![]() | 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 |
It's a High-fiiiiive!
- Taco325i 14:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are now in the early lead for "best edit summary of 2007." Cmprince 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your POV-notice on the Aaron Burr article. I have not been a contributor to this article and would like to thank you for bringing the fact that it needs work to my attention. I'll continue over the next few weeks in trying to improve the article. Just now, I've taken a swipe at improving the lead and would like your opinion. Thanks in advance. — ExplorerCDT 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I got sucked out of retirement and once again got involved in this foreign character argument here. I find it really frustrating sometimes. I feel like i am beating my head against the wall with this. The only argument for diacritics is "It is spelt wrong!" God, that makes me frustrated because of the arrogance of it. Basically, they are saying that virtually all English publications are making spelling mistakes. What a laugh. We don't tell other languages how to spell things. Masterhatch 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
¡Hola! It was not until yesterday when I read your comment on naming conventions at Wikipedia's proposed guidelines. I may have reacted too strongly to it and for that I'm sorry. I realize that that discussion page is just a mess and that it's hard for anyone to say anything coherent amidst all the opinions being expressed at the same time. I don't know if you're interested in knowing the other side of the issue, I assume you are though. I hope you don't mind me writting them here... it's just for you to know what those of us who want the naming conventions to start the process of allowing native spellings are all about. My purpose isn't to start a personal debate with you on this issue on our talk pages so you may respond to it if you want to but I will probably choose not to respond (don't take it personally please). Cheers! Rosa 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
While I have merged pages before, in this case the task is a bit daunting given the number of articles involved and my lack of expertise with the subject matter. The "process" (I assume you mean the merge process) involves merging the content by cutting and pasting, and eventually redirecting to the main article after a consensus develops on merging the pages. See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for more information. Park3r 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Per one of my favorite essays, WP:RECENT, we shouldn't delete information on an article just because there is so much of it. How do I say this concisely?... Wikipedia has no place to aggregate content on the verifiable trends of this decade, and this is a great loss. I will add the content on to my personal page until I can find a place to put it. MPS 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
From Starfleet7 : My apologies, but I do not see where I can send you a message other than this. Most of you folk have a button at the top that says "send me a message". In any case. Thank you for saying "kudos" to me in February 2007 about adding all of the Westside neighborhoods to the Jacksonville Florida "neighborhoods" section. My apologies for reversing Riverside & Avondale. funny how you look at things so many times, & you don't see an error staring you in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfleet7 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 April 2007
Your accusations are false. I checked my history and I find no such message. In fact, there is no prior message from your user name at all. Anyway, this is not a controversial topic. It's an article about a football owner. And this information is not that difficult to find. If you were so worried about it, you would have checked it out for yourself. Oh look what I found on the Jags on website: the information you are looking for. Check it out: [1]. If you would have left a post before, it would have been responded to promptly. However, since you failed to comment, I could not respond. I always like to deal with fellow editors in a civil manner, but I do not like to be criticized for something I did not do. If I would have made a mistake, I would have owned up to it. But since you didn't leave me a message asking for a citation in the first place, I didn't have an idea that you wanted me to provide you with one. So before you act like I'm trying to do you wrong and trick the world about such a boring topic as an NFL owner, double check your own actions first. Mr. Vitale 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
2000s in American fashion has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to voice your opinion.-- Loodog 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually have no thoughts on the merit of the edit in question, it was made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor and can be automatically reverted per WP:BAN. The editor in question is a prolific sockpuppeteer as you can see here, so reverting his edits is the only way to try and make him get the hint that he isn't supposed to be editing Wikipedia. The IP is New York based (as is the banned editor, who uses a wide array of public computers as you can see by his sockpuppet category) and made the same edit to the Mark Schillinger as two of his previous sockpuppets, which is more than enough evidence to satisfy me it's a sockpuppet of the editor in question. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Even in the midst of a revert war over United States Declaration of Independence, I was still able to maintain some semblance of a sense of humor. :) Wahkeenah 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello I noticed a user vandalized your South Dakota page. You placed a protection tag on it. Could I ask you to do the same for Michigan? The same person did it there. We have been having so many trolls and vandalizm problems I can't stand it. I looked over the policy, I think Semi-protection would be great. Thanks for any help! Strunke 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Unschool - thanks for teaching me an important and valuable lesson concerning the discussion page! I simply had no idea about the etiquette until you came to my rescue - much appreciated boss. * bows down with hands clasped as though in prayer *
I think that if you keep teaching the new and uninformed about wiki "form" (I think that that was your word) then things can only improve around here.
I am sorry that I put you to trouble.
Please may I make one honest suggestion though: bear in mind that some people writing on Wikipedia (eg myself) are quite young and you need to be careful that you do not put people off by the manner in which you express your views. I am sure that I must have irritated you in some way but please just think before reacting.... Cheers and thanks again for your helpful comments! Dr Spam (MD) 11:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Its a future building, and so {{Building Under Construction}} needs to be on there. This warns the user/viewer that information on there should not be taken as canonical. Please do not remove tags without properly explaining why. Cheers, Jonomacdrones ( talk) 13:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh I moved the tags to the top because that's where they are supposed to be, as ugly as they are. Even guidline pages have them, like Wikipedia:Guide to layout. They are there to tell you what's wrong or what's going on. I didn't even see the tags until I scrolled to the bottom of the code for no reason and saw them there. The about to be released tag is at the top of EVERY album that is expected to be released. This should be no exception. It's to inform readers that it is yet to be released and that they should be more critical of the information that appears on the ppage because it is harder to verify. Anyways, just look at other pages; not user opinions. I don't actually have a definite answer so I won't move them back to the top, however once I find that answer and the Wikipedia guideline page that has it, they will be placed accordingly. -- Notmyhandle 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for my confusion re: the tag sizing issue. I've been away almost six months, and obviosly missed a few things. When I saw your initial edit, I totally overlooked the padlock icon in the corner. I assumed you were trying to do something desireable, but thought that there had been a technical glitch. I made several attempts (using Preview) to "get it right" by trying variations of "small=yes", but of course, I didn't get any better results. Finally I gave up and reverted back to the original. Even after your helpful Edit Summary when you reverted me, it took some looking to find the icon and understand what had happened. So now I have a question about which tags should be resized. Do we apply the "small" version to any and all tags in an article, or only at the top of the page? I'll be happy to help...this is a great idea and somewhat overdue, really. It would be most helpful if there were a specific page or guideline to refer to, or even an ongoing discussion. Can you provide any links to more info? Thanks in advance! Doc Tropics 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I was about to tag this for deletion, when I noticed that you have been taking a chainsaw to the worst parts of this huge mess. (9K of drivel in 11 days is pretty admirable work!) Do you think the article is salvageable? I won't tag it if you are going to continue to fix it, but the PoV pushing there is pretty breathtaking. Horologium talk - contrib 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
When you said Wow. I just copied and pasted this whole discussion onto a Word document. It was 114 pages long. This is really ridiculous, I thought it was hilarious, and accordingly quoted it in my Signpost article on the RfC located here: User:Phoenix2/Spoilers. Feel free to remove it if you so desire, even after publication. Thanks. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I undid your revert of 2007 Georgia/Florida wildfires.
The reason for my edit was:
Your comment implying that acres are not 'units familiar to Americans' is interesting because it could affect a lot of articles. I will not disagree and might even agree with you. I had previously thought that triple units was not generally good.
If you think square mile values are essential to support the acre values, that is fine by me. I was merely trying to correct the major defects in the article. I hope that explains things. Keep up the good work. Regards. Lightmouse 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Unschool, I made a working version of Template:Cleanup that allows the use of small a small icon instead of the giant box. You can see the source at Template:Notmyhandle/Sandbox and an example at User:Notmyhandle/Sandbox. I made a post on the Cleanup talkpage, but I need some more support. What do you think? -- Notmyhandle 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. « Snowolf How can I help? » 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't delete it; I am not an admin. However, the AfD (which you have commented in) is underway, and it is scheduled to end on Saturday. All AfD proposals last five days, unless they are speedied by an admin earlier. Despite the fact that this is total OR, nobody has proposed a speedy, and it would be hard to justify. Just let the system work, and it will go away soon enough. The consensus is pretty obviously Delete, but if you have followed the DRV board, you'll see a lot of really pissed off people because of improper deletions right now. If this were ended early, some twit could squawk about it and keep it around for a week or so more. Horologium talk - contrib 01:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Glad to find a kindred spirit on this issue. You might be interested to read (and possibly add comments to) Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article#Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I am all in favour of small icons rather than enormous banners taking up the whole screen - I would actually like an option where all such things disappear (including info boxes) and I can appreciate a well-written nicely set out page. (Or a floating window which I can sink.) However I see from looking around that people actually like the enormous banners ... perhaps an enormous banner that can be shrunk to a small icon at a click (and vice versa?). -- roundhouse 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Unschool. Thank you for your comment. Yes, I was the one who came up with the small icon concept for the sprotection to replace the banners, it did fairly well here on Wikipedia, hasn't it? It took off after I put it on George W. Bush, imagine that? :) I like the concept behind the cleanup tag too, I wrote my comment about it here. I gave a bit of constructive critism so this template can get it's greatest potential use. I guess you should let the creater of the template, User:Notmyhandle, know about it so he can fix it if he chooses. Also if you two need any help with the creation of the template or need anything feel free to give me a shout. — Moe ε 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw you have removed quite a lot of tags. Didn't you get enought attention from your mother when you were young? Too much time... Testikayttaja 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh.my.God. That is absolutely horrifying. I'll get to work on merging it ASAP (although anyone, including you, can do it). The language drivel is going to disappear first, and I'll see what I can do for the clothing section, but I will not go to sleep until I merge it out of existence.
BTW, you're welcome on nuking the music article, but I wasn't the one who actually deleted it. That requires an admin, and I am not one. Horologium talk - contrib 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Timeline of trends in music (2000-present) article is in deletion review right now. Somebody is sniveling because it went away. If you want to participate in the discussion, it's at this link. Horologium talk - contrib 04:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on the visibility of tags, etc., I'm afraid you're not going to get very far convincing me because, to use a phrase from your comments, I do believe that, in general, Wikipedia is an amateurish and unreliable source of information. (I know you used that in a cautionary way, but I take it as a truism.) So the more glaringly such faults as not enough references, etc., are pointed out, the better.
I do agree, by the way, with other things you said about the misuse of references, especially your observation that articles with more (or any) references are not necessarily any better than those with fewer or none. + ILike2BeAnonymous 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to revert this back to the big tag. It's semi-protected due to a rather persistent vandal making explicit threats of violence. I want them to get the message and walk away from the article permanently. Hiding the tag won't do that.
If the situation is calm in another week, the sprotect will go away and the tag can go completely. Until then, please leave the big tag. It's ugly, but so is the situation right now. Georgewilliamherbert 17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose your decision (which appears to be arbitrary though if you have received consensus please provide a link to the applicable policy discussion page) regarding replacing "this page is protected" banners with a tiny icon that is meaningless to inexperienced editors and virtually invisible. The whole point of the banner is to call attention to the fact the page is protected. I can understand wanting to replace banners that might be considered unnecessary or procedural (such as the various "this article needs sources" banners which are ugly though no less important) but I really feel this is the wrong way to go about it. If Wikipedia policy has been changed, then please pardon me and point me to the proper documentation. Otherwise I feel this isn't going to go over very well with a lot of people (that said I appreciate that you aren't intentionally making changes to banners on user pages). 23skidoo 13:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm a bit surprised by this change. I agree that, in a parliamentary system, the head of government can't be from a different political party than the majority of MPs : by the way, this cannot happen in France, too, since the Premier's nomination has to be confirmed by a vote of the Parliament.
But the head of state can be from a different political party. This happens, e.g., in Germany : Gerhard Schröder (SPD) was elected chancellor in 1998, whereas CDU Roman Herzog's term did not end till 1999. It also happens in Italy, where the president's term lasts seven years, two years longer than the Parliament's. So, it seems to me that a cohabitation can happend in parliamentary systems - the thing is, we just don't care, since the president usually doesn't matter anyway. :) Manuel Menal 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up One Rincon Hill and Millennium Tower. Hydrogen Iodide 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is already under discussion at Talk:By the Waters of Babylon. -- Jtir 22:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your question about how to find articles that link to an article, if I've understood the question correctly, you can just look at the "What links here" page for the article in question (look in the left navigation bar under "toolbox")... Valrith 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the questionability of it, but swearing on the talk page doesn't exactly solve its problems. You may wish to hit it with {{ prod}} and/or AfD it again. In the mean time I've tagged it with {{ hoax}}. 68.39.174.238 18:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with your edits and that
Acting Vice President of the United States should not exist on wikipedia. I tried to delete it already, but there was one or two editors in particular who felt strongly that it should be kept and argued for on the deletion page. Using a prod procedure for an article that once failed an AfD might not be proper form but, in any event, you should re-read the previous deletion discussion and be prepared for the "sources" that they'll come up with as defense for the article. I will glad support another AfD or your PROD.
JasonCNJ
22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Please quit changing the place of death of Tammy Faye. Every article notes she died at her home NEAR Kansas City. That suburb is Loch Lloyd, Missouri. Americasroof 22:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know it was there before, so I looked at other articles of recently deceased people, and saw the tag of those who died the same day, and some the day before. Though, I did hesitate about putting it up, but went ahead anyway. I'll remove it. Thanks! - Jeeny Talk 05:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm no whiz. lol. Especially with the wiki-codes. Anyway, Wikipedia wants you to see the stub message so editors will expand it. I can do images, but not coding. I do know that when more text is added to the article, the info template will balance itself. Or you can simply remove the template, and just put the info in the article. I didn't read the template though, nor the subject matter, so I don't know if that would help. I just took a very brief glance at the page, and knew immediately I could not fix it. Not without writing about the subject until it fit the length of the template, anyway. Sorry. - Jeeny Talk 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Tags is a user's personal opinion, and unless he wasn't to propose an amendment to Help:Merging and moving pages (the procedure that has been in place far longer), then please don't use him as a reason to put tags at the bottom. They may be ugly, but they are in plain sight. Being at the bottom puts them out of view, and limits the chance of random readers seeing them and joining the discussion. Standard practice is to place them at the top. If you and Shane disagree, I would suggest requesting some form of amendment to the procedure page for those tags, whether it's for merging, referencing, or cleanup. As placing them at the bottom, out of plain sight, suggests that the article doesn't have any problems, or that there isn't a discussion about an addition/split to the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
In general it works for me but the # of Hiss' defenders is what's under contention. I put in a cite and changed many to a few. The talk page on Alger Hiss has a longer discussion of this controversy. TMLutas 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please read WP:POINT. I will block your account from editing if you continue removing recent death tags. If you wish to discuss the tag, please take up your conversation on the tag's talk page. Under no circumstances should you disrupt a dozen or more articles in order to generate such a discussion. Rklawton 13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Here: Template talk:Recent death. Rklawton 01:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you appear to be quite adament in your belief that the Acting Vice President of the United States article is a hoax which should be deleted. I was initially of the same thought, however, after some quick research it has become clear that the term was at least used, even if the office never existed under any law. I have provided several sources. Cheers, JCO312 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not pissed; I'm amused. Therefore I confined myself to sarcasm; if I had used invective, like Pschemp, I would have found something better. (There's a poem by Catullus...)
But this is why I call them nationalists. The ß fans behave exactly like any other of our advocacy groups; see such naming controversies as the one recently concluded at Talk:Shatt al-Arab. Any of a dozen nations will do as parallels, but I happen to recall an Iranian example. Any argument will do; and they never have answers to arguments to policy, except "It's not Faaaiiiirrr if we don't get our way!"
Is this failure to assume good faith? No, it's failure to observe good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you moved the article on Joe Wilson's wife back to Valerie Plame from Valerie E. Wilson. There's been a fair amount of discussion on that article's talk page over the move, with a consensus on moving it to Valerie Wilson, Valerie E. Wilson to distinguish her from other notable Valerie Wilsons. Your specific objection, that she is not most famous as Valerie E. Wilson, is a good idea until it conflicts with the facts. For instance, the term Latin Mass is commonly used as a substitute for the more unwieldy term Tridentine Mass, but the Wikipedia article remains at Tridentine Mass with a disambiguation link on the Latin Mass page, because "Latin Mass" is vague and incorrect. Similarly, Bob Novak's "Valerie Plame" is and always was "Valerie Wilson" outside of her undercover CIA work. I don't see the problem with having the article at "Valerie E. Wilson" and including a redirect at "Valerie Plame". I hope to hear from you soon, -- The_socialist talk? 18:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment! Guess what tomorrow is.. My 18th birthday! YAY. Oreo 14 August 2007
It seemed to me that the remark about Garfield being Churches of Christ is not backed up by Garfield's article. There it says he belonged to Disciples of Christ--from the Wikipedia articles about both Churches and Disciples they seemed to be different. I'm not sure though.-- Jdavid2008 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that article is my own writing. I wrote it several years ago for a now defunct website, which I was assured never held any copyright to it. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Enjoy your holiday; when you get back, we are fine-tuning Use English. You may want to look in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding these edits: I reverted. Please accept that while the tags appear to "pollute" the article in your opinion, they are really only drawing attention to things that need to be taken care of. You can remove them after the article has been improved, but for now they are indeed appropriate. Tagging single statements as dubious has nothing to do with in-universe style. Please don't try to "hide" the fact that this article needs improvement by removing and/or moving those tags, as it's a huge disservice to the reader who can rightfully expect our articles to be written from a real world perspective and featuring published, reliable third-party sources. — AldeBaer 11:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this: I would have gone with the simple and accurate identifier franchise. (But I won't revert, just wanted to give you a note.) — AldeBaer 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article needs to be fixed, and I've made a few changes to it, but I would not delete or redirect it considering the epic battle between him and the protagonist Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 14:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Jacksonville, Florida has received some heavy editing recently. Would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spamily Tree.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I found this revert [2] a bit strange. Yes, you're right that the reasoning behind Jayron's revert is contrary to Wikipedia, but even stranger is the version he reverted from in which Pmanderson claims that no place that doesn't have an English name belong here. JdeJ 09:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your good-common-sense editing of Sylvan Learning... I moved the tags up for attention and I'm glad someone noticed. :) If you don't mind, might I suggest you take a look at the Concordia Language Villages entry? I would (and have) trim it, but I'm an insider and it would be best dealt with by an unbiased outsider with good editing sense. Thank you again! mitcho/芳貴 08:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've started a conversation on word usage on Paul Tsongas discussion page. It's under the section Pyrrhic victory vs Moral victory. Your opinion would be great. Thanks Gang14 00:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
For being so amazingly civil and courteous in the ongoing debate about proper verb tense in Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. It is an intense discussion, but you're really helping us work toward consensus where many people might be tempted to get short and snippy. Thank you. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 22:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
Quoted from User talk:Anomie: | ||
“ | Thank you for introducing me to Sorites paradox. I'd never heard of it before. What a precisely applicable point to bring to the table in response to one of my arguments! Thanks for helping to bring the discussion to a consensus. Unschool 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | ” |
You're welcome! List of paradoxes is a good starting point if you're interested in different type of paradox in general; Arrow's paradox is another one I find quite interesting, although it's not applicable to the VG discussion. I really thought there would be more support for using "was" when I brought the discussion to WP:VG. It's almost anticlimactic. Anomie 01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I like that! Really the article for a furture Olympics should be singled out when there are OFFICAL applicant cities, and the article can follow those 4-6 cities That time frame for selection is available on the Olympic website and gamesbids.com. The two most reliable sources for Olympic bids. So the Future Bids site will allow people to speculate and ponder all the way into 2342. And it will keep the discussion pages free to. I've slacked in my police-ing of the sites, I even saw someone wanting info on a moon games... odd. But all the more reason to keep a tap on the speculation. So let me ponder aloud... 1) Each games would have their own page, and yearly link in the bottom box up to the 2016 and 2018 games. ('16 and '18 would have minimal information and just be a stub). After the 2018 link there would be a "future bids" link pertaining to 2020 and beyond. 2) '16 and '18 are included in the future bids page and only offical olympic games are given a yearly link in the bottom. I don't really know how to create a merge of a page so feel free. But something needs to be done to keep this pages from getting out of conrol. Thanks for the idea! Go with it! 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Moonraker0022 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi I remembered your comments about my previous nomination for FP of a leopard tortoise. I have taken a better picture. Could you please vote for it? Here Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from and are quite modest in my editing of wikipedia. The major editing was obviously the formation of the article, I was merely editing it as most points need examples, and I just happened to have one going spare, so decided to implement it in the Titular ruler article.
It's nice to be appreciated for the small job I try and strive to succeed to do on Wikipedia, I wholeheartedly thank you. PoliceChief ( talk) 22:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if you're still watching the page, but I left a response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Grammar#Verb_tense_on_old_consumer_products. Hope it's of interest. Regards, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 04:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I added some references to the nickname "The Jack" in the article talk page. Now please return the nickname to the info-box. Thank you. 83.84.121.39 ( talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Could you please give your opinion on the images here before I nominate for Featured Picture? Thanks, Muhammad Mahdi Karim ( talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Usually, I'll add tags to the bottom of articles. There's been times when my placement of tags has been to the top of an article, but I guess I lean more towards bottom placement. Why do I do this? The essay at User:Shanes/Why tags are evil sums up why I prefer to tag towards the bottom. The tags are just ugly, confusing to readers, and serve to help only us, Wikipedia editors. Readers care little about issues that us editors need to bring to each others attention, therefore I tag where I feel appropriate, either at the bottom of the article, or within the relevant section. -- Longhair\ talk 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that citing another article ( Satellite state), which also has NPOV problems (i.e "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality" is hardly a reference to be used on another Wikipedia article).
In addition, from Wikipedia:No original research:
Therefore the GDR being a satellite of the USSR is only an opinion of yours and others, just as my opinion is that Saddam Hussein was a puppet stooge of the USA (when the US told him to invade Iran and kept on supporting him) up until (foolishly) he invaded Kuwait, without the okay from the CIA first, thus making him the most dominant player in the region, something that the West could not tolerate, etc etc etc. I have my opinions like you have yours, but neither have a place on Wikipedia. Calling me "naive" should not be a way of replacing the principal policies of Wikipedia.
Allied Occupation Zones in Germany must be cleaned up to comply with the above 3 principals (NPOV, V, and NOR).
Seth Whales ( talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! -- El on ka 07:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello again! I had a chat with Kwsn today and he didn't mind me helping out. I've undeleted Wein Air Alaska and put it here User:Unschool/Wein_Air_Alaska for you. Once it has a little more meat to stand on its own legs, feel free to move it back into mainspace. Cheers, henrik• talk 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion on the question of the best name for this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I had a go at isometries in physics. Please take a look and see what parts are still not clear. Of course, given the topic it will never be totally friendly to an intro-level reader, but I hope it will at least be possible to tell what the article is about. -- Reuben ( talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your critique and I have removed reference to tax funding. -- Mgreason ( talk) 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
By what criterion did you select to invite those 34 people to comment on Franz Josef Strauß? Haukur ( talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I always thought of you as a reasonable, sane editor too. Anyways, never worry about bothering me about bringing me into discussions. I still check my watch list (all 47 pages on it, as compared to well over 400 last year) every day or two and i still make contributions now and then. I don't mind throwing my two bits in to help out. Masterhatch ( talk) 05:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for my strong edit summary. I did not assume good faith when I ought to have and for that I apologize. I did remove the header over the other votes because I did not see that as fair, but if it is a problem, closing admins always make note of the discussion and will weigh it in their judgement. The wording was innocuous and shouldn't be a problem at all. It seems that one user who feels very strongly about imposing non-English spelling conventions was trying to find a reason to make a fuss (he himself has a non-English character in his name!). The problems caused could have gotten worse, but I moved some of the conversation back. No big deal. Merry Christmas! Charles 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The nonsensical outcome of this discussion is a fresh reminder of why I resolved a while back not to edit any more. At this point I'll let it go with a self-imposed restriction to articles that nobody cares about enough to have cleaned up in a year or two. I respect your concern for the reader and emphasis on making articles useful and accessible to them - I'm also amazed that so many editors think it's a Good Thing to put obstacles in the way of understanding! Also, please don't be offended if I move the barnstar out of public view. I do appreciate it and I am encouraged to work on cleanup. --
Reuben (
talk)
05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I will give this a reasonable amount of time, for the holidays; but I do not blame you - whether what you did comes under canvassing at all is doubtful. As for James086, we shall see - I have not been pleased by his other actions. I will begin by reopening the discussion at Talk:Padan Plain, which see, and see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I just think not all tags are important enough to be on top. Some are though, but some are better placed somewhere below in the article. Some tags (in my opinion) could also better be deleted but that is quite hard. See my last failed try here. :) Garion96 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
On the incidents noticeboard you mentioned sanctions against you. That would absolutely not be necessary. Sanctions would only be imposed if you were a problematic user for example if you were canvassing in discussions with knowledge of WP:CANVASS, but this was an honest mistake. Infact, your apology was so swift that I think you deserve this:
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For displaying a trait rarely seen these days; the ability to apologise with sincerity. James086 Talk | Email 06:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
From Muhammad Mahdi Karim ( talk) 10:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.
Re:
John Roberts,
John Paul Stevens,
Antonin Scalia,
Anthony Kennedy,
David Souter,
Clarence Thomas,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer,
Samuel Alito,
Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for
Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at
Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.
I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.
In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.
Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.
Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.
As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?
Would you care to offer a comment or observation? -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Unschool. Thanks for your message. With regard to Lasut, only an admin can delete articles, so not being an admin, I can't delete it myself. I'm sure someone will get round to it in time. Regarding Leva Patil, some sentences appear to have been copied from the site you identified. In this case, however, if you reworded those sentences so that they were not a direct copy, that would probably be enough. The rest of the article doesn't seem to have been copied, at least from the site you found, so I wouldn't tag the page as copyvio. If you come across any other articles which you suspect are copied from copyrighted sources, you can tag them using the {{copyvio}} tag - the usage is {{copyvio|url=url}} (substituting the URL of the suspected original source).. You can find general information on how to deal with suspected copyright violations at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It's possible that other websites have copied information from Wikipedia rather than the other way round, so it can sometimes be difficult to determine the original source. Where an article is a blatant violation of copyright, however, the article can be tagged for Speedy deletion. I hope this helps, and have a merry Christmas.-- Michig ( talk) 10:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Jumping in here: I have reverted Benjamin Stone (disambiguation) to JHunterJ's MOS:DAB-compliant version and left an explanation on the dab page's Talk page.-- ShelfSkewed Talk 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Left acknowledgement on the relevant talk pages. Thanks for the explanation. Unschool ( talk) 15:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It sure gets frustrating at times, but I'm hanging in there. GoodDay ( talk) 17:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, there is room for concern about copyright violation. I tagged it for a rewrite (also because it is incomprehensible). I had a hard time making enough sense of it to put an intro on it; I was hoping someone who knew what it was about would come along and do real work on it. I think the first step is going to be to prune harshly until what is left makes sense. RJFJR ( talk) 20:04, 31 December 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
It's a High-fiiiiive!
- Taco325i 14:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are now in the early lead for "best edit summary of 2007." Cmprince 05:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your POV-notice on the Aaron Burr article. I have not been a contributor to this article and would like to thank you for bringing the fact that it needs work to my attention. I'll continue over the next few weeks in trying to improve the article. Just now, I've taken a swipe at improving the lead and would like your opinion. Thanks in advance. — ExplorerCDT 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I got sucked out of retirement and once again got involved in this foreign character argument here. I find it really frustrating sometimes. I feel like i am beating my head against the wall with this. The only argument for diacritics is "It is spelt wrong!" God, that makes me frustrated because of the arrogance of it. Basically, they are saying that virtually all English publications are making spelling mistakes. What a laugh. We don't tell other languages how to spell things. Masterhatch 20:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
¡Hola! It was not until yesterday when I read your comment on naming conventions at Wikipedia's proposed guidelines. I may have reacted too strongly to it and for that I'm sorry. I realize that that discussion page is just a mess and that it's hard for anyone to say anything coherent amidst all the opinions being expressed at the same time. I don't know if you're interested in knowing the other side of the issue, I assume you are though. I hope you don't mind me writting them here... it's just for you to know what those of us who want the naming conventions to start the process of allowing native spellings are all about. My purpose isn't to start a personal debate with you on this issue on our talk pages so you may respond to it if you want to but I will probably choose not to respond (don't take it personally please). Cheers! Rosa 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
While I have merged pages before, in this case the task is a bit daunting given the number of articles involved and my lack of expertise with the subject matter. The "process" (I assume you mean the merge process) involves merging the content by cutting and pasting, and eventually redirecting to the main article after a consensus develops on merging the pages. See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for more information. Park3r 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Per one of my favorite essays, WP:RECENT, we shouldn't delete information on an article just because there is so much of it. How do I say this concisely?... Wikipedia has no place to aggregate content on the verifiable trends of this decade, and this is a great loss. I will add the content on to my personal page until I can find a place to put it. MPS 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
From Starfleet7 : My apologies, but I do not see where I can send you a message other than this. Most of you folk have a button at the top that says "send me a message". In any case. Thank you for saying "kudos" to me in February 2007 about adding all of the Westside neighborhoods to the Jacksonville Florida "neighborhoods" section. My apologies for reversing Riverside & Avondale. funny how you look at things so many times, & you don't see an error staring you in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfleet7 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 April 2007
Your accusations are false. I checked my history and I find no such message. In fact, there is no prior message from your user name at all. Anyway, this is not a controversial topic. It's an article about a football owner. And this information is not that difficult to find. If you were so worried about it, you would have checked it out for yourself. Oh look what I found on the Jags on website: the information you are looking for. Check it out: [1]. If you would have left a post before, it would have been responded to promptly. However, since you failed to comment, I could not respond. I always like to deal with fellow editors in a civil manner, but I do not like to be criticized for something I did not do. If I would have made a mistake, I would have owned up to it. But since you didn't leave me a message asking for a citation in the first place, I didn't have an idea that you wanted me to provide you with one. So before you act like I'm trying to do you wrong and trick the world about such a boring topic as an NFL owner, double check your own actions first. Mr. Vitale 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
2000s in American fashion has been nominated for deletion. Please feel free to voice your opinion.-- Loodog 00:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I actually have no thoughts on the merit of the edit in question, it was made by a sockpuppet of a banned editor and can be automatically reverted per WP:BAN. The editor in question is a prolific sockpuppeteer as you can see here, so reverting his edits is the only way to try and make him get the hint that he isn't supposed to be editing Wikipedia. The IP is New York based (as is the banned editor, who uses a wide array of public computers as you can see by his sockpuppet category) and made the same edit to the Mark Schillinger as two of his previous sockpuppets, which is more than enough evidence to satisfy me it's a sockpuppet of the editor in question. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! Even in the midst of a revert war over United States Declaration of Independence, I was still able to maintain some semblance of a sense of humor. :) Wahkeenah 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello I noticed a user vandalized your South Dakota page. You placed a protection tag on it. Could I ask you to do the same for Michigan? The same person did it there. We have been having so many trolls and vandalizm problems I can't stand it. I looked over the policy, I think Semi-protection would be great. Thanks for any help! Strunke 05:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Unschool - thanks for teaching me an important and valuable lesson concerning the discussion page! I simply had no idea about the etiquette until you came to my rescue - much appreciated boss. * bows down with hands clasped as though in prayer *
I think that if you keep teaching the new and uninformed about wiki "form" (I think that that was your word) then things can only improve around here.
I am sorry that I put you to trouble.
Please may I make one honest suggestion though: bear in mind that some people writing on Wikipedia (eg myself) are quite young and you need to be careful that you do not put people off by the manner in which you express your views. I am sure that I must have irritated you in some way but please just think before reacting.... Cheers and thanks again for your helpful comments! Dr Spam (MD) 11:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Its a future building, and so {{Building Under Construction}} needs to be on there. This warns the user/viewer that information on there should not be taken as canonical. Please do not remove tags without properly explaining why. Cheers, Jonomacdrones ( talk) 13:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh I moved the tags to the top because that's where they are supposed to be, as ugly as they are. Even guidline pages have them, like Wikipedia:Guide to layout. They are there to tell you what's wrong or what's going on. I didn't even see the tags until I scrolled to the bottom of the code for no reason and saw them there. The about to be released tag is at the top of EVERY album that is expected to be released. This should be no exception. It's to inform readers that it is yet to be released and that they should be more critical of the information that appears on the ppage because it is harder to verify. Anyways, just look at other pages; not user opinions. I don't actually have a definite answer so I won't move them back to the top, however once I find that answer and the Wikipedia guideline page that has it, they will be placed accordingly. -- Notmyhandle 01:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for my confusion re: the tag sizing issue. I've been away almost six months, and obviosly missed a few things. When I saw your initial edit, I totally overlooked the padlock icon in the corner. I assumed you were trying to do something desireable, but thought that there had been a technical glitch. I made several attempts (using Preview) to "get it right" by trying variations of "small=yes", but of course, I didn't get any better results. Finally I gave up and reverted back to the original. Even after your helpful Edit Summary when you reverted me, it took some looking to find the icon and understand what had happened. So now I have a question about which tags should be resized. Do we apply the "small" version to any and all tags in an article, or only at the top of the page? I'll be happy to help...this is a great idea and somewhat overdue, really. It would be most helpful if there were a specific page or guideline to refer to, or even an ongoing discussion. Can you provide any links to more info? Thanks in advance! Doc Tropics 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I was about to tag this for deletion, when I noticed that you have been taking a chainsaw to the worst parts of this huge mess. (9K of drivel in 11 days is pretty admirable work!) Do you think the article is salvageable? I won't tag it if you are going to continue to fix it, but the PoV pushing there is pretty breathtaking. Horologium talk - contrib 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
When you said Wow. I just copied and pasted this whole discussion onto a Word document. It was 114 pages long. This is really ridiculous, I thought it was hilarious, and accordingly quoted it in my Signpost article on the RfC located here: User:Phoenix2/Spoilers. Feel free to remove it if you so desire, even after publication. Thanks. -- Phoenix2 ( talk, review) 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I undid your revert of 2007 Georgia/Florida wildfires.
The reason for my edit was:
Your comment implying that acres are not 'units familiar to Americans' is interesting because it could affect a lot of articles. I will not disagree and might even agree with you. I had previously thought that triple units was not generally good.
If you think square mile values are essential to support the acre values, that is fine by me. I was merely trying to correct the major defects in the article. I hope that explains things. Keep up the good work. Regards. Lightmouse 23:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Unschool, I made a working version of Template:Cleanup that allows the use of small a small icon instead of the giant box. You can see the source at Template:Notmyhandle/Sandbox and an example at User:Notmyhandle/Sandbox. I made a post on the Cleanup talkpage, but I need some more support. What do you think? -- Notmyhandle 18:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. « Snowolf How can I help? » 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't delete it; I am not an admin. However, the AfD (which you have commented in) is underway, and it is scheduled to end on Saturday. All AfD proposals last five days, unless they are speedied by an admin earlier. Despite the fact that this is total OR, nobody has proposed a speedy, and it would be hard to justify. Just let the system work, and it will go away soon enough. The consensus is pretty obviously Delete, but if you have followed the DRV board, you'll see a lot of really pissed off people because of improper deletions right now. If this were ended early, some twit could squawk about it and keep it around for a week or so more. Horologium talk - contrib 01:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Glad to find a kindred spirit on this issue. You might be interested to read (and possibly add comments to) Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article#Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I am all in favour of small icons rather than enormous banners taking up the whole screen - I would actually like an option where all such things disappear (including info boxes) and I can appreciate a well-written nicely set out page. (Or a floating window which I can sink.) However I see from looking around that people actually like the enormous banners ... perhaps an enormous banner that can be shrunk to a small icon at a click (and vice versa?). -- roundhouse 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Unschool. Thank you for your comment. Yes, I was the one who came up with the small icon concept for the sprotection to replace the banners, it did fairly well here on Wikipedia, hasn't it? It took off after I put it on George W. Bush, imagine that? :) I like the concept behind the cleanup tag too, I wrote my comment about it here. I gave a bit of constructive critism so this template can get it's greatest potential use. I guess you should let the creater of the template, User:Notmyhandle, know about it so he can fix it if he chooses. Also if you two need any help with the creation of the template or need anything feel free to give me a shout. — Moe ε 16:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw you have removed quite a lot of tags. Didn't you get enought attention from your mother when you were young? Too much time... Testikayttaja 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh.my.God. That is absolutely horrifying. I'll get to work on merging it ASAP (although anyone, including you, can do it). The language drivel is going to disappear first, and I'll see what I can do for the clothing section, but I will not go to sleep until I merge it out of existence.
BTW, you're welcome on nuking the music article, but I wasn't the one who actually deleted it. That requires an admin, and I am not one. Horologium talk - contrib 23:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Timeline of trends in music (2000-present) article is in deletion review right now. Somebody is sniveling because it went away. If you want to participate in the discussion, it's at this link. Horologium talk - contrib 04:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on the visibility of tags, etc., I'm afraid you're not going to get very far convincing me because, to use a phrase from your comments, I do believe that, in general, Wikipedia is an amateurish and unreliable source of information. (I know you used that in a cautionary way, but I take it as a truism.) So the more glaringly such faults as not enough references, etc., are pointed out, the better.
I do agree, by the way, with other things you said about the misuse of references, especially your observation that articles with more (or any) references are not necessarily any better than those with fewer or none. + ILike2BeAnonymous 20:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to revert this back to the big tag. It's semi-protected due to a rather persistent vandal making explicit threats of violence. I want them to get the message and walk away from the article permanently. Hiding the tag won't do that.
If the situation is calm in another week, the sprotect will go away and the tag can go completely. Until then, please leave the big tag. It's ugly, but so is the situation right now. Georgewilliamherbert 17:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose your decision (which appears to be arbitrary though if you have received consensus please provide a link to the applicable policy discussion page) regarding replacing "this page is protected" banners with a tiny icon that is meaningless to inexperienced editors and virtually invisible. The whole point of the banner is to call attention to the fact the page is protected. I can understand wanting to replace banners that might be considered unnecessary or procedural (such as the various "this article needs sources" banners which are ugly though no less important) but I really feel this is the wrong way to go about it. If Wikipedia policy has been changed, then please pardon me and point me to the proper documentation. Otherwise I feel this isn't going to go over very well with a lot of people (that said I appreciate that you aren't intentionally making changes to banners on user pages). 23skidoo 13:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm a bit surprised by this change. I agree that, in a parliamentary system, the head of government can't be from a different political party than the majority of MPs : by the way, this cannot happen in France, too, since the Premier's nomination has to be confirmed by a vote of the Parliament.
But the head of state can be from a different political party. This happens, e.g., in Germany : Gerhard Schröder (SPD) was elected chancellor in 1998, whereas CDU Roman Herzog's term did not end till 1999. It also happens in Italy, where the president's term lasts seven years, two years longer than the Parliament's. So, it seems to me that a cohabitation can happend in parliamentary systems - the thing is, we just don't care, since the president usually doesn't matter anyway. :) Manuel Menal 16:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up One Rincon Hill and Millennium Tower. Hydrogen Iodide 22:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This is already under discussion at Talk:By the Waters of Babylon. -- Jtir 22:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your question about how to find articles that link to an article, if I've understood the question correctly, you can just look at the "What links here" page for the article in question (look in the left navigation bar under "toolbox")... Valrith 16:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the questionability of it, but swearing on the talk page doesn't exactly solve its problems. You may wish to hit it with {{ prod}} and/or AfD it again. In the mean time I've tagged it with {{ hoax}}. 68.39.174.238 18:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with your edits and that
Acting Vice President of the United States should not exist on wikipedia. I tried to delete it already, but there was one or two editors in particular who felt strongly that it should be kept and argued for on the deletion page. Using a prod procedure for an article that once failed an AfD might not be proper form but, in any event, you should re-read the previous deletion discussion and be prepared for the "sources" that they'll come up with as defense for the article. I will glad support another AfD or your PROD.
JasonCNJ
22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Please quit changing the place of death of Tammy Faye. Every article notes she died at her home NEAR Kansas City. That suburb is Loch Lloyd, Missouri. Americasroof 22:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know it was there before, so I looked at other articles of recently deceased people, and saw the tag of those who died the same day, and some the day before. Though, I did hesitate about putting it up, but went ahead anyway. I'll remove it. Thanks! - Jeeny Talk 05:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm no whiz. lol. Especially with the wiki-codes. Anyway, Wikipedia wants you to see the stub message so editors will expand it. I can do images, but not coding. I do know that when more text is added to the article, the info template will balance itself. Or you can simply remove the template, and just put the info in the article. I didn't read the template though, nor the subject matter, so I don't know if that would help. I just took a very brief glance at the page, and knew immediately I could not fix it. Not without writing about the subject until it fit the length of the template, anyway. Sorry. - Jeeny Talk 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Tags is a user's personal opinion, and unless he wasn't to propose an amendment to Help:Merging and moving pages (the procedure that has been in place far longer), then please don't use him as a reason to put tags at the bottom. They may be ugly, but they are in plain sight. Being at the bottom puts them out of view, and limits the chance of random readers seeing them and joining the discussion. Standard practice is to place them at the top. If you and Shane disagree, I would suggest requesting some form of amendment to the procedure page for those tags, whether it's for merging, referencing, or cleanup. As placing them at the bottom, out of plain sight, suggests that the article doesn't have any problems, or that there isn't a discussion about an addition/split to the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
In general it works for me but the # of Hiss' defenders is what's under contention. I put in a cite and changed many to a few. The talk page on Alger Hiss has a longer discussion of this controversy. TMLutas 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please read WP:POINT. I will block your account from editing if you continue removing recent death tags. If you wish to discuss the tag, please take up your conversation on the tag's talk page. Under no circumstances should you disrupt a dozen or more articles in order to generate such a discussion. Rklawton 13:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Here: Template talk:Recent death. Rklawton 01:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you appear to be quite adament in your belief that the Acting Vice President of the United States article is a hoax which should be deleted. I was initially of the same thought, however, after some quick research it has become clear that the term was at least used, even if the office never existed under any law. I have provided several sources. Cheers, JCO312 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not pissed; I'm amused. Therefore I confined myself to sarcasm; if I had used invective, like Pschemp, I would have found something better. (There's a poem by Catullus...)
But this is why I call them nationalists. The ß fans behave exactly like any other of our advocacy groups; see such naming controversies as the one recently concluded at Talk:Shatt al-Arab. Any of a dozen nations will do as parallels, but I happen to recall an Iranian example. Any argument will do; and they never have answers to arguments to policy, except "It's not Faaaiiiirrr if we don't get our way!"
Is this failure to assume good faith? No, it's failure to observe good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you moved the article on Joe Wilson's wife back to Valerie Plame from Valerie E. Wilson. There's been a fair amount of discussion on that article's talk page over the move, with a consensus on moving it to Valerie Wilson, Valerie E. Wilson to distinguish her from other notable Valerie Wilsons. Your specific objection, that she is not most famous as Valerie E. Wilson, is a good idea until it conflicts with the facts. For instance, the term Latin Mass is commonly used as a substitute for the more unwieldy term Tridentine Mass, but the Wikipedia article remains at Tridentine Mass with a disambiguation link on the Latin Mass page, because "Latin Mass" is vague and incorrect. Similarly, Bob Novak's "Valerie Plame" is and always was "Valerie Wilson" outside of her undercover CIA work. I don't see the problem with having the article at "Valerie E. Wilson" and including a redirect at "Valerie Plame". I hope to hear from you soon, -- The_socialist talk? 18:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment! Guess what tomorrow is.. My 18th birthday! YAY. Oreo 14 August 2007
It seemed to me that the remark about Garfield being Churches of Christ is not backed up by Garfield's article. There it says he belonged to Disciples of Christ--from the Wikipedia articles about both Churches and Disciples they seemed to be different. I'm not sure though.-- Jdavid2008 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that article is my own writing. I wrote it several years ago for a now defunct website, which I was assured never held any copyright to it. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Enjoy your holiday; when you get back, we are fine-tuning Use English. You may want to look in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding these edits: I reverted. Please accept that while the tags appear to "pollute" the article in your opinion, they are really only drawing attention to things that need to be taken care of. You can remove them after the article has been improved, but for now they are indeed appropriate. Tagging single statements as dubious has nothing to do with in-universe style. Please don't try to "hide" the fact that this article needs improvement by removing and/or moving those tags, as it's a huge disservice to the reader who can rightfully expect our articles to be written from a real world perspective and featuring published, reliable third-party sources. — AldeBaer 11:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this: I would have gone with the simple and accurate identifier franchise. (But I won't revert, just wanted to give you a note.) — AldeBaer 00:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article needs to be fixed, and I've made a few changes to it, but I would not delete or redirect it considering the epic battle between him and the protagonist Kamille Bidan. Shaneymike 14:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Jacksonville, Florida has received some heavy editing recently. Would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spamily Tree.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I found this revert [2] a bit strange. Yes, you're right that the reasoning behind Jayron's revert is contrary to Wikipedia, but even stranger is the version he reverted from in which Pmanderson claims that no place that doesn't have an English name belong here. JdeJ 09:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your good-common-sense editing of Sylvan Learning... I moved the tags up for attention and I'm glad someone noticed. :) If you don't mind, might I suggest you take a look at the Concordia Language Villages entry? I would (and have) trim it, but I'm an insider and it would be best dealt with by an unbiased outsider with good editing sense. Thank you again! mitcho/芳貴 08:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've started a conversation on word usage on Paul Tsongas discussion page. It's under the section Pyrrhic victory vs Moral victory. Your opinion would be great. Thanks Gang14 00:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
For being so amazingly civil and courteous in the ongoing debate about proper verb tense in Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. It is an intense discussion, but you're really helping us work toward consensus where many people might be tempted to get short and snippy. Thank you. — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 22:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) |
Quoted from User talk:Anomie: | ||
“ | Thank you for introducing me to Sorites paradox. I'd never heard of it before. What a precisely applicable point to bring to the table in response to one of my arguments! Thanks for helping to bring the discussion to a consensus. Unschool 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | ” |
You're welcome! List of paradoxes is a good starting point if you're interested in different type of paradox in general; Arrow's paradox is another one I find quite interesting, although it's not applicable to the VG discussion. I really thought there would be more support for using "was" when I brought the discussion to WP:VG. It's almost anticlimactic. Anomie 01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk ( talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I like that! Really the article for a furture Olympics should be singled out when there are OFFICAL applicant cities, and the article can follow those 4-6 cities That time frame for selection is available on the Olympic website and gamesbids.com. The two most reliable sources for Olympic bids. So the Future Bids site will allow people to speculate and ponder all the way into 2342. And it will keep the discussion pages free to. I've slacked in my police-ing of the sites, I even saw someone wanting info on a moon games... odd. But all the more reason to keep a tap on the speculation. So let me ponder aloud... 1) Each games would have their own page, and yearly link in the bottom box up to the 2016 and 2018 games. ('16 and '18 would have minimal information and just be a stub). After the 2018 link there would be a "future bids" link pertaining to 2020 and beyond. 2) '16 and '18 are included in the future bids page and only offical olympic games are given a yearly link in the bottom. I don't really know how to create a merge of a page so feel free. But something needs to be done to keep this pages from getting out of conrol. Thanks for the idea! Go with it! 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Moonraker0022 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi I remembered your comments about my previous nomination for FP of a leopard tortoise. I have taken a better picture. Could you please vote for it? Here Muhammad Mahdi Karim 03:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from and are quite modest in my editing of wikipedia. The major editing was obviously the formation of the article, I was merely editing it as most points need examples, and I just happened to have one going spare, so decided to implement it in the Titular ruler article.
It's nice to be appreciated for the small job I try and strive to succeed to do on Wikipedia, I wholeheartedly thank you. PoliceChief ( talk) 22:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if you're still watching the page, but I left a response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Grammar#Verb_tense_on_old_consumer_products. Hope it's of interest. Regards, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 04:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I added some references to the nickname "The Jack" in the article talk page. Now please return the nickname to the info-box. Thank you. 83.84.121.39 ( talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Could you please give your opinion on the images here before I nominate for Featured Picture? Thanks, Muhammad Mahdi Karim ( talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Usually, I'll add tags to the bottom of articles. There's been times when my placement of tags has been to the top of an article, but I guess I lean more towards bottom placement. Why do I do this? The essay at User:Shanes/Why tags are evil sums up why I prefer to tag towards the bottom. The tags are just ugly, confusing to readers, and serve to help only us, Wikipedia editors. Readers care little about issues that us editors need to bring to each others attention, therefore I tag where I feel appropriate, either at the bottom of the article, or within the relevant section. -- Longhair\ talk 09:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that citing another article ( Satellite state), which also has NPOV problems (i.e "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality" is hardly a reference to be used on another Wikipedia article).
In addition, from Wikipedia:No original research:
Therefore the GDR being a satellite of the USSR is only an opinion of yours and others, just as my opinion is that Saddam Hussein was a puppet stooge of the USA (when the US told him to invade Iran and kept on supporting him) up until (foolishly) he invaded Kuwait, without the okay from the CIA first, thus making him the most dominant player in the region, something that the West could not tolerate, etc etc etc. I have my opinions like you have yours, but neither have a place on Wikipedia. Calling me "naive" should not be a way of replacing the principal policies of Wikipedia.
Allied Occupation Zones in Germany must be cleaned up to comply with the above 3 principals (NPOV, V, and NOR).
Seth Whales ( talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! -- El on ka 07:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello again! I had a chat with Kwsn today and he didn't mind me helping out. I've undeleted Wein Air Alaska and put it here User:Unschool/Wein_Air_Alaska for you. Once it has a little more meat to stand on its own legs, feel free to move it back into mainspace. Cheers, henrik• talk 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate your opinion on the question of the best name for this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I had a go at isometries in physics. Please take a look and see what parts are still not clear. Of course, given the topic it will never be totally friendly to an intro-level reader, but I hope it will at least be possible to tell what the article is about. -- Reuben ( talk) 02:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your critique and I have removed reference to tax funding. -- Mgreason ( talk) 05:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
By what criterion did you select to invite those 34 people to comment on Franz Josef Strauß? Haukur ( talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I always thought of you as a reasonable, sane editor too. Anyways, never worry about bothering me about bringing me into discussions. I still check my watch list (all 47 pages on it, as compared to well over 400 last year) every day or two and i still make contributions now and then. I don't mind throwing my two bits in to help out. Masterhatch ( talk) 05:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for my strong edit summary. I did not assume good faith when I ought to have and for that I apologize. I did remove the header over the other votes because I did not see that as fair, but if it is a problem, closing admins always make note of the discussion and will weigh it in their judgement. The wording was innocuous and shouldn't be a problem at all. It seems that one user who feels very strongly about imposing non-English spelling conventions was trying to find a reason to make a fuss (he himself has a non-English character in his name!). The problems caused could have gotten worse, but I moved some of the conversation back. No big deal. Merry Christmas! Charles 03:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The nonsensical outcome of this discussion is a fresh reminder of why I resolved a while back not to edit any more. At this point I'll let it go with a self-imposed restriction to articles that nobody cares about enough to have cleaned up in a year or two. I respect your concern for the reader and emphasis on making articles useful and accessible to them - I'm also amazed that so many editors think it's a Good Thing to put obstacles in the way of understanding! Also, please don't be offended if I move the barnstar out of public view. I do appreciate it and I am encouraged to work on cleanup. --
Reuben (
talk)
05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I will give this a reasonable amount of time, for the holidays; but I do not blame you - whether what you did comes under canvassing at all is doubtful. As for James086, we shall see - I have not been pleased by his other actions. I will begin by reopening the discussion at Talk:Padan Plain, which see, and see what happens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. I just think not all tags are important enough to be on top. Some are though, but some are better placed somewhere below in the article. Some tags (in my opinion) could also better be deleted but that is quite hard. See my last failed try here. :) Garion96 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
On the incidents noticeboard you mentioned sanctions against you. That would absolutely not be necessary. Sanctions would only be imposed if you were a problematic user for example if you were canvassing in discussions with knowledge of WP:CANVASS, but this was an honest mistake. Infact, your apology was so swift that I think you deserve this:
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For displaying a trait rarely seen these days; the ability to apologise with sincerity. James086 Talk | Email 06:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
From Muhammad Mahdi Karim ( talk) 10:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.
Re:
John Roberts,
John Paul Stevens,
Antonin Scalia,
Anthony Kennedy,
David Souter,
Clarence Thomas,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer,
Samuel Alito,
Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for
Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at
Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.
I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.
In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.
Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.
Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.
As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?
Would you care to offer a comment or observation? -- Ooperhoofd ( talk) 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Unschool. Thanks for your message. With regard to Lasut, only an admin can delete articles, so not being an admin, I can't delete it myself. I'm sure someone will get round to it in time. Regarding Leva Patil, some sentences appear to have been copied from the site you identified. In this case, however, if you reworded those sentences so that they were not a direct copy, that would probably be enough. The rest of the article doesn't seem to have been copied, at least from the site you found, so I wouldn't tag the page as copyvio. If you come across any other articles which you suspect are copied from copyrighted sources, you can tag them using the {{copyvio}} tag - the usage is {{copyvio|url=url}} (substituting the URL of the suspected original source).. You can find general information on how to deal with suspected copyright violations at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. It's possible that other websites have copied information from Wikipedia rather than the other way round, so it can sometimes be difficult to determine the original source. Where an article is a blatant violation of copyright, however, the article can be tagged for Speedy deletion. I hope this helps, and have a merry Christmas.-- Michig ( talk) 10:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Jumping in here: I have reverted Benjamin Stone (disambiguation) to JHunterJ's MOS:DAB-compliant version and left an explanation on the dab page's Talk page.-- ShelfSkewed Talk 14:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Left acknowledgement on the relevant talk pages. Thanks for the explanation. Unschool ( talk) 15:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It sure gets frustrating at times, but I'm hanging in there. GoodDay ( talk) 17:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right, there is room for concern about copyright violation. I tagged it for a rewrite (also because it is incomprehensible). I had a hard time making enough sense of it to put an intro on it; I was hoping someone who knew what it was about would come along and do real work on it. I think the first step is going to be to prune harshly until what is left makes sense. RJFJR ( talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)