Archive 9 – Posts from April to end of November 2006
Are you away?
Someone was asking for the source of one of your old additions to twin. See the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You recently reviewd the Thylacine article. I have just posted a large list of proposed changes on the talk page which you might be interested in. I welcome feedback. youcantryreachingme 02:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme (Chris).
By what authority did you remove the merge tag from Exploding snake ? SirIsaacBrock 09:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks.-- Pharos 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
While I'm in favour of Views of the French military being added, I don't think there should be edit warring over it. Thanks, Andjam 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
In the Military of France, you have also violated the Revert rule. However, I will not report it. UberCryxic 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I was counting another edit, but it wasn't important. UberCryxic 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your desired changes have been implemented. I admire your tenacity. Your remind me of French soldiers at Casteldelfino. UberCryxic 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There is someone in Military history of France making a weird descriptive edit to the Views link. Could you please deal with it? I reverted once but I don't really want multiple violations of 3-R. Thanks. UberCryxic 19:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a question, or a suggestion rather. The views of French military article generally covers views about French military history, not about the present French military. I don't really think it's appropriate to link it to the Military of France. I wanted to check this with you first. What do you think? UberCryxic 04:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Jokes about the French military in the United States haven't really focused on the modern French military, just on (or mostly on) history. The picture in the Views article is supposed to highlight a historical culture of surrender, not just poke fun at current French soldiers, but beyond sporadic pictures like that-probably fooled around with because they're the easiest to find-there are no real jokes about the current French military. The famous "Complete Military History of France" list was, as the name suggests, about history. I haven't really seen anything equivalent, if anything at all (that I remember at least), on the current French armed forces. The Views article highlights the problem: the Negative section begins in the following way, "French military history is perceived particularly in the United States...." Even if jokes about the current French military exist, they are not prominent at all. The Views article was inspired by the military history article anyway; I don't think another article should have to suffer because of that. UberCryxic 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If we let imagination fiddle around with the meaning of "right now," then it is limited. Either way, saying it contains history does not mean that it is about history. It would be a relevant link if the Views article actually contained views about the current French military. As of now, all it has is references to a culture of cowardice and, with the exception of the Sun incident, views about the military history. UberCryxic 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That raises another problem then: the title. I am more in favor of "Views of French military history" or "Views about French military and French military history" unless something relevant is put in about the current French military. A sensible thing to do would be to change the title, meaning it would have to be de-linked from either Military of France or Military history of France. As of now, it should be de-linked from Military history of France, but the information it contains relates to the military history of France, though not to the military of France (damn this is confusing), even though that's what it's named. UberCryxic 17:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Great reasoning. I forgot I was dealing with one of the great logicians of the century. I'll stop my efforts because they would probably only lead to bad blood between us. Thanks for your time. UberCryxic 18:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for intervening. I was running out of jokes. UberCryxic 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty new here and wanted to know how to upload pictures in order to use them for a page. I had plans of starting a new article and wanted to utilize a picture. Thank you for the help! -- WillMak050389 04:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Your school network has been an ongoing source of vandalism which could be legally actionable due to its often libellous and defamatory remarks. Have you considered having your network administrator investigate the root cause of this problem? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I checked my messages today, and recieved the following message:
You are a crazy god lover! Burn in Hell!!! Thefreakshow 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I please ask of your help to confront this user. I have left a message on his talk page, but I would like an administrator to talk with him also. -- Will Mak 050389 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I'm trying to contribute. I'm honestly just trying to improve Wikipedia. There are oodles of reasons why spelling guidelines should be followed strictly, in my view. You reverted my changes without (it would appear) even looking at the history of the article, which I looked at very, very closely before making my changes. Why did you revert me? It just creates bad blood. -- Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 18:50 (UTC)
Hi Violet,
I just visited Mohonk. Great stuff.
Query: is there any reason to (or not to) mention that atop Skytop, which I suspect is the tallest part of Mohonk mountain, there is a clear, unobstructed view of six states? That would be NY, NJ, PA, VT, MA, and CT. It was foggy when I was up there, so I failed to see anything other than part of NY, but it's still an interesting fact for those who purposefully travel to such geographical oddities. Eh Nonymous 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Yurik 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. You changed Prison break to redirect to Prison escape instead of Prison Break with no explanation. I'm simply curious why you think that prison escape is a more suitable article. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 11:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
How about we compromise: We redirect alternate capitalizations of Prison Break to the TV show and alternate capitalizations of Prison escape to the other article, then at the top of each article put a link to the other. Right now there is not a link to Prison escape from Prison Break. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 12:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Note, I changed the hook to "trying to" as since the link isn't proven, the government actions can't be said to definitively be fixing the problem, just are trying to fix it. That addresses the concern I had and still keeps the hook saying generally the same thing. + + Lar: t/ c 15:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Something about "neighbouring" restaurants in Kentucky isn't quite right. In reference to American locations, although it's not policy, it makes sense to use American spellings. In contrast, how would it be if an article on the Pennines spoke about the "fall" "colors" of the region, and how they divide Northern England down the "center"? It'd seem a little askew, wouldn't it? And that's what I was trying to remedy. But that doesn't matter, because why should you assume good faith? R'son-W 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! + + Lar: t/ c 15:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for revising this nom to get it selected... ++ Lar: t/ c 15:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! ++ Lar: t/ c 15:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
In regards to
your message, I had no idea that was the case. I once had a math teacher who was a stickler for and, so it was drilled into my head to take the "and" out. Thanks for letting me know that that's not the case everywhere! -
Tapir Terrific
22:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up things, don't know what I was thinking. Don't edit when it's past your bedtime, I guess. Well, bronze finals are meaningless, anyways. But really, thanks. -- Denvesletigeren 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by your apparent belief that the World Cup is too important for our ITN criteria to apply...but not important enough to actually write about in encyclopedic fashion.
Instead of transforming our main page into a news ticker, perhaps you could contribute a decent account of the game to the encyclopedia (which might actually qualify the entry for inclusion in the section). — David Levy 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to put this article on DYK, but it requires references. Can you drop some in? - Mgm| (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Mindhaving alook at Talk:Cow fighting? Circeus 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't look at the history beforehand. -- Fang Aili talk 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping you might offer some advice on an old issue revolving around disambiguation and Concordia University in Montreal. You may recall that in March 2005 you determined: "It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved." The matter seemed to have laid dormant until last week when a Uac1530 took it upon him or herself to make the change unilaterally. I have expressed my opposition on the Talk:Concordia University (Montreal) page (the resulting discussion is featured in numbers 16 through 18 nof the table of contents. My question is twofold: Should I request arbitration - or is this even necessary as the matter has already been discussed and a decision rendered. I might add that while I have no objection to a reopening of the debate, I disagree with the unilateral nature of the change. Admitting that I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia, I wonder whether this move follows policy.-- Victoriagirl 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you updating captions for the pictures of the day. Please keep in mind that if you do so, then please copy the changes to the text and column versions too. You can get links to them from Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 2006. Thanks! howch e ng { chat} 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
And you moved it back because I acted unilaterally. Fine.
I think it makes much more sense, what I did. How do I go about getting it changed? What are the proper channels? I read the policies connected to it and I thought I was following the rules.
Hi Violetriga,
Someone's added an s to the ITN snippet about the World Cup again, but I think it was done without consulting the debate, so is probably just a mistake. Please could you correct it. Cheers — SteveRwanda 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response.
-- Uac1530 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested to know the article we worked on, " Winston tastes good like a cigarette should," has been promoted to good article status after just one day. Thanks for contributing to a job well done! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[1]. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC).
You say "needs to be discussed." Yet you reverted, without (much) discussion. Why? -- WikiFair1 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
what does transcluding mean? let me guess first.. is it the practice of substituting it with the {{subst tag? if so, well i actually did it in courtesy because the source code for my sig was too long, so that i dont add a whole bunch of code to every page i sign. if the latter is actually better etiquette, i think ill change back to the old way of lumping the whole text in there.
an added advantage of substituting it is that if i change the signature, its updated on all the pages i've signed.
11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you remove an item (I do not think it's a good practice), please put it back in the list of nominees so it can be selected again, not really fair to an item to be there for only 45 min or whatever.. Maybe you did in this case and I missed it, just thought i'd mention it. thanks! ++ Lar: t/ c 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
(I prefer to stay threaded, refactored)
How do you report a stalker? User:JackLumber seems to pop up on votes to do with AmE vs. Be just after I turn up. Jooler 14:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you got caught up in an edit war while trying to help. If you're interested, here's my "personal rules" I mentioned over there. Cheers! -- SB Johnny 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that guideline. Where is it at? Bignole
I'll say what you said to me: show me where it says that it is ok to do that? You said that it doesn't say that you can't, but it also doesn't say that you can. There are plenty of areas where it says not to remove sections of a Talk Page. Bignole 21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You seem to keep re-posting the same Vue Cinemas article with a major part of the article ommitted and a factual error.
Firstly, you have deleted the reference to the Vista ticketing system, which is probably one of the biggest changes to cinema operation in the last 10 years.
Secondly, Harrow was the first purpose built Vue, NOT Blackburn.
Please comment??
I disagree, it was neutral and drew notice too the fact that it was controversial i.e. many customers complain about it. May I suggest that the link to the Vista corporate website be removed and not that part of the article? As I said, it's probably one of the biggest changes to cinema operations in the last 10 years.
I don't have a source though I may be able to find one. It opened last year I believe and was the first site to use the Vista system, you can tell this from visiting the cinema itself in that it doesn;t actually have a spearate box office. The easiest source I can think of would be internal communications (I work for Vue) though these are obviously confidential.
I'm looking into confirmation now, we may have a press release somewhere. Blackburn is very incorrect. Before they open theres still Cleveleys opening in about 3 weeks.
You're both right about Harrow. It was owned by Vue as it was originally a Warner Village site. It was then the first to be re-furbished to Vue's latest design ideas, mainly to incorporate a smaller box office as they would be using the Vista system to sell tickets from the concession stand. Blackburn is the first site they have built from scratch.
Greatly enjoyed the new article. You come up with the most interesting DYK's (I remember the one with the polydactyly x-ray). Thanks for the contribs -- Samir धर्म 11:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
At least one. (And I liked Footprint too.) — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The -re spellers lost (in the sense of making it unavailable in the conventional way) the Talk archive. You might be able to make some useful suggestions there on what to do about this. It may (or may not) be little tricky since the most recent version of the archive was a version made after Dramatic's attempt to archive There are some details about how this came about at the current Talk page. W.C. 19:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the archiving help, Violet! W.C. 19:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
On the fighting game page, you reverted my revert regarding the inclusion of the information about Perfects. I'm not sure you realized that this page is more to discuss the difference between beat 'em ups and versus fighting games (see the talk page to see the confusion and why this page was necessary over a standard DAB). If you feel that Perfect needs to be in the Wikipedia but not on its own article (as combo (computer and video games), finishing move and shoryuken are), I believe this information should be moved to the versus fighting game page or to the Wiktionary appendix. What do you think? -- SevereTireDamage 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Peta 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Syrthiss 13:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you're the one who wrote a lot of the Birth weight article. Can you please respond on Talk:Birth weight? - anon 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Violetriga, Thanks for your note about Secret Passages and Book Safes. I just wanted you to know that there are a few more historical examples of secret passages now. NatMor 14:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, All the info is from the internet. I will start going back and adding the references (good suggestion) NatMor 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Scott eiπ 23:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Where dose it belong then he blinking built it it is his creation.-- Lucy-marie 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not blanket revert due to your opinion not liking something please initate a discussion about hthe topic and see the merge proposal discussion.-- Lucy-marie 08:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Another brilliant one. Great little story and tag line. -- Samir धर्म 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been editing a page for Baltimore Lutheran School, and the page has been getting a lot of vandalism, I think from the same source. The current vandalism was by user Uber trampoline. I am pretty sure he is the same as Pastor Satan and is a student (or students) at the school. They are putting up comments about students and teachers.
Is there anything that can be done about this/ blocking them, freezing the page, etc.? User:Uac1530 04:11, 8 August 2006
Hi, thanks for your edit on unfinshed buildings mentioned at the arch wikiproject. I think it's got potential. Unfortunately I've had to revert your edit on Enric Miralles because although it wasn't finished at his death - his passing did not stop construction and it's now open - so doesn't really fit the description you've given of an unfinished building (unfinished and not likely to be finished). Hope this is ok. regards -- Mcginnly | Natter 23:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have addressed your concerns on the Summer of '42 FAC debate in re: citations and footnoting. I respectfully request that you reconsider your object vote now that the problem has been fixed. Mistergrind 20:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I just always thought it was 'labeled' because someone used 'labelled' in the Model Minority article and it was edited out. Plus, when you look it up on dictionary.com, 'labelled' doesn't exist. Why sigh, cutie pie? 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You have Sagrada Familia already - the only other buildings I can think of are churches that just took a long time to finish: Washington National Cathedral took 83 years, the Cologne Cathedral took over 600. Chicago has had a LOT of proposed skyscrapers that were never built, like Frank Lloyd Wright's mile-high tower The Illinois, and a 2,000 foot tall broadcast tower proposal [2]. And doing a quick check, it would appear that at least two of Ludwig II of Bavaria's castles were left incompleted, including Neuschwanstein, probably the most famous. Oh, and I just found a page of unfinished buildings for the Dallas, Texas area: [3].
Hi - We met on this site an hour ago. I just became an editor on Wikipedia so please accept my apologies if I do not yet fully understand all the procedures and rules. The reason I became an editor is that I was looking up something on the 2012 Olympics and I thought the articles were both very disorganised and you can almost feel a real battle running through every section. I never seen anything like it on Wikipedia. I am neither French or British, so I try to be neutral.
My understanding is that there is one single major thread, called the "2012 Summer Olympics". This has a number of sub-sections, eg London 2012 Olympic Bid, 2012 Summer Olympic Development, 2012 Summer Olympic Venues, etc...
Now, there are a number of problems with all of them, but let me start with "London 2012 Olympic Bid", where I have two main issues:
- Most of the section is written in the past tense, eg: "The 2012 Olympics were planned to use a mixture of newly built venues, existing facilities, and temporary facilities, some of them in well known locations such as Hyde Park and Horse Guards Parade. In the wake of the problems that plagued the Millennium Dome, the intention was that there would be no white elephants after the games." The past tense indicates that this was the bid and that current plans may be different, as a result of events since the bid was formally accepted by the IOC (6 JUly 2005). Until here I have no issue because for that reason there is the section called "2012 Summer Olympic Development". Where I do have an issue is that it does go on discussing a selective number of events following the acceptance of the bid by the IOC, but only negative ones. If one wanted to be consistent, one would have to expand on many more aspects of the bid. For instance, regarding the comment about the avoidance of white elephants above, one could expand and explain the changes that have been made to that aim and the positive reception by the IOC of these changes. Alternatively, one could limit this whole section to be a factual past tense description of the bid itself (up to the acceptance by the IOC), without divulging in any posterior events. These can be part of the other section "2012 Summer Olympic Development"
- The summary overview on the top right of the page has a section called "Decision". What does the 2004 IOC score (as part of the INITIAL IOC evaluation) have to do with this? Same goes for the comment below it. This is all output from the INITIAL evaluation (in which London fared badly) and not of the FINAL evaluation, which was much more positive on London. Anyway, the way it is posted here, will be read by anybody who is not fully familiar with the selection procedure as: "London won from Paris despite having a much worse IOC score and more precisely scoring poorly in the categories of transport, government support, legal issues and public opinion." If the point is to prove the IOC is an illogical or corrupt organization, then it certainly achives its goal but I hope you agree the facts are presented in a very mislaeading way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 August 2006, please sign your posts
---> Before I spend any time on it and waste anybody else's time on reverting it, I'ld like to explain in more detail how I would improve it.
1. Delete the pargraph starting with "The celebrations were somewhat silenced the following day (7 July 2005) when the city suffered from a terrorist attack." Instead we should have a complete section on these terrorist attacks and the subsequent terrorist attempst in the "2012 Summer Olympic Development" article. There is more to say to these attacks than that they spoilt the fun of a celebration. They have an impact on the financials, the venues, some of the side-events, etc. In any case this paragraph has nothing to do with the subject of this article which is about the bid. It has a lot of relevancy for London 2012, but bringing it up in the article about the details of the bid is only possible if every other subsequent event that is relevant for London 2012 is mentioned here(and we alternate between past and present tense when describing the details of the bid), and for that reason I guess these is the "2012 Summer Olympic Development" article.
2. I would also move the following paragraph to the same article. I already tried to improve it a bit but it remains in the wrong section here.
3. The evaluation reports. Right now there is a reference to the initial evaluation report in the top right box (where it really does not below) and there is a summary of the final evaluation report at the end of the article. Firstly it is strange to have them in two different locations in the same article, secondly the average reader will not know that there are two reports and will be confused noticing the conflictual content (or worse, mislead if he does not read the full artcile), thirdly I think they belong in the article about the 2012 Summer Olympics bid process. Here you do have a section "bid evaluations", but which is still very much incomplete.
I think the problem in general is that there are quite a few articles about the different aspects of the 2012 Olympics and that they still overlap. Not necessarily a problem, if it weren't that a lot of it is conflictual. Also, the articles do not cross reference to each other is a systematic way. On the 2012 Summer Olympic Development article there is a good cross-link box in the right hand top, but nowhere else. JGG 12:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Another great idea for an article. Enjoyed the read. I wonder if Montreal's Olympic Stadium is an unfinished building? It's Canada's national architectural disaster: had a tower that was supposed to support a retractable roof, but the tower took > 10 years to build and the roof was never functionally installed. Will try to find out more. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that I don't trust you, but I've always heard everyone say "the Ukraine", and reading it without the "the" sounds a bit odd. I just wanna know why it's more correct without "the" ? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. -- Merovingian - Talk 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I contributed the Science and philosophy section to your excellent Unfinished work article. I noticed you made some modifications, which I pseudo-reverted, and which you then reverted again as mere "style changes." Presumably you don't like American spellings. I can deal with that; it's your article. But while I understand the spirit in which a different change is intended--that of maintaining an encyclopedic tone--I think to modify the part about the architecture described in the First Draft as influencing all modern computer systems to remove the word "all" misses the point being made. All modern computer systems use a heirarchy of memories; all modern computer systems store instructions as they do data. No computer was ever again built like the ENIAC. Every computer uses the architecture described in the First Draft. This is precisely what makes it the most influential document in computer science (another deserved superlative, which you wisely chose to retain). All the best, Robert K S 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your comments on my drawing board suggestion. I start a user subpage to get down the basics before submitting it to the main article space. I would very much appreciate it, if you could make a small contribution to the article. I've listed a few ideas on the related talk page on what to include. If you have any more,please add to the list. - Mgm| (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, not that it really means much, considering he's sorta a little annoying bug always in the wrong. It's been a long time since I've seen you around...hope things have been going well since last we spoke (like 18 months ago). — ExplorerCDT 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you consider hopping in on this...I've referred it to RfC. — ExplorerCDT 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Violetriga, I just want you to know that I appreciate your comment on my talk page. I hope to work more on "Unfinished work" in the future. -- Alex S 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
I believe on the 17th of September, you added a description of "Fetus in Fetu" to the Parasitic twin page:
"Fetus in fetu describes an extremely rare abnormality that involves a fetus getting trapped inside of its twin. It continues to survive as a parasite even past birth until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene. Invariably the parasitic fetus is anencephalic (without a brain) and lacks internal organs, and as such is unable to survive on its own."
And from an ABC News article:
"A Mutated Body Within a Body
At first glance, it may look as if Bhagat had given birth. Actually, Mehta had removed the mutated body of Bhagat's twin brother from his stomach. Bhagat, they discovered, had one of the world's most bizarre medical conditions — fetus in fetu. It is an extremely rare abnormality that occurs when a fetus gets trapped inside its twin. The trapped fetus can survive as a parasite even past birth by forming an umbilical cordlike structure that leaches its twin's blood supply until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene."
The umbilical note was added here.
I thought this was all pretty interesting.
Cheers, -- AquaRichy 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been noted here [4]. As you can see, I mistakenly thought that others had written this paragraph (because of restorations from blanking), but another commentator on that blog correctly identified you as the author who was not attributed. -- Douglas Jardine 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've slaved away and added to the controversy section again by discussing Grange Hill. I think we can discuss different types of programmes albeit briefly before we have to think about splitting stuff out. (I've started that with the controversy bit, I'd say!). I think we should cover Newsround too as it's an important part of children's tv, before they launched Sportsround and Newsround Extra, I don't remember any other programme covering news for kids in the UK. Can you?
Also, if we are gonna cover educational programmes for young kids: Bob the Builder, Teletubbies and such, is there any programme I didn't think of you'd like to see covered in such a section? - Mgm| (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I've struck out "oldest programme" from the to do list. For the Children is the oldest UK children's TV programme, because BBC had a monopoly at the time before ITV came onto the scene as covered in the 1950s source I used. No other channels could have qualified for an older programme and I remember this being called the oldest in Blue Peter too. - Mgm| (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this was an innapropriate use of admin rollback. The other editor gave their reasoning in the edit summary and it was a good faith edit. Using rollback to revert that is abuse of the tool which is meant of vandalism only. Patience is the key, if it's supposed to be added back it will be. If not, improve it further and try again later. - Taxman Talk 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
A bit bulky, but otherwise great. I had a go with that before on another article and failed miserably in learning the syntax. I've seen it used on a JFK assasination article and I think it was nicely small-ified. If you can drop its size a few notches, it will definitely be a welcome addition. Also, the site I have listed under unused BBC sources has some nice timelines... - Mgm| (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your comments. My reply can be found here WP:ER#User:Deon555. Thanks. -- D e on555 talk Review 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again violetriga,
Yikes! Here's hoping the above is tongue-in-cheek, as my impression is that if Wikipedia has any unchanging traditions, it's that anything may be reconsidered in the light of experience, new information, fresh observation, etc... I'd say the cut and thrust over what appears on and what's removed from "Unusual articles" indicates that some folk find some articles' topics unusual, others quirky, others amusing, etc. Best wishes, David Kernow 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is gold!! Nice article! -- Samir धर्म 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I would have preferred a little less boldness and more discussion before renaming. -- Arktos talk 10:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a smile for your work on the History of British children's television (especially that timeline which I know I'd struggle with). Keep up the good work.
Mgm| (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Mgm| (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I apologize; I recalled the Style Guide incorrectly. Out of curiousity, though, how would the article be considered a British topic? The majority of the examples are of Americans.-- Daveswagon 17:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Great article from start, doesn't need stubs or references. I tinkered with categories. Electrawn 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Great article, enjoyed the read! -- Samir धर्म 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Oddball Barnstar | ||
I award Violetriga this barnstar for documenting microphone gaffes, mobile phone throwings and unfinished buildings! -- Gurubrahma 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
Hi, the articles were a rollicking read!! You may be interested in having a look at
Siamese twins (English language),
titsup.com or
Arbit Choudhury. --
Gurubrahma
07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite interesting. It's come up in municipal discussions in Canada also. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the contribution -- Samir धर्म 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I just thought it'd be polite of me to drop by and say a word of thanks after helping myself to bits of your colour scheme and page layout without asking! Hope you don't mind; if it's too severe a case of plagiarism then I'll make some changes. Yeah, I know, I should spend more time reading articles instead of browsing user pages, but they're often just so interesting... :)
—
Chris (
blather •
contribs)
15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The DYK Medal | ||
I, MacGyverMagic, hereby award you a DYK Medal for providing the "Did you know section" with so many excellent facts from odd-ball articles. Mgm| (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
Can I ask why you don't believe you can tell a pregnancy at 5mm to be so??? As an obstetrical sonographer for 25 years I'm always surprised by the "knowledge" of the lay folks in medicine.
Anecdotally, I was able to tell that my wife was pregnant before she missed her first period !!! The generally accepted criteria for pregnancy is the documentation of embryonic cardiac activity and by TVS (transvaginal sonography) that is usually when the embryo is 11mm in length. I have seen 5-8mm echos that have turned out to be a baby and I've seen echoes that have turned out to be monozygotic twins, I've seen coexhistant intrauterine and ectopic pregnancies and I've seen 5mm echoes that were just the byproducts of conception. While the establisment of the intrauterine fluid sac alone may suggest pregnancy, and some echoes may turn out to be a baby, other diagnostic possibilities exhist, close examination by a reputable investagator is advisable IMHO. oh yeah... and I agree the bit about 5mmm is off the central point and I'd leave it out too.
Mark Lawson, RDMS Lubbock Texas Lawson2k@sbcglobal.net
I'm sorry if you're offended, but I don't step back from my opinion about it. Please don't take it personally. Tony 11:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that some categories that you have created have been placed up for deletion here. If you still have an interest in these categories, please come and give input, pro or con, to the discussion. - TexasAndroid 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Violetriga. I've asked a question on Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo that you may be able to answer. Hoping to solve the mystery! - Nunh-huh 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a real shame the sentence itself isn't factual, so the DYK blurb could have just been Did You Know...
Now that would have been the best thing ever. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Have some buffalo for such a fabulous article! -- Samir धर्म 10:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
My god! You unleashed a monster upon Wikipedia! My Peter and Jane was almost completely ignored! But at least someone saw fit to create Janet and John to keep it company. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know your reasons for thinking why, if someone typed in " animated feature", they'd be looking for a general article on what animation is rather than an article which explains what an animated feature is AND gives a list of them. Esn 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
PLoS Medicine has published several papers dealing with this topic. Here's one to start: What Are the Public Health Effects of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising? http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030145
You can also search for "advertising" and you will get a whole list of relevant articles.
Cheers.
Hi. I noticed you unblocked User:217.33.74.20 the other day after my 3 hour block, with the comment "shared ip: block too long". I am fairly new to this and am sorry if I got it wrong. Given that this school IP has a long track record of vandalism (I have jsut given them another final warning for continued vandalism, which was how I saw your unblock), I wonder what length of block you would regard as appropriate, assuming another one needs to be done. Thanks. -- Guinnog 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/ Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. — Mets501 ( talk) 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Howdy, I've overhauled Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) based on a 2nd round of feedback. Possibly it's complete and ready now?
The only thing I forsee as being potentially contentious is the chronological ordering of filmographies, but I still suspect (hope) a supermajority will quickly emerge, once put to wider discussion, favouring consistency and traditional listing standards.
Feedback (at it's talkpage) or improvements welcome :-) -- Quiddity 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, that article wasn't a neologism, although it was probably a dicdef. [6], [7], Residency_(medicine)#History_of_long_hours
Archive 9 – Posts from April to end of November 2006
Are you away?
Someone was asking for the source of one of your old additions to twin. See the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You recently reviewd the Thylacine article. I have just posted a large list of proposed changes on the talk page which you might be interested in. I welcome feedback. youcantryreachingme 02:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme (Chris).
By what authority did you remove the merge tag from Exploding snake ? SirIsaacBrock 09:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks.-- Pharos 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
While I'm in favour of Views of the French military being added, I don't think there should be edit warring over it. Thanks, Andjam 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
In the Military of France, you have also violated the Revert rule. However, I will not report it. UberCryxic 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I was counting another edit, but it wasn't important. UberCryxic 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your desired changes have been implemented. I admire your tenacity. Your remind me of French soldiers at Casteldelfino. UberCryxic 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There is someone in Military history of France making a weird descriptive edit to the Views link. Could you please deal with it? I reverted once but I don't really want multiple violations of 3-R. Thanks. UberCryxic 19:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a question, or a suggestion rather. The views of French military article generally covers views about French military history, not about the present French military. I don't really think it's appropriate to link it to the Military of France. I wanted to check this with you first. What do you think? UberCryxic 04:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Jokes about the French military in the United States haven't really focused on the modern French military, just on (or mostly on) history. The picture in the Views article is supposed to highlight a historical culture of surrender, not just poke fun at current French soldiers, but beyond sporadic pictures like that-probably fooled around with because they're the easiest to find-there are no real jokes about the current French military. The famous "Complete Military History of France" list was, as the name suggests, about history. I haven't really seen anything equivalent, if anything at all (that I remember at least), on the current French armed forces. The Views article highlights the problem: the Negative section begins in the following way, "French military history is perceived particularly in the United States...." Even if jokes about the current French military exist, they are not prominent at all. The Views article was inspired by the military history article anyway; I don't think another article should have to suffer because of that. UberCryxic 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
If we let imagination fiddle around with the meaning of "right now," then it is limited. Either way, saying it contains history does not mean that it is about history. It would be a relevant link if the Views article actually contained views about the current French military. As of now, all it has is references to a culture of cowardice and, with the exception of the Sun incident, views about the military history. UberCryxic 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That raises another problem then: the title. I am more in favor of "Views of French military history" or "Views about French military and French military history" unless something relevant is put in about the current French military. A sensible thing to do would be to change the title, meaning it would have to be de-linked from either Military of France or Military history of France. As of now, it should be de-linked from Military history of France, but the information it contains relates to the military history of France, though not to the military of France (damn this is confusing), even though that's what it's named. UberCryxic 17:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Great reasoning. I forgot I was dealing with one of the great logicians of the century. I'll stop my efforts because they would probably only lead to bad blood between us. Thanks for your time. UberCryxic 18:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for intervening. I was running out of jokes. UberCryxic 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty new here and wanted to know how to upload pictures in order to use them for a page. I had plans of starting a new article and wanted to utilize a picture. Thank you for the help! -- WillMak050389 04:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Your school network has been an ongoing source of vandalism which could be legally actionable due to its often libellous and defamatory remarks. Have you considered having your network administrator investigate the root cause of this problem? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I checked my messages today, and recieved the following message:
You are a crazy god lover! Burn in Hell!!! Thefreakshow 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I please ask of your help to confront this user. I have left a message on his talk page, but I would like an administrator to talk with him also. -- Will Mak 050389 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I'm trying to contribute. I'm honestly just trying to improve Wikipedia. There are oodles of reasons why spelling guidelines should be followed strictly, in my view. You reverted my changes without (it would appear) even looking at the history of the article, which I looked at very, very closely before making my changes. Why did you revert me? It just creates bad blood. -- Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 18:50 (UTC)
Hi Violet,
I just visited Mohonk. Great stuff.
Query: is there any reason to (or not to) mention that atop Skytop, which I suspect is the tallest part of Mohonk mountain, there is a clear, unobstructed view of six states? That would be NY, NJ, PA, VT, MA, and CT. It was foggy when I was up there, so I failed to see anything other than part of NY, but it's still an interesting fact for those who purposefully travel to such geographical oddities. Eh Nonymous 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Yurik 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. You changed Prison break to redirect to Prison escape instead of Prison Break with no explanation. I'm simply curious why you think that prison escape is a more suitable article. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 11:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
How about we compromise: We redirect alternate capitalizations of Prison Break to the TV show and alternate capitalizations of Prison escape to the other article, then at the top of each article put a link to the other. Right now there is not a link to Prison escape from Prison Break. Jtrost ( T | C | #) 12:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! Note, I changed the hook to "trying to" as since the link isn't proven, the government actions can't be said to definitively be fixing the problem, just are trying to fix it. That addresses the concern I had and still keeps the hook saying generally the same thing. + + Lar: t/ c 15:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Something about "neighbouring" restaurants in Kentucky isn't quite right. In reference to American locations, although it's not policy, it makes sense to use American spellings. In contrast, how would it be if an article on the Pennines spoke about the "fall" "colors" of the region, and how they divide Northern England down the "center"? It'd seem a little askew, wouldn't it? And that's what I was trying to remedy. But that doesn't matter, because why should you assume good faith? R'son-W 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! + + Lar: t/ c 15:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for revising this nom to get it selected... ++ Lar: t/ c 15:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions! ++ Lar: t/ c 15:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
In regards to
your message, I had no idea that was the case. I once had a math teacher who was a stickler for and, so it was drilled into my head to take the "and" out. Thanks for letting me know that that's not the case everywhere! -
Tapir Terrific
22:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up things, don't know what I was thinking. Don't edit when it's past your bedtime, I guess. Well, bronze finals are meaningless, anyways. But really, thanks. -- Denvesletigeren 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by your apparent belief that the World Cup is too important for our ITN criteria to apply...but not important enough to actually write about in encyclopedic fashion.
Instead of transforming our main page into a news ticker, perhaps you could contribute a decent account of the game to the encyclopedia (which might actually qualify the entry for inclusion in the section). — David Levy 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to put this article on DYK, but it requires references. Can you drop some in? - Mgm| (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Mindhaving alook at Talk:Cow fighting? Circeus 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't look at the history beforehand. -- Fang Aili talk 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping you might offer some advice on an old issue revolving around disambiguation and Concordia University in Montreal. You may recall that in March 2005 you determined: "It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved." The matter seemed to have laid dormant until last week when a Uac1530 took it upon him or herself to make the change unilaterally. I have expressed my opposition on the Talk:Concordia University (Montreal) page (the resulting discussion is featured in numbers 16 through 18 nof the table of contents. My question is twofold: Should I request arbitration - or is this even necessary as the matter has already been discussed and a decision rendered. I might add that while I have no objection to a reopening of the debate, I disagree with the unilateral nature of the change. Admitting that I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia, I wonder whether this move follows policy.-- Victoriagirl 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I notice you updating captions for the pictures of the day. Please keep in mind that if you do so, then please copy the changes to the text and column versions too. You can get links to them from Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 2006. Thanks! howch e ng { chat} 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
And you moved it back because I acted unilaterally. Fine.
I think it makes much more sense, what I did. How do I go about getting it changed? What are the proper channels? I read the policies connected to it and I thought I was following the rules.
Hi Violetriga,
Someone's added an s to the ITN snippet about the World Cup again, but I think it was done without consulting the debate, so is probably just a mistake. Please could you correct it. Cheers — SteveRwanda 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response.
-- Uac1530 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested to know the article we worked on, " Winston tastes good like a cigarette should," has been promoted to good article status after just one day. Thanks for contributing to a job well done! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[1]. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC).
You say "needs to be discussed." Yet you reverted, without (much) discussion. Why? -- WikiFair1 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
what does transcluding mean? let me guess first.. is it the practice of substituting it with the {{subst tag? if so, well i actually did it in courtesy because the source code for my sig was too long, so that i dont add a whole bunch of code to every page i sign. if the latter is actually better etiquette, i think ill change back to the old way of lumping the whole text in there.
an added advantage of substituting it is that if i change the signature, its updated on all the pages i've signed.
11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If you remove an item (I do not think it's a good practice), please put it back in the list of nominees so it can be selected again, not really fair to an item to be there for only 45 min or whatever.. Maybe you did in this case and I missed it, just thought i'd mention it. thanks! ++ Lar: t/ c 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
(I prefer to stay threaded, refactored)
How do you report a stalker? User:JackLumber seems to pop up on votes to do with AmE vs. Be just after I turn up. Jooler 14:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you got caught up in an edit war while trying to help. If you're interested, here's my "personal rules" I mentioned over there. Cheers! -- SB Johnny 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that guideline. Where is it at? Bignole
I'll say what you said to me: show me where it says that it is ok to do that? You said that it doesn't say that you can't, but it also doesn't say that you can. There are plenty of areas where it says not to remove sections of a Talk Page. Bignole 21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
You seem to keep re-posting the same Vue Cinemas article with a major part of the article ommitted and a factual error.
Firstly, you have deleted the reference to the Vista ticketing system, which is probably one of the biggest changes to cinema operation in the last 10 years.
Secondly, Harrow was the first purpose built Vue, NOT Blackburn.
Please comment??
I disagree, it was neutral and drew notice too the fact that it was controversial i.e. many customers complain about it. May I suggest that the link to the Vista corporate website be removed and not that part of the article? As I said, it's probably one of the biggest changes to cinema operations in the last 10 years.
I don't have a source though I may be able to find one. It opened last year I believe and was the first site to use the Vista system, you can tell this from visiting the cinema itself in that it doesn;t actually have a spearate box office. The easiest source I can think of would be internal communications (I work for Vue) though these are obviously confidential.
I'm looking into confirmation now, we may have a press release somewhere. Blackburn is very incorrect. Before they open theres still Cleveleys opening in about 3 weeks.
You're both right about Harrow. It was owned by Vue as it was originally a Warner Village site. It was then the first to be re-furbished to Vue's latest design ideas, mainly to incorporate a smaller box office as they would be using the Vista system to sell tickets from the concession stand. Blackburn is the first site they have built from scratch.
Greatly enjoyed the new article. You come up with the most interesting DYK's (I remember the one with the polydactyly x-ray). Thanks for the contribs -- Samir धर्म 11:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
At least one. (And I liked Footprint too.) — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The -re spellers lost (in the sense of making it unavailable in the conventional way) the Talk archive. You might be able to make some useful suggestions there on what to do about this. It may (or may not) be little tricky since the most recent version of the archive was a version made after Dramatic's attempt to archive There are some details about how this came about at the current Talk page. W.C. 19:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the archiving help, Violet! W.C. 19:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
On the fighting game page, you reverted my revert regarding the inclusion of the information about Perfects. I'm not sure you realized that this page is more to discuss the difference between beat 'em ups and versus fighting games (see the talk page to see the confusion and why this page was necessary over a standard DAB). If you feel that Perfect needs to be in the Wikipedia but not on its own article (as combo (computer and video games), finishing move and shoryuken are), I believe this information should be moved to the versus fighting game page or to the Wiktionary appendix. What do you think? -- SevereTireDamage 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Peta 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Syrthiss 13:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you're the one who wrote a lot of the Birth weight article. Can you please respond on Talk:Birth weight? - anon 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Violetriga, Thanks for your note about Secret Passages and Book Safes. I just wanted you to know that there are a few more historical examples of secret passages now. NatMor 14:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, All the info is from the internet. I will start going back and adding the references (good suggestion) NatMor 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Scott eiπ 23:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Where dose it belong then he blinking built it it is his creation.-- Lucy-marie 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not blanket revert due to your opinion not liking something please initate a discussion about hthe topic and see the merge proposal discussion.-- Lucy-marie 08:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Another brilliant one. Great little story and tag line. -- Samir धर्म 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have been editing a page for Baltimore Lutheran School, and the page has been getting a lot of vandalism, I think from the same source. The current vandalism was by user Uber trampoline. I am pretty sure he is the same as Pastor Satan and is a student (or students) at the school. They are putting up comments about students and teachers.
Is there anything that can be done about this/ blocking them, freezing the page, etc.? User:Uac1530 04:11, 8 August 2006
Hi, thanks for your edit on unfinshed buildings mentioned at the arch wikiproject. I think it's got potential. Unfortunately I've had to revert your edit on Enric Miralles because although it wasn't finished at his death - his passing did not stop construction and it's now open - so doesn't really fit the description you've given of an unfinished building (unfinished and not likely to be finished). Hope this is ok. regards -- Mcginnly | Natter 23:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have addressed your concerns on the Summer of '42 FAC debate in re: citations and footnoting. I respectfully request that you reconsider your object vote now that the problem has been fixed. Mistergrind 20:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I just always thought it was 'labeled' because someone used 'labelled' in the Model Minority article and it was edited out. Plus, when you look it up on dictionary.com, 'labelled' doesn't exist. Why sigh, cutie pie? 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You have Sagrada Familia already - the only other buildings I can think of are churches that just took a long time to finish: Washington National Cathedral took 83 years, the Cologne Cathedral took over 600. Chicago has had a LOT of proposed skyscrapers that were never built, like Frank Lloyd Wright's mile-high tower The Illinois, and a 2,000 foot tall broadcast tower proposal [2]. And doing a quick check, it would appear that at least two of Ludwig II of Bavaria's castles were left incompleted, including Neuschwanstein, probably the most famous. Oh, and I just found a page of unfinished buildings for the Dallas, Texas area: [3].
Hi - We met on this site an hour ago. I just became an editor on Wikipedia so please accept my apologies if I do not yet fully understand all the procedures and rules. The reason I became an editor is that I was looking up something on the 2012 Olympics and I thought the articles were both very disorganised and you can almost feel a real battle running through every section. I never seen anything like it on Wikipedia. I am neither French or British, so I try to be neutral.
My understanding is that there is one single major thread, called the "2012 Summer Olympics". This has a number of sub-sections, eg London 2012 Olympic Bid, 2012 Summer Olympic Development, 2012 Summer Olympic Venues, etc...
Now, there are a number of problems with all of them, but let me start with "London 2012 Olympic Bid", where I have two main issues:
- Most of the section is written in the past tense, eg: "The 2012 Olympics were planned to use a mixture of newly built venues, existing facilities, and temporary facilities, some of them in well known locations such as Hyde Park and Horse Guards Parade. In the wake of the problems that plagued the Millennium Dome, the intention was that there would be no white elephants after the games." The past tense indicates that this was the bid and that current plans may be different, as a result of events since the bid was formally accepted by the IOC (6 JUly 2005). Until here I have no issue because for that reason there is the section called "2012 Summer Olympic Development". Where I do have an issue is that it does go on discussing a selective number of events following the acceptance of the bid by the IOC, but only negative ones. If one wanted to be consistent, one would have to expand on many more aspects of the bid. For instance, regarding the comment about the avoidance of white elephants above, one could expand and explain the changes that have been made to that aim and the positive reception by the IOC of these changes. Alternatively, one could limit this whole section to be a factual past tense description of the bid itself (up to the acceptance by the IOC), without divulging in any posterior events. These can be part of the other section "2012 Summer Olympic Development"
- The summary overview on the top right of the page has a section called "Decision". What does the 2004 IOC score (as part of the INITIAL IOC evaluation) have to do with this? Same goes for the comment below it. This is all output from the INITIAL evaluation (in which London fared badly) and not of the FINAL evaluation, which was much more positive on London. Anyway, the way it is posted here, will be read by anybody who is not fully familiar with the selection procedure as: "London won from Paris despite having a much worse IOC score and more precisely scoring poorly in the categories of transport, government support, legal issues and public opinion." If the point is to prove the IOC is an illogical or corrupt organization, then it certainly achives its goal but I hope you agree the facts are presented in a very mislaeading way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 August 2006, please sign your posts
---> Before I spend any time on it and waste anybody else's time on reverting it, I'ld like to explain in more detail how I would improve it.
1. Delete the pargraph starting with "The celebrations were somewhat silenced the following day (7 July 2005) when the city suffered from a terrorist attack." Instead we should have a complete section on these terrorist attacks and the subsequent terrorist attempst in the "2012 Summer Olympic Development" article. There is more to say to these attacks than that they spoilt the fun of a celebration. They have an impact on the financials, the venues, some of the side-events, etc. In any case this paragraph has nothing to do with the subject of this article which is about the bid. It has a lot of relevancy for London 2012, but bringing it up in the article about the details of the bid is only possible if every other subsequent event that is relevant for London 2012 is mentioned here(and we alternate between past and present tense when describing the details of the bid), and for that reason I guess these is the "2012 Summer Olympic Development" article.
2. I would also move the following paragraph to the same article. I already tried to improve it a bit but it remains in the wrong section here.
3. The evaluation reports. Right now there is a reference to the initial evaluation report in the top right box (where it really does not below) and there is a summary of the final evaluation report at the end of the article. Firstly it is strange to have them in two different locations in the same article, secondly the average reader will not know that there are two reports and will be confused noticing the conflictual content (or worse, mislead if he does not read the full artcile), thirdly I think they belong in the article about the 2012 Summer Olympics bid process. Here you do have a section "bid evaluations", but which is still very much incomplete.
I think the problem in general is that there are quite a few articles about the different aspects of the 2012 Olympics and that they still overlap. Not necessarily a problem, if it weren't that a lot of it is conflictual. Also, the articles do not cross reference to each other is a systematic way. On the 2012 Summer Olympic Development article there is a good cross-link box in the right hand top, but nowhere else. JGG 12:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Another great idea for an article. Enjoyed the read. I wonder if Montreal's Olympic Stadium is an unfinished building? It's Canada's national architectural disaster: had a tower that was supposed to support a retractable roof, but the tower took > 10 years to build and the roof was never functionally installed. Will try to find out more. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that I don't trust you, but I've always heard everyone say "the Ukraine", and reading it without the "the" sounds a bit odd. I just wanna know why it's more correct without "the" ? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. -- Merovingian - Talk 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I contributed the Science and philosophy section to your excellent Unfinished work article. I noticed you made some modifications, which I pseudo-reverted, and which you then reverted again as mere "style changes." Presumably you don't like American spellings. I can deal with that; it's your article. But while I understand the spirit in which a different change is intended--that of maintaining an encyclopedic tone--I think to modify the part about the architecture described in the First Draft as influencing all modern computer systems to remove the word "all" misses the point being made. All modern computer systems use a heirarchy of memories; all modern computer systems store instructions as they do data. No computer was ever again built like the ENIAC. Every computer uses the architecture described in the First Draft. This is precisely what makes it the most influential document in computer science (another deserved superlative, which you wisely chose to retain). All the best, Robert K S 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your comments on my drawing board suggestion. I start a user subpage to get down the basics before submitting it to the main article space. I would very much appreciate it, if you could make a small contribution to the article. I've listed a few ideas on the related talk page on what to include. If you have any more,please add to the list. - Mgm| (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, not that it really means much, considering he's sorta a little annoying bug always in the wrong. It's been a long time since I've seen you around...hope things have been going well since last we spoke (like 18 months ago). — ExplorerCDT 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you consider hopping in on this...I've referred it to RfC. — ExplorerCDT 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Violetriga, I just want you to know that I appreciate your comment on my talk page. I hope to work more on "Unfinished work" in the future. -- Alex S 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello.
I believe on the 17th of September, you added a description of "Fetus in Fetu" to the Parasitic twin page:
"Fetus in fetu describes an extremely rare abnormality that involves a fetus getting trapped inside of its twin. It continues to survive as a parasite even past birth until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene. Invariably the parasitic fetus is anencephalic (without a brain) and lacks internal organs, and as such is unable to survive on its own."
And from an ABC News article:
"A Mutated Body Within a Body
At first glance, it may look as if Bhagat had given birth. Actually, Mehta had removed the mutated body of Bhagat's twin brother from his stomach. Bhagat, they discovered, had one of the world's most bizarre medical conditions — fetus in fetu. It is an extremely rare abnormality that occurs when a fetus gets trapped inside its twin. The trapped fetus can survive as a parasite even past birth by forming an umbilical cordlike structure that leaches its twin's blood supply until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene."
The umbilical note was added here.
I thought this was all pretty interesting.
Cheers, -- AquaRichy 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This has been noted here [4]. As you can see, I mistakenly thought that others had written this paragraph (because of restorations from blanking), but another commentator on that blog correctly identified you as the author who was not attributed. -- Douglas Jardine 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've slaved away and added to the controversy section again by discussing Grange Hill. I think we can discuss different types of programmes albeit briefly before we have to think about splitting stuff out. (I've started that with the controversy bit, I'd say!). I think we should cover Newsround too as it's an important part of children's tv, before they launched Sportsround and Newsround Extra, I don't remember any other programme covering news for kids in the UK. Can you?
Also, if we are gonna cover educational programmes for young kids: Bob the Builder, Teletubbies and such, is there any programme I didn't think of you'd like to see covered in such a section? - Mgm| (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I've struck out "oldest programme" from the to do list. For the Children is the oldest UK children's TV programme, because BBC had a monopoly at the time before ITV came onto the scene as covered in the 1950s source I used. No other channels could have qualified for an older programme and I remember this being called the oldest in Blue Peter too. - Mgm| (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this was an innapropriate use of admin rollback. The other editor gave their reasoning in the edit summary and it was a good faith edit. Using rollback to revert that is abuse of the tool which is meant of vandalism only. Patience is the key, if it's supposed to be added back it will be. If not, improve it further and try again later. - Taxman Talk 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
A bit bulky, but otherwise great. I had a go with that before on another article and failed miserably in learning the syntax. I've seen it used on a JFK assasination article and I think it was nicely small-ified. If you can drop its size a few notches, it will definitely be a welcome addition. Also, the site I have listed under unused BBC sources has some nice timelines... - Mgm| (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your comments. My reply can be found here WP:ER#User:Deon555. Thanks. -- D e on555 talk Review 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again violetriga,
Yikes! Here's hoping the above is tongue-in-cheek, as my impression is that if Wikipedia has any unchanging traditions, it's that anything may be reconsidered in the light of experience, new information, fresh observation, etc... I'd say the cut and thrust over what appears on and what's removed from "Unusual articles" indicates that some folk find some articles' topics unusual, others quirky, others amusing, etc. Best wishes, David Kernow 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is gold!! Nice article! -- Samir धर्म 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I would have preferred a little less boldness and more discussion before renaming. -- Arktos talk 10:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-- Mgm| (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's a smile for your work on the History of British children's television (especially that timeline which I know I'd struggle with). Keep up the good work.
Mgm| (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{ subst:smile}}, {{ subst:smile2}} or {{ subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Mgm| (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I apologize; I recalled the Style Guide incorrectly. Out of curiousity, though, how would the article be considered a British topic? The majority of the examples are of Americans.-- Daveswagon 17:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Great article from start, doesn't need stubs or references. I tinkered with categories. Electrawn 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Great article, enjoyed the read! -- Samir धर्म 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Oddball Barnstar | ||
I award Violetriga this barnstar for documenting microphone gaffes, mobile phone throwings and unfinished buildings! -- Gurubrahma 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
Hi, the articles were a rollicking read!! You may be interested in having a look at
Siamese twins (English language),
titsup.com or
Arbit Choudhury. --
Gurubrahma
07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Quite interesting. It's come up in municipal discussions in Canada also. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the contribution -- Samir धर्म 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I just thought it'd be polite of me to drop by and say a word of thanks after helping myself to bits of your colour scheme and page layout without asking! Hope you don't mind; if it's too severe a case of plagiarism then I'll make some changes. Yeah, I know, I should spend more time reading articles instead of browsing user pages, but they're often just so interesting... :)
—
Chris (
blather •
contribs)
15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The DYK Medal | ||
I, MacGyverMagic, hereby award you a DYK Medal for providing the "Did you know section" with so many excellent facts from odd-ball articles. Mgm| (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
Can I ask why you don't believe you can tell a pregnancy at 5mm to be so??? As an obstetrical sonographer for 25 years I'm always surprised by the "knowledge" of the lay folks in medicine.
Anecdotally, I was able to tell that my wife was pregnant before she missed her first period !!! The generally accepted criteria for pregnancy is the documentation of embryonic cardiac activity and by TVS (transvaginal sonography) that is usually when the embryo is 11mm in length. I have seen 5-8mm echos that have turned out to be a baby and I've seen echoes that have turned out to be monozygotic twins, I've seen coexhistant intrauterine and ectopic pregnancies and I've seen 5mm echoes that were just the byproducts of conception. While the establisment of the intrauterine fluid sac alone may suggest pregnancy, and some echoes may turn out to be a baby, other diagnostic possibilities exhist, close examination by a reputable investagator is advisable IMHO. oh yeah... and I agree the bit about 5mmm is off the central point and I'd leave it out too.
Mark Lawson, RDMS Lubbock Texas Lawson2k@sbcglobal.net
I'm sorry if you're offended, but I don't step back from my opinion about it. Please don't take it personally. Tony 11:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that some categories that you have created have been placed up for deletion here. If you still have an interest in these categories, please come and give input, pro or con, to the discussion. - TexasAndroid 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Violetriga. I've asked a question on Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo that you may be able to answer. Hoping to solve the mystery! - Nunh-huh 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a real shame the sentence itself isn't factual, so the DYK blurb could have just been Did You Know...
Now that would have been the best thing ever. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Have some buffalo for such a fabulous article! -- Samir धर्म 10:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
My god! You unleashed a monster upon Wikipedia! My Peter and Jane was almost completely ignored! But at least someone saw fit to create Janet and John to keep it company. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know your reasons for thinking why, if someone typed in " animated feature", they'd be looking for a general article on what animation is rather than an article which explains what an animated feature is AND gives a list of them. Esn 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
PLoS Medicine has published several papers dealing with this topic. Here's one to start: What Are the Public Health Effects of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising? http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030145
You can also search for "advertising" and you will get a whole list of relevant articles.
Cheers.
Hi. I noticed you unblocked User:217.33.74.20 the other day after my 3 hour block, with the comment "shared ip: block too long". I am fairly new to this and am sorry if I got it wrong. Given that this school IP has a long track record of vandalism (I have jsut given them another final warning for continued vandalism, which was how I saw your unblock), I wonder what length of block you would regard as appropriate, assuming another one needs to be done. Thanks. -- Guinnog 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/ Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. — Mets501 ( talk) 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Howdy, I've overhauled Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) based on a 2nd round of feedback. Possibly it's complete and ready now?
The only thing I forsee as being potentially contentious is the chronological ordering of filmographies, but I still suspect (hope) a supermajority will quickly emerge, once put to wider discussion, favouring consistency and traditional listing standards.
Feedback (at it's talkpage) or improvements welcome :-) -- Quiddity 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
FYI, that article wasn't a neologism, although it was probably a dicdef. [6], [7], Residency_(medicine)#History_of_long_hours