Xcode 3? Even if it has, shouldn't we focus primarily on the "current" version of Xcode? (Feel free to reply here or on my talk page, whichever you prefer.) -- Steven Fisher 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Better" has got nothing to do with it; you cannot use a fair use image just to show what a living person looks like. By putting it in the infobox you are saying "Look, this is what she looks like". In comparison, by putting it in the career section, you are saying "She was in Jekyll. Here she is in that role". ( number 8) In any case, I'll upload a free use image of her. Brad 09:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi - long time no see! I have been working on the Scott Thomas Beauchamp article for which a real story exists, except that the article is being driven by a group of bloggers and their readers, causing nearly all information in the article to be sourced by the same blogs.
The story is fairly straightforward: Scott Thomas Beauchamp wrote an article for The New Republic that was critical of the military and alleged wrongdoing on the part himself and fellow soldiers. The military bloggers erupted in protest and pressured the New Republic to investigate the claims. The New Republic in turn investigated those claims and reported that they found them to be truthful. That isn't enough, however, for the bloggers and editors who want blood. In addition to the section with TNR claiming that they are satisfied via their research, the blogger brigade insists on including a section where they claim the allegations were NEVER proved and that they were in fact disputed. Unfortunately for them the only sources they have for these claims are their own blogs.
Please check it out an weigh in if possible. Thanks. -- AStanhope 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
But you're right, I apologized if I caused any trouble. Will try to read next time. TheBlazikenMaster 15:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please could you explain why on 8 March you moved three refs from inline citations to footnotes, which removes any clue as to what part of the article they were supporting? They were originally added by Morwen but the Press Republican citations are no longer found, so I'm wondering whether to delete these refs altogether, or just to unlink them. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Chris,
Thanks for your message. You're quite right: it is indeed a lot more sensible to have "kid" and "kids" pointing to disambiguation pages, rather than directly to the page about the goat. I originally did it like this because previously, the terms pointed towards "child" - and I felt it highly inappropriate that the slang usage of the word "kid" was referred to over and above the usage in proper English. However, the disambiguation page is of course a more preferable option! I have changed them now myself. Thanks for pointing it out to me. EuroSong talk 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summary on this edit isn't particularly nice, calling him a wingnut. Even if you disagree with him, try to stay respectful about it, please? - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Trolling? Actually all I had to do was look at your talkpage. You might have noticed it's at the bottom. No trolling required. I suggest you comment less on other editors ("wikicop," "trolling") and more on edits. Perspicacite 09:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the bulk of the accurize article, and while numerous edtiors complain of the how-to content, no one will give me any specific criticism that will let me actually improve the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accurizing). Policy states, "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." I don't think there's anything in the accurizing article that fits that description, but I will admit that the distinction between how and how-to is subtle. For example, the article states that a stiffer barrel is more accurate, and that a fluting a barrel makes it stiff but lightweight; I consider that a "how". A "how-to" to me would be step by step instructions specific to a given model of firearm, specifying which mill bit to use, and what depth to cut, or how to install an aftermarket part. Your dividing line may be different, and I'd like to come to a consensus, but you're going to have to give me an example to work with before I can make any improvement. scot 14:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
May I invite you to post a quick statement on this discussion branch? You have been involved with the edits, apparently "reported for vandalism", and seem to be more experienced with, let's say, difficult users than I am. Thanks. 85.181.98.201 00:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
for what reason are you removing the official website links of micheal moore? --
emerson7 |
Talk 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)