This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2008, March Information

(X-Posted) Hey there, I see you added back Category:Transportation in Nashville, Tennessee to Tennessee State Route 840. Frankly, your edit summary makes no sense...yes, it affects traffic in and around Nashville, but it also affects traffic in certain ways to all the cities and towns in the state, as all major interstates and highways do nationwide. The category is normally intended for those items that are actually in the city. It isn't a big deal, but I prefer accuracy, and to me this is like putting Murfreesboro, Tennessee inside Category:Nashville, Tennessee or Category:Davidson County, Tennessee because "hey, Murfreesboro is little more than a bedroom community for Nashville!" ;) — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems more like putting Murfreesboro in a Nashville suburbs category, which would be in the Nashville category. The real problem is that the category is misnamed; it should probably be Nashville area transportation. -- NE2 05:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Well yes, but I was speaking literally given the categories already established. While you might see about having the category changed, the norm as seen at Category:Transportation in the United States by city indicates that it is most properly by city or county rather than region. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 08:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The first one I tried, Category:Transportation in Boston, Massachusetts, includes Route 128, Boston's beltway that doesn't enter it at all. -- NE2 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the Special:ExpandTemplates tip. TJRC ( talk) 23:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my change, even after 9000 edits I'm still learning (I guess that is what I get for not doing much article writing). BJ ^Talk 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Heh, not a problem. However, you removed the "Cited" and "General" headers again. In my mind, these are needed specifically for the names of their titles...cited references are specifically referred to in the article body, whereas general references are not. No, they are not required since the cited ones refer back to the article body, but it does help in differentiating. If you have questions regarding citations, feel free to let me know. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to be snotty in your edit summaries. You simply put "formatting" or "minor." Your edit here was uncalled for and unnecessarily rude. The removal, or non-removal, affected nothing. A simple notation of "minor" would have sufficed. KellyAna ( talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I wasn't aware that my edit summary was either snotty or rude. I simply like bringing a little levity to what is otherwise a very droll thing. I'm sorry that you interpreted it as such, but no, it was not intended that way. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 02:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you explaining your thoughts. My apologies if I took them in a way they were not intended. As I'm sure you are most aware, it's often times hard to communicate humour over the internet and mistakes sometimes occur. I know we can move past this little misunderstanding. Thank you for taking the time to reply. KellyAna ( talk) 02:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Huntster, I'm kind of new at this :) Could you please help me with how to change the article name? Do I just copy paste the entire article into the new page? Also, is there a way to keep the discussions page? We have to include a printout of the discussions page when we turn in our assignment. Thank you! ~ Leila —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.129.68 ( talk) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: See replies and continuation at Talk:University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Facility#Moving the page.

If you ever call me a liar again you will be immediately reported for incivility. I will NOT stand for anyone calling me a liar. IrishLass ( talk) 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted from Talk:Charmed) And I rather take offense at you saying I accused you of something I did not, leaving a message on my talk page to that effect. If you have a problem with a discussion here, leave the message here. I was specifically referring to the "List of women warriors..." and "List of action heroes" links which you *did* add to Xena, and you did add the entire See also section to the series article. That is all I was speaking off. I never accused you of lying, just that it probably wasn't a good idea to use those specific examples above! I don't accuse people of lying unless I am damn sure they are, and I know you aren't lying...there was nothing to lie about. Now, if there is an issue I'm not seeing, please address that, but do not make such extraordinary accusations. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I really don't know what is going on here....

It's simple. You said I added the lists to articles to support my argument. This equates to you stating I falsified articles in order to "be right" which is not the truth and you accusing me of doing so is effectively calling me a liar. I am not a liar. I did not create lists where none existed. I added to existing lists. I did, however, mix up the two Xena articles during my copying but I did not falsify articles by adding lists. The articles I listed had "see also" sections. I did not create them just to win an argument. Saying I did is calling me a liar. It's that simple. IrishLass ( talk) 18:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

*headdesk* I never said any such thing. I said using those articles as examples for your argument might not have been the best thing; I did not say that you intentionally included them expressly to win the argument. You are a good editor, and I would not accuse you of trying to subvert something when you obviously weren't. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously implicatins of being called a liar hit a nerve. My apologies for jumping. It strikes a cord that goes back many years. I apologize if I took your words the wrong way. IrishLass ( talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem, and I too apologise if what I said gave the wrong impression. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Given that IrishLass and KellyAna (author of above "Formatting edits" section) were blocked for being apparent puppet master and puppet, respectively, it isn't hard to see the similarities in editing style and feelings of incivility. IrishLass's attitude was the reason I stopped dealing with the Charmed article series.

Thank you for fixing up our references section! Weilingz ( talk) 04:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2008, April Information

As someone previously involved in a discussion re this issue, I would appreciate your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Release_dates_listed_pre-release. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I recently added some info to an article about an actress called Lori Rom. Would you mind editing it? Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Rom. Thank! Neptunekh ( talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i've re-added the flagicon back into the infobox on the H2O: Just Add Water article. The use of flagicons in infoboxes on wikipedia articles is standard practice. Furthermore, they are in no way against wikipedia policy. Thanks and have a nice night :-) TheProf - T / C 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

From what i've seen in my wiki-travels, the general consensus on flagicons is that they are preferred in infoboxes and unwelcome outside them. And i've never seen an admin remove one from an infobox. A good example of what i'm saying is at Doctor Who. Because this is a popular TV show worldwide, it gets a lot of interest on wikipedia. Most of the pages main editors are administrators, and they have never removed the flagicon from the infobox. In addition, i would read WP:MOSFLAG#Help the reader rather than decorate as a ruling not to have flagicons willynilly, and compress them to certain areas (like infoboxes). Anyway, you're right, it's not something worth getting wiki-stress levels up for! Thanks for your co-operation and patience :-) And have a nice day! TheProf - T / C 12:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

TheProf - T / C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

It seems the flag icon on Doctor Who is now in dispute. Not yet by an administrator, just a normal user. It seems you are not alone in your views. I'll let you know how it pans out. TheProf - T / C 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Unable to pull full discussion due to user request to delete User-space pages.

Hi. Can i have the reason for reversing my edits?? Evanescence's album has sold 1.9M in the US(only platinum RIAA certification) and there's source for that. Plus, there's no data for Turkish sales (there's not even an official chart) and ww sales of "Open Door" were over 4 M but didn't reach 5million copies. Also the first album of Evanescence didn't sell 110,000 copies (lol this is impossible for an international act) but it was certified 2xplatinum by IFPI. Finally, "Fallen" has sold over 13 million copies and not 15M. Thank you :-)-- Chronisgr ( talk) 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give me the source of turkish sales and where did u find that Open Door sold 2.1 m in US and 5 million ww??-- Chronisgr ( talk) 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Do not remove valid chart data when sources are provided, as you did to " Sweet Sacrifice" and " Good Enough", as it is considered vandalism. Both articles had sources attached for the respective numbers, and you provided no reason for removing them in the first place.

Now, to answer the questions you left on my talk page. First, the Turkish figure came from the source provided with it, namely an issue of Billboard Turkiye. Second, for The Open Door, I do not know where the U.S. figure of 2.1 million came from; I apologise for reverting that change earlier, so feel free to change it back to 1.9 per the album article. As for the 5 million worldwide, I presume it came from the source attached to it, listed as accessed in late 2007. I would *not* change that, because we must assume the source is correct as of the date provided. I watch the page and always try to remove information that is unsourced.

Anyway, the primary issue is that you are replacing unsourced information with additional unsourced information, which makes it no more correct than the information you are replacing. If you are getting your information from somewhere, then provide that source. I'd be more than willing to help you format citations and/or the data itself, but please do not simply throw numbers out there and claim it is correct. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 04:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry then. Here is a source for OPEN DOOR US & WW sales: http://www.evanescence.com/bio.asp

And where is the source for OPEN DOOR sales in Turkey? Greets-- Chronisgr ( talk) 15:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference about Judica Cordiglia brothers in Yuri Gagarin article?-- Dejudicibus ( talk) 17:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hi, I removed them because, to my eye, it is mostly speculative in nature and relies strictly on the brothers' claims of factuality (despite the recordings). As far as I've seen after dealing with this Cordiglia thing popping up in various places recently, there doesn't exist much of anything else to support their claims, and certainly nothing official. I am not suggesting they are wrong or lying or anything else, but to challenge an event that can be proven with one that has not (and likely cannot, unless the Russian gov't decides to release records) is remiss. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, apart that I heard their tapes, they are considered really reliable in Italy. The problem is that Soviet Union could not admit failures in that period, and today the new nationalistic mindset of Russia does not help to discover the truth. We have testimonials in Italy of soviet cosmonauts disappeared from official photographs. Also USA did not like very much the idea that the two brothers discovered the secret frequency of Explorer I. I think that you should reconsider your position, maybe rephrasing the paragraph, if you like, to give evidence to the difficulties to understand what really happened, but the tapes of the two brothers are very clear. I heard the most impressive one, that one of the first female cosmonaut burning while reentering in the atmosphere.-- Dejudicibus ( talk) 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I fully understand and appreciate what you are saying, but it doesn't change the that their evidence is entirely their own and not supported by any other material as far as I can tell. That's the problem with any conspiracy theory, whether entirely fake or entirely real (and I do suspect this situation is real)...unless solid supporting evidence can be located or is given up by the government in question, it can only be considered here-say. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand your point and I respect it. You are right: they are the only ones who recordered those voices. Unless Russian Government will decide to apply some glasnost to that mistery, we will never know the truth. I am just sad to think that those women and men have been heros and nobody will remind of their names. In Italy (really Latin), we use the term damnatio memoriæ (erasing of memory).-- Dejudicibus ( talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I absolutely agree, fully. It is always sad when those lost cannot be remembered. That is one reason I've always been so proud of the transparency in which the U.S. space program has operated, and how, years later, we have departments actively searching for the remains of those soldiers missing and lost in action from previous wars. Everyone deserves to be remembered...let's just hope that those Cosmonauts, if they existed, will someday become known. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 22:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your help setting up WP:INVESTMENT. I'm really excited to see things gaining traction. For example our current collaboration is actually being collaborated on. I'm new at using templates so your help with the banner is definitely appreciated. Greg Comlish ( talk) 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Not a problem at all, and I wish the project great prosperity. As I mentioned on the project talk page, should template assistance ever be needed in the future, just let me know. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 21:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

well, it's official and valid "sweet sacrifice"s 11th place in the lists. the site of billboard turkey only lists the top 20 of the week, but well with their monthly magazines, you can easily see their TRUE 11th! i hope, you will not again erase it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Irregardless of whether it is true or not, Wikipedia works off Verifiability. If it cannot be proven through sources, it should not be included on the website. Please do not readd this again without a valid source, namely one that actually states facts about the single. This can be a website, magazine, or most anything else. I'd be more than happy to help you determine what is and isn't a valid source, but you *must* have something. Similar to this, I'm likely going to remove the other charts, since they too don't list any sort of source. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 01:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

yes you can be right about the sources and not me but anybody can right wahtever his/her wants ok i agree BUT i didn't get outta my head the chart poisiton, i saw it and it's 11th and it seems funny if you still want to assure me. if you say that i put maybe 1st or 2nd and rechange all the lists yes you were right, but sources always changing and they do NOT mean that x song hasn't succed in x countries official song. that's wrong for me and i will do what it's for me right. and don't forget, all the lists all the songs are changing and it's undercontrallable at some point. i didn't say because i'm near you opinons against, as i said before yes you're right, but again i'm telling you that you HAVE TO be against the ones who changes ALL the chart poisitons with the new HIGH ONES! Not the ones who imports the RIGHT POSITIONS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula ( talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 April 2008

(X-Posted) I mean no disrespect, but I couldn't understand some of what you wrote. The fact is, I'm against virtually anything that is not accompanied by a source, or that is readily apparent to others (such as which television series). A statistic such as a chart position doesn't meet that last point, and thus needs a source. You say it can be found in a magazine...why not use that magazine as the source (provided you specify issue number and date of publication)? — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 01:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

well could you really offer me some way to put a photo of the position :) if you really want i will take its photo and upload to one of the photo sites but really funny. with a meanfully of no disrespection. as i said before i agree with you but you have to seperate the people who is serious and who is not. and it's really easy with the page history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 April 2008

(X-Posted) That's the problem, though. We cannot say to one editor, "Oh, your edit is not backed up by any evidence of proof but we'll keep it because we trust you"; but then say to another, "Sorry, your edit isn't backed up either, and we're deleting it." I hope you can understand where I'm coming from here...it is fairly discriminatory to allow one thing but disallow another, when both are based on nothing but the word of the editor alone.

I'm not asking you to take a picture of the magazine, but to simply provide the title, publication number, date (or month/year) of publication, and anything else relevant to it (basically, we want to fill in as many of the blanks at {{ Cite journal}} as possible). And as I said above, I'll likely be removing the entire section of chart material since none have references, except yours, possibly. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 01:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

ok. i looked down and "July 2007/9th magazine of billboard türkiye" you can edit the referance link with this. July 2007- Billboard Türkiye. is it okey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 April 2008

(De-indent; X-Posted) Yes, that is great information. If you can fill in the blanks in the following template, that would be even better:

{{cite journal |title= |journal=Billboard Türkiye |publisher= |location= |month=July |year=2007 |volume= |issue=9 |pages= |issn=1307-0959}}

Title is the article name or section name; Location is the physical location of the magazine publisher, but this is not very important; Volume typically relates to the year of publication, but it may be that Billboard Turkiye does not use this; Pages is just the page number or numbers that the info is found on. Thanks! — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:) well done! your template is really over-quality and sorry for being so much childish :) i editted the page number it's 92. and you wrote "weekly top 20" so i do not really know the volume. so that's it :) isnt' it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 April 2008

(X-Posted) Yes, that is all the information that is really needed for a citation. It will allow someone who really wants to confirm the information to look it up themselves. As for the title, I just wrote "Weekly Top 20" as a placeholder, since I had to put something there. If you know the proper title of the article or section, or can put something more appropriate there, please do so. Cheers! — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

i wrote "yabancı şarkı" instead of weekly top 20,they're both same, yabancı şarkı means foreign song in which means the same but i changed to make excellent ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triancula ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 April 2008

(X-Posted) Excellent! Thank you for working with me on this. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 03:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The crucifix sign was placed, because he is deceased, but if you say its place looks to be improper I do not insist about it at all. I really thank all of You that assisted in this complicated case. I will say again, I respect the User:Attilios work and I would never raise that problem,if I didn't feel myself abused. And about my work I can guarantee, that I would never do such kind of thing to any other user. I have edited some articles, but I have always respected the work of the users before me, and if I do more than typos edit I always inform what and why I am doing in the talk page of the author or the last major contributor and editor of the article. Drjmarkov ( talk) 08:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: this is an extension of a discussion on Talk:Giuseppe Firrao, Jr.

I have lowered the protection level on the page. You should be able to post your change now. I would ask that you watchlist the page, though. The price of lower protection is that we have to get more people to watch the changes being made to it. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Regarding this, thank you for lowering protection, I'll apply changes shortly if one of you wishes to re-protect. In any case, I do have this watchlisted, so I'll catch any inappropriate-ness. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 06:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For working hard on a template that was for use on another Wikipedia and not your home one, for correcting my mistakes when trying to make it. Micro chip  08 15:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks for the barnstar Microchip, I appreciate it :) — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 15:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

X-Posted Hey Fuzzy, am I guessing correctly that you don't care for the new {{ Wicca portal}} template either? If this is the case, I will probably go and revert those changes as unnecessary...the template itself is nothing more than the existing Portalpar template with the Triple Goddess symbol included. If you peeked at his contributions, he apparently went template crazy with more than just Wicca. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 06:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I don't approve of the new template, not just because it's an unnecessary code clutter for a minor improvement, but because it's not actually an improvement. Portals are a special feature of Wikipedia which exist for a number of subjects, and that little jigsaw-piece icon is their established symbol. If we disguise it as something else (turn it into eye candy), it makes navigation more difficult for our readers.

Sometimes conventions are good, and I don't think we need to change things just because we can. If you open the Encyclopedia Britannica to the entry on Wicca, you don't find glitter and pictures of fairies glued all over the page, do you?

By the way, thanks for being such a dependable editor. There are so few like you in this area of interest... Fuzzypeg ★ 04:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving Civil Air Patrol/sandbox History of Civil Air Patrol to my userspace. I'd like to work on it some more there, and besides that it doesn't belong as-is in the mainspace. Just an fyi. I'm still trying to work on bringing Civil Air Patrol back to featured status. It appears to be just you and me working on it now that VigilancePrime has been indefinitely blocked. —   scetoaux ( T| C) 02:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to go ahead, be very bold, and move the page again to mainspace as an actual article, remove the entire section from the main Civil Air Patrol article, and fix to make a small section that sums everything up. —   scetoaux ( T| C) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey, thanks for dropping me a line. It definitely still needs some work, mainly along the lines of expansion of post-WWII material. It is a start, though. I just wish we had some varied sources. Now, I had no idea that VigilancePrime had been blocked. Considering the reason for blocking, I'm more than a little concerned over the possibility that he might be working within the program with children. But, I suppose that's neither here nor there. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 03:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)