User talk:Eraserhead1/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Welcome

Hi Eraserhead1/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for joining the coolest online encyclopedia I know of. I hope you stick around. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. Check out the simplified ruleset. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.

  1. Write from a neutral point of view
  2. Be bold in editing pages
  3. Use wikiquette.

Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing 4 tildes like ~~~~. Always sign the talk page, never the articles.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

6yd proposed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, 6yd, has been proposed for deletion. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

If you created these images, since they don't show any of the actual software, only a graph, you should change the copyright to a free copyright like GFDL. If you didn't create them, they will most likely have to be deleted as nonfree images that could be replaced by free images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


I've released them into the public domain Eraserhead1 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Style note

Hi. I have a small style note. On Wikipedia, one should use lowercase in section headings, so for example, 

 ==Vector defintion==

instead of 

 ==Vector Definition==

This is a small thing, but I thought I'd let you know. See also the style manual. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unix diagramm

Please don't delete Jean-Baptiste Campesato's diagramm but create another picture. Indeed your diagramme contains some errors: Where is Unix ? Is it died in 1969? OpenSolaris is not a successor to Solaris There is no link between Minix and Linux Unics didn't exist... It was first called something like "Ken's new system" Thanks.

--See Image_talk:Unix_history-simple.svg for responses.


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:IPod Touch 1.1.3 New Apps.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IPod Touch 1.1.3 New Apps.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:IPod Touch 1.1.3 New Apps.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:IPod Touch 1.1.3 New Apps.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of 9 to 5 Mac

A tag has been placed on 9 to 5 Mac requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Mac Rumors Homepage.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mac Rumors Homepage.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IPod Touch 1.1.3 New Apps.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:IPod Touch 1.1.3 New Apps.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AppleInsider Homepage.png}

Thank you for uploading Image:AppleInsider Homepage.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright information already displayed, so the tag has been removed and the bot talk page updated with the error. Eraserhead1 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Erp

Thanks, I was pondering over the move before, and I think it was a good idea. Thanks again.--Pecopteris (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

unix diagram

no problem :) i was sure i'd typed something into a summary box of changes i made but i can't find it now. talk page is more verbose anyways. -- infinity0 12:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

+689

Hello. I redirected your stub to List of country calling codes since I saw absolutely no need for this number having its own article. What would be interesting though: if you're in the know you might want to write something about the telephone system in general in French Polynesia? I guess it's French standard though. Regards, De728631 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of MacBidouille

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on MacBidouille, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because MacBidouille is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting MacBidouille, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unix history + colour-blindness

Re File:Unix history-simple.svg, yes I can make out the hue and luminance differences in the new version. I cannot speak for all colorblind and color-deficient people, but I do have a very common color vision deficiency, so it's a reasonably good indication of the image's color accessibility. Thanks for taking the effort to make it more accessible. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Unix history diagram

Why create http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.en.svg when there is already an identical file (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg) which is also in Wikimedia Commons? Eraserhead1 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply at file talk:Unix history-simple.svg#Merging_various_Unix_history_diagrams. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Job on Unix history-simple.png

Just wanted to say I really love your diagram. The only fault I could find with it is that the OS X box should probably be labeled Darwin. --SelfStudyBuddyTALK-- 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:1-over-x-plus-x.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:1-over-x-plus-x.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGatalk 05:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is reasonable - go ahead and delete it. Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes for Underground lines

I see that you have been editing LU line articles, specifically the boxes headed "London Underground's Newest Line". You might like to know of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Succession boxes for Underground lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that :). Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary deletion of new sections

EIC : Early Aspirations of Sovereignty ?

Hi eraserhead1 - Attempted to add a new section on Early Aspirations of Sovereignty in India of East India Company, under the Foothold in India Section. The entire section was summarily reversed by Fowler&Fowler - flimsy subjective grounds were given : Did the East India Company and some of its earliest Governor Generals have early aspirations of sovereignty in India ? Lets say in late 17th century ? Josia Child has been one of the earlier Governor Generals and he fought a war with Emperor Aurangzeb. He has explicitly noted his motivations for war with the Mughal emperor. Notes : Despatch Book June 9, 1686, vol 91 pp 142, 145 cited in K. N Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company, 1600-1760 Cambridge University Press, p 454 I have given serious references, but the reference has been referred to as quote ("polemical" and "flimsy paperback" by an "anthropologist") by Fowler&fowler. In my humble opinion, this is simply ridiculous patrolling of history. Imperial Historiography, a superimposition of a distorted version of Imperial history by self assigned experts Oskanpur (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've answered your question on the East India Company talk page. Eraserhead1 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of External links

I have nominated External links (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :). Eraserhead1 (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Forced Prostitution

I removed the "sex trade" category from the Forced Prostitution article because the Forced Prostitution article is already in the category of "prostitution", which in turn is a subcategory of "sex trade". Therefore, the sex trade category is redundant, as the prostitution category already covers it. Asarelah (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page for the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I got your message. I have made several changes to the Voluntary vs involuntary prostitution section from Forced prostitution. Basically, what I've done is tried to offer a clear and detailed view on the debate about whether prostitution should or should not be considered "voluntary". I've started by explaining the three classical "worldviews", abolitionism, regulation and prohibitionism (there's also a new classification of prohibitionism, abolitionism, neo-abolitionism, regulation and decriminalization, but I've used the "classical" classification). Then I went on with explaining the abolitionist point of view (that prostitution is always coerced and exploitative) and explained that such views have led to the laws from Sweden, Norway and Iceland. Then, below, I presented the pro-legalization/pro-sex workers' rights perspective (that prostitution is a free choice which should be respected) and explained that such views have led to full legalization in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand. I think that right now the article is much more balaced, and both "sides" are similar in size. So, if there are any problems, we can discuss them, before removing the tag. Skydeepblue (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. I've posted what you wrote above on the article's talk page. I'll respond in more detail there later. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Railway Station

Hi, thanks for the message, I've been trying to clear up the article. There are definately too many photos on the page, to the point where it is splitting up the text making the page look messy and making it harder to read. I added the photo of Curzon Street station because of its historic importance as the oldest station in the world, but deleted a couple that had no historic importance or particular interest to the article. What are your thoughts? Villafanuk 16:33, 27 Jan 2010.

Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Reversion

Hi there, you recently undid an edit I did to the article iPad, if you had read more carefully, you would have noted that by so doing, you restored vandalism I had reverted, namely the removal of the phrase "iTampon" from the article. I don't want to gain a reputation for vandalism when I have done no such thing. Thank you.Windward1 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad, I misread the history. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

other things called iPad

Hi, i disagree with your recent reversion. The ipad article is not a disambiguation page, we should not be listing unrelated, non-notable products on it.--Terrillja talk 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, can we discuss this on the iPad talk page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 23:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Table

Read and feel free to comment on the project page linked to in the edit summary.Cptnono (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary didn't link to the right piece on that talk page ;). I've now removed the ranking from the Institute for Peace but I've left the others in place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that! Thanks for chiming in. There still might be a way to present it but there were to many red flags that I thought removing it would be good until sorted out.
I've discussed it on the Countries talk page.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've signed your thing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

iPad - CNN/Wired Rewrite

Thanks Eraserhead1 for the rewrite of the CNN/Wired paragraph in the iPad reception section. I thought the parenthesis might not be correct, but wasn't certain of the right way to do it. It reads much better now. :) ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

iPad Edit

I made the edit the IP wanted, then removed his request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewquinn (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewquinn (talk • contribs) 20:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Memory Geometry article review / help appeal

Hello. I've created an article to try to unify several stub articles on the subject of Memory Geometry. I think it's a good companion to the DRAM page that describes the inner workings of RAM and how RAM appears to software after BIOS configuration.

I want to bring this article to the attention of the wikipedia computing project because the responses I've gotten from the editor that handled the initial review have, I feel, not been specific enough for me to correct the article, and I do think that adding the article will be a big improvement of the current hodge-podge of stubs, which I think are a disservice to the important topic.

User:TeeTylerToe/Memory Geometry

Thanks TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, the problem is that I know literally nothing about this topic, so I'm not really able to help you very much. At a glance the article looks good, except that it has no inline citations. So I think at the very least you should add those. Maybe then just stick it out in article space and see what happens, I'm happy to watch it and see if I can help further. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of App Store applications (Science)

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of App Store applications (Science), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of App Store applications (Science). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving TGV

Sorry, I promise not to do it again.--DailyWikiHelp (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

iPhone image change

No problem. It's just that we want to be as open about this as possible. HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

iPad revert

(Undid revision 346871948 by Acps110 (talk) you've just reverted my edits not the IP's :p.)

Opps! ;-) You weren't there when I started that edit. Sorry. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviews on product articles

How come links to single websites (like engadget.com) are allowed, but not to websites that gathers reviews from a bunch of websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.104.144.105 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Engadget is probably there as its a notable site - whereas the site you added isn't. However that isn't an explicit rule so if your link meets the criteria of WP:EL I suggest you discuss it on the talk page of the Nokia N900 article and then more people can consider it. You'll need to do the same for the other pages you want to add it to as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
PS I'm not totally sure the Engadget link should be there at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject iPhone OS

 Hi Eraserhead1! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your excellent edits on iPhone OS-related articles. We need your help at the iPhone OS WikiProject! There is much work to do, so please head over to the project page and help us enhance and increase the coverage of iPhone OS related articles on Wikipedia!
Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc./iOS task force
Wikipedia adsfile info – #177

NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, I wasn't exactly sure how to mention silly edits but after reading your scolding, I understand. I should probably create an account. Thanks again, 70.49.226.159 (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)BD

Yeah there are a whole series of templates for with messages like that on WP:UTM :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
We need a simple guide on this whole thing... I don't go looking for edits to revise, I just sit here reading random articles for extended periods. Tonight I started with Coca-Cola that translated into a whole series of Japan articles that moved into racketeering. How does one manage to find silly edits so quickly is something that I don't understand 70.49.226.159 (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Brian
I this case I think I found it through Special:RecentChanges, but if you have an account you also have a watchlist so you can see what people have changed on pages you are interested in :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to need a crash course on this whole being a Wikizen I think. It's been the major discouragement since I started browsing. Brian70.49.226.159 (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Stuff like those messages is pretty advanced really :), the key to begin with is to follow this. An account is good too, and then you can slowly explore the rest of the complicated stuff. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to think that I'm well beyond "Don't be a Dick", it's more the wiki "code" that I'm not familiar with. Easy things like the : for indenting etc is quickly understood, but protocol and where to find the next thing I should know is not. Anyway, I'm going to quit defacing your talk page and continue reading, other this time on the blue pages :). Thanks 70.49.226.159 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Brian
Yeah the code can be pretty tricky, the complex stuff isn't easy to explain :(. Let me know if you run into any problems later on. Enjoy Wikipedia! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good intentions...

...but please let users make their own requests for unblock, or make a request at the blocking admin's page to make sure you know the full story. Your request on their behalf has been denied by another admin. Syrthiss (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me at the discussion in question? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Bizz333, where you made a block appeal for the user. Syrthiss (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I missed it the first time. Fair enough :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Remotely controversial"

yes stuff that can be controversial needs a citation - but only once so frankly the "Citation needed" tag for a fact that's already cited in Rey Misterio, Jr. is misguided. Nor does a fact have to be cited EVERY TIME it's mentioned, first time it's mentioned is plenty. It's pretty straight forward really.  MPJ -DK  12:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but it appeared to have been changed back from 1973 to 1974 by an IP edit, so I think it did need to be individually sourced. Maybe my language in the edit summary was overly strong, for which I'm sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a lot of less than constructive IP edits on that page so it's a reason I do understand, I hope I did not come off as heavyhanded here, just trying to keep an eye out you know? And don't worry about it, it's cool.  MPJ -DK  12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Starting Sentences with "And"

In your summary for your most recent edit to the ipad entry you wrote, "you don't stand sentences with and." Assuming you meant "start" not "stand"... starting sentences with "And" is actually a widely accepted practice. I don't know if it is or is not acceptable per wikipedia's style guidelines. I looked, but could not find an answer either way.

According to "Guide to Grammar and Style" by Jack Lynch:

But at the Beginning.
Contrary to what your high school English teacher told you, there's no reason not to begin a sentence with but or and; in fact, these words often make a sentence more forceful and graceful. They are almost always better than beginning with however or additionally. Beginning with but or and does make your writing less formal; — but worse things could happen to most writing than becoming less formal.
Note, though, that if you open with but or and, you usually don't need a comma: not "But, we did it anyway"; it's enough to say "But we did it anyway." The only time you need a comma after a sentence-opening conjunction is when you want to sneak a clause right between the conjunction and the rest of the sentence: "But, as you know, we did it anyway."

See source here (scroll to bottom):

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/b.html

-- ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! -- ArtsMusicFilm (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(Indefinite) semi-protections

Hi.

You may be interested in this conversation and WP:HUMAN.

This link is useful if you want to see the protection log for a given user.

Be smart in your tactics. Contact the protecting admin first and don't talk too much, especially at the beginning. Let them do the talk, their nonsense will often help your case later. Study our policy and guidelines well. Remember, these are not meant to be prescriptive, so avoid brandishing them as such. However, some protections are so ridiculously outrageous that someone at WP:RUP will eventually see sense. If no one does, and you are absolutely sure about your case, go to WP:ANI as a last resort.

Don't do too many articles simultaneously, it tends to annoy them.

Start with soft targets (ironically, Dildo wasn't one) and work your way up.

Thank you and good luck. 123.218.163.237 (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Dildo probably wasn't a great start, but it was the article I ran into first. It looks like the cases that are worth looking at are being taken seriously so far. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Examples for windows copying apple

Snow Leopard - Windows 7

iPhone - windows phone

ETC Tj1224 (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Award

A Barnstar!
The Added Sauce Award
Aaah, I crack myself up sometimes. Well done for rolling up your wiki-sleeves and mucking in. I give this Award to Eraserhead1 for their his efforts is sourcing ('saucing') the BLP segment of the biological warfare article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

You've just undone my removal of content. The IP is a banned user, so I'm not doing any wrong. Just check the report of 3RR I've made. The user harasses me non-stop and has done so for months now. Please don't undo my removal again. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Look he's discussing something calmly on a talk page. So it should stay and JamieS93 agrees... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
just read this. He's already banned across one IP, but hides across multiple. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: IP Warnings

Ya, I haven't bothered with him since it's been nine months since he last tried to spam his site on Wikipedia and he's coming from a different IP now. If he persists, I'll warn and escalate, but warnings (particularly ones for IPs) are rather ineffective on Wikipedia, so I usually save my energy for more problematic people. ;) WildCowboy (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Re: Change to Ivan I Crnojević

Hi, I agree it is controversial (like many things related with Bosnia). Here is one source: Viator, page 388, from Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies / University of California. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a very reliable source, but I can't see the exact quote from the book which shows it. Can you point it out? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Talk:Ivan I Crnojević.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eye of the Tiger

Please block user 201.10.115.8 (cause you threatened to block him/her before) if you can (cause I can't figure out how to do that yet). I am so tired of having to revert the genre of the song Eye of the Tiger after I specifically put in there "DO NOT CHANGE". Thank you.-VarietyPerson (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to block people so I can't - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_banning for that. You'll probably need to re-give some warnings though, see WP:UTM for those. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fastest = French TGV?

The fastest train in the world uses standard gauge which is French TGV. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Harmony express is the fastest train in service. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
In France? 121.102.47.215 (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
TGV and narrow gauge railway 121.102.47.215 (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
No, the Harmony express is in China between Wuhan and Guangzhou, it covers the 900km between them in 3 hours. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
More precisely, the new Wuhan - Guangzhou service covers 922km in a fastest time of 2 hours 57 minutes, an average speed of 312.5 km/h (194.2 mph), see[[1]] ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prospero10 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010

Hi there.

I noticed an IP recurrently "improving" the article over a couple of days; when fixing it, it occurred to me that there is no way this page will need any real editing until after the polls have closed, since no-one is being returned unopposed. So, I semiprotected it (ie, established users only) until 11pm on the 5th - it should hopefully avoid some of the drive-by edits.

I can unprotect it if you'd like, but to me this seems like one of the rare cases where the small level of vandalism is actually much greater that the almost non-existent likelihood of real changes. Shimgray | talk | 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I wasn't really expecting people would want to fiddle with the layout. Unprotected, and you get to keep an eye on it now ;-) Shimgray | talk | 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash‎;

3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism. Since the day of the accident a troll with an IP from Telefonica Spain has been posting nonsense at 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and also at International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Some IPs used by this individual have been blocked (i.e. [2], [3], ecc.) and he has been told to stop his trolling. Because of this person the main article 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash had to be semi-protected and as he continues his disruptive and childish behavior (i.e. [4], [5], [6], ecc.) tonight he was joined by another conspiracy theorist, who put up his own Original Research (have you read the stuff??? not a single source,... just an attempt to go from WWII and the Soviet hiding of the facts to the theory that the Russian did again...). As wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are there to discuss sourced improvements to an article and not to debatte if Putin did it (maybe by throwing Georgian babies into the path of the plain??? or similar BS) the removal of such edits is sanctioned and does not fall under 3RR. --noclador (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally given the number of reverts you were having to do over a short space of time I think you guys should have let it go, its only a talk page, not the article itself... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Eraserhead1, just wanted to say setting up an archive for the "2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash‎" talk page was a good move! I was going to add my comment there, when I found the talk page is protected! This seems unusual, I have been editing for 7 months and can't recall this being done before. Though, with all the 'unusual' ideas about the cause of the crash (as per noclador above), I can understand, if that's why it's been done. (Had a look at the talk history user: Slim Virgin did the deed, just before I got online! No problemo! About time I registered anyway!) Rule Brittania! ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Joke?

The one that I posted on Talk:Khmer rouge isn't a joke! It's a real Polish rouge--125.25.241.142 (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not really appropriate when Pol Pot is involved - he killed a good percentage of the population of Cambodia, at least 10%, within a few years too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Plante

There is no consensus to have him in the article either. moreover, Plante is already in this article:


while experts in the field of sexual abuse counseling contend that celibacy has no effect on rates of child abuse in the Catholic Church, as it has been shown that the rates of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations.[1]

No need have him twice in the same context.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be discussing different things each time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Burma Campaign: Lead

With regard to the citations required tags in the lead, I would argue from Wikipedia:Lead section#citations:

Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

Is it really contentious that British, Indian and African troops battled Japanese, renegade Indian troops and Burmese nationalists; or that there was a famine and large-scale demonstrations in India? These questions are in any case so general that whole chapters are devoted to them in several works. These points are better addressed lower down the article, or in the articles dealing with the campaign on a year-by-year basis. The lead should not be cluttered with citations which duplicate those required later. HLGallon (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Proceed as you wish. I have made my point. HLGallon (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Your message

The text I've added is strictly referenced not once, rather several times. You are not reading references at all!--71.191.26.127 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources in question don't say that at all. Neither the Times nor the Guardian make the required claim. As he hasn't been found guilty he is only alleged to have done it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 9 to 5 Mac and others

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are 9 to 5 Mac, MacScoop. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9 to 5 Mac for 9 to 5 Mac, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacScoop for MacScoop. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Sex Abuses

Hi, Eraserhead. Why do you believe that "Ratzinger is guilty, proofs are there"? joo (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Kiesle case, this is what I have found:

  • Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001 (Joo> I've verified this via various documentation cited in the article under the Vatican Responses section). The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
  • Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
  • Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
  • Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
  • Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
  • Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
  • Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.

So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.

http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/view/6983/ Original source: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=632%20

I think you have me confused with someone else ;). I re-added the 'alleged'. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. joo (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Eraserhead. User:Haldraper kept removing the school abuse statistic given by Professor Charol Shakeshaft. Isn't this a case of 3RR again? joo (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

epub video rm from ipad

You reverted (357044771) my edit to iPad and removed a link to a video tutorial on the .epub format. I would agree it does not belong. Thanks for your trouble and for the note on my User talk page. * Video: Format overview of the .epub file jk (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject iPhone OS

Promote the project
  • Join this project! Add yourself to the list, and add the userbox to your page, to advertise the project to people who happen to pass by.
  • Invite people to the project – drop a note on the user talk page of editors working on iPhone OS topics who aren't project members.
  • Consider promoting the project via the Wikipedia Signpost WikiProject desk.
Improve the project
  • Update the project pages, archive clutter, and make use of the latest automation available
  • Consult the WikiProject Guide for ideas
  • Come up with new ones
Use the project

This was a one-time notice from WikiProject iPhone OS · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hat note at Muhammad

The use of a disclaimer has been debated numerous times on the article, with their use being rejected every time. I removed the hat note on that basis. You're welcome to bring it up on the talk page of the article to see if consensus has changed, however. Resolute 19:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hello: You may wish to use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to report edit battles rather than WP:AIV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC on YM

Hi Eraserhead1,

I agree that this matter deserves to be examined by a wider audience, it cannot be brushed off like this.

I think your idea of an RFC on WP:PP is a good one. Alternatively on WP:IAR, but I don't know the place very well and WP:PP is probably better anyway.

If you would like a review before you post just put a draft here and I can take a look. It may be worth doing a little more research in that list, but frankly I think the case is strong enough as it is.

Cheers, 114.146.68.105 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm British so suggesting anything on WP:IAR is probably counter-productive anyway. The Indians have to figure things out themselves if there are issues that only really affect that project IMO.
On the RFC I was intending just to bring up the schools thing (but internationally). It has at least some merit and if it was in the rules it would be better than the current situation IMO - of course given the BLP thing isn't likely to pass so I think its unlikely to succeed but the community should decide. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
PS on India take a look at India standard time for example - it used to be an FA :eek:. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Please visit WP:IAR - nothing to do with India.
One user being responsible for 1/8th of all current indef semis, some of which being at least a little excessive by any standard, and invoking admin discretion to blanket-justify them all, is something that I think the whole community needs to know about and comment on. Maybe that's fine, but a few questions remain unanswered. For instance, is YM being ultra-zelous with Australian schools, or are all other schools at such high risk of not being WP:PERFECT (note the last bullet point)? I fail to see any apocalyptic consequences if we leave them unprotected.
I don't know when you joined the project, but many Wikipedia articles a few years ago looked like crap, and not protecting them has helped getting them in a much better shape. Even further, in my opinion, "Anyone can edit" is not just a temporary publicity stunt to get the project started and get content there, it's a deep philosophical statement that leads to an equilibrium in the long run and, like it or not, it's still a fundamental principle of the project.
Wikipedia is only getting started, it would be a shame to shut the doors now. 205.228.108.57 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I can disagree with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
PS If you guys think I should be asking another question than talking about schools let me know, I'm not sure what of a more YM specific question I could reasonably ask. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, we may not be ready for this. I think we need better analysis into this Nangparbat business for example. I know nothing about India, Pakistan and their conflicts, which makes me impartial, but ignorant.
However, take User:Jayaganeshkigand for example. Recently, the account has been blocked, accused of being a Nangparbat sock. Yet, the link to the investigation does not show any evidence, and indeed any investigation, unless I'm completely missing it.
There are other incongruences. Look at the contribs. Yes, the account holder is probably not a newbie (they talk about pov in edit #12), and some edits are quite biased or not exactly done in good faith. However, in other edits they seem to be well-intentioned, reverting blanking of information (about Pakistan) and adding sourced (if partisan) material that YM promptly blew away. Jayaganeshkigand's edits to Kashmir Conflict and Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, by the way, demonstrate that the semi-protection of these articles (done guess-by-whom) is not only preventing good edits by casual users, but it's also ineffective in stopping determined so-called "vandals".
Also interesting how, when Baramulla district gets "Jammu and Kashmir" changed to "Indian Occupied Kashmir", that warrants an immediate revert and indefinite semi-protection. However, when Mirpur, Azad Kashmir gets "POK" changed to a seemingly more neutral and appropriate, and definitely more readable and encyclopedic-looking "Azad Kashmir", it gets reverted multiple times by the usual suspects.
So, is this area being represented fairly and in a balanced way? Are YM protections and reversions partisan? I hope they are not, but we should analyse this, because this is vaguely reminiscent of the "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" aphorism, and anyway it might be debatable whether this might be vandalism or content dispute, which should not be resolved in conflict of interests, and definitely not with an indefinite semi.
It sounds pretty partisan to me, I went to India and I've discussed some of these issue in reasonable detail and the Indians seemed to be of the view that partition was bad (which I agree with I think). However noone tried to imply the conflict was all Pakistan or India's fault, and I think both parties are responsible for the conflict, so if it says POK then it should say IOK as well IMO. If there is any actually bias it should be IOK as I believe Kashmir is majority muslim and it was a last minute deal which kept it in India.
Also take a look at the protection of Christianity in India (unprotection request), which looks incredibly odd to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


Anyway, for now let's assume there is no hidden POV in the protections. I can see how Nangparbat might have been a real pest (although I need to investigate the case further), but it seems possible that some people have been traumatised by this and they developed a post-traumatic stress disorder that leads them to hysterically revert/block/protect anything that might possibly be affected by anything vaguely anti-Indian, conveniently tarring all contributions showing that slant under the Nangparbat tag, whereas in fact it could be many users, not just one, reflecting an unbalanced portrayal of certain themes. This is incidentally another reason why blocking IPs is bad. We need feedback to make sure that our articles are not POV. We need to engage POV editors, asking for references and informing them of how things are done, encouraging discussions where they belong, i.e. not in revert edit summaries, but in the talk page. In my experience it invariably leads to good points being raised and the quality and neutrality of articles being improved.
In summary, I think in general we need to gather more detailed analysis about each YM protection, focussing on the least justifiable ones.
It would be nice to set up a centralised place where to put our findings about each protection, each linked to its own discussion page. YM will be invited to comment on each of course, although by the looks of it they will not bother. When we have gathered enough material (let's say another 10-20 dodgy protections) we will be better informed and in a better position to discuss the next steps. 123.222.213.56 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason I think for doing an RFC on schools is that the arguments made for it by YM on WP:AN and myself on WT:PP are legitimate concerns, there is little interesting to say about schools and there is a high potential for vandalism from the current students. Its probably the most obvious general target for vandalism that probably doesn't get quickly reverted on the whole encyclopaedia - including BLPs.
Additionally by putting up an RFC for this category means you can easily argue that any other category has to be discussed with an RFC as it was done for schools and these would be almost certain not to pass.
If the request to blanket protect schools fails it will be difficult to argue that it should remain for topics such as India which must generally have a lower potential for un-reverted vandalism. Additionally it'll be easy to got to WP:RUP and ask for YM's protections of Australian schools to all be reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Schools proposal is now an RfC

See this for the RfC -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This is now concluded. What are your intentions? 124.86.77.180 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It hasn't quite had 30 days yet, the bot seems to have removed the tag prematurely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This is now finished. I was just wondering if you had any plans. Thanks. 118.7.219.86 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like the piss is still being taken: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey_(TV_series)&action=history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pimlico_State_High_School&action=history. So it looks like it may have to be taken further :( - for now I'm just going to bring them up on WP:RUP, if you want to do anything else feel free. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Feature Portal Review of Portal:iPhone OS

IPhone OS has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. This was a courtesy notice from WikiProject iPhone OS · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

One suggestion. It would be best to avoid putting your comments in between someone elses[7]. It make my comments look like yours. In case you need to reply seperately to each point, either refer to them saying "regarding x" or copy the points seperately and post your response to each point. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

For handling my silly joke so very professionally! I was very tired. Sorry for the hassle... 85.77.236.89 (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It was totally inappropriate, but it was quite funny :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


John Vanbrugh

I have reverted you [8]. Please don't vandalise pages by asking for common knowledge to be cited. Thank you.  Giano  21:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

re Adding citation needed's to John Vanbrugh

Yeah, I had noticed. WP:LEAD only allows for an absence of citations in the lede, IFF that exact same factual material is already cited later in the article. However, in this article, this is unfortunately not the case. For example, where is it cited to back up the individual's birth and death dates? This indeed could use the {{cn}} tags... -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Have no fear Cirt, all the dreadful uncited material has gone.  Giano  22:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

vandalism?

is 187.10.132.61 vandalizing the list of metro articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.55 (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Half the stuff wasn't sourced before, so I didn't think so and its mostly tidying, but I think the Athens change could be controversial. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acather96 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


MY Changes make the page more accurate as at the moment there is no secretary of communites and local goverment (for example) and David Cameron has not expressed any plans to create such a post as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioladygaga (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2009–10 Premier League

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism

Could I please implore you not to use the word 'vandalism' when reverting edits which could – from some point of view – be capable of being viewed as 'good faith', particularly from established editors? Your edit summary here was bound to inflame, rather than calm the situation. In general it doesn't matter whether you're right about the reversion – if you are, others will support you (as you can see). Please understand that I'm not trying to criticise, only to ask you to think twice before using language that may offend. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply on my talkpage. It is appreciated. Cheers! --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Peculiar notice

You left a message on Talk:iPad encouraging me to restore material that was reverted by User:Terrillja.[9] I reworked the material to address the objection he made in the edit summary (i.e. making it clear that the introduction of the iPad itself was the relevant circumstance). But then you placed a template notice Template:uw-3rr on my page (but not Terrillja's) warning me about the 3RR rule and being blocked in an edit war. This was despite the fact that Terrillja and I each reverted once, and my revert (unlike his) was a partial revert meant to work toward a consensus draft.

I assume that this was a mistake; but it is the sort of mistake that is inevitable when using those blasted automatic templates. I never use them for this reason, and I'd encourage you not to either. I would prefer to see WP:Template messages/User talk namespace and all its contents deleted or greatly restricted, and have made some comments in this direction, but for now this will have to be an individual choice. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Smartphone share

Hi Eraserhead1. You did a great graph of the worldwide smartphone OS share. The 2 companies that track the sales each quarter, then release figures according to smartphone operating system (rather than hardware manufacturer), are Gartner and Canalys. The Gartner figures for Q1 2010 have just been released today (article at ZDNet). Did you want to make another graph? Otherwise, I can do it. Regards, Lester 09:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to make another graph, thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks great! Your layout is much better than my earlier versions last year. Cheers, Lester 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My apology

I do apologize. 90.208.71.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC).

civil partnerships lede

That is great, thank you, and thanks for the note! --Joe Decker (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

London

I have included in the introdction that it is the largest financial centre alongside New York City, which is what the sources state. Space25689 (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Foxconn labor abuse, beating employees, and suicides

I have written the verifiable and i do not care what happens to it. Truth itself is stronger than any of us and will wear away all our arguments like water. User:Decora

if you feel my writing was 'not neutral' then feel free to edit it and/or remove it. Decora (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I looked through the references of the section you added to the article and many of the facts that the references were supposed to support were completely unsupported. I know that you didn't create the text, but you might want to be a bit more careful about what you add for others as those edits with deceptive text are tied to your account, not theirs.--Terrillja talk 20:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to avoid further drama on the matter, and the text was largely written by User:Bluerasberry, so I thought it was OK to add. I thought that the text that I had largely written (which can basically be seen in this edit) was probably bias and too pro-Foxconn so the compromise was OK. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where violating WP:V is a good compromise, but I will be removing it again as it is still violating policies.--Terrillja talk 00:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hah, thanks :). That's two edit conflicts in two minutes – first when you tried to fix the ref, second when I tried to revert you and re-add your revisions manually (you got there first)! Thanks for catching that, Airplaneman ✈ 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well I realised that I'd screwed up so I thought I should fix it, it should all be good now :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IPv6 packet

Thanks Eraserhead1 for assessing my wiki, so I know where I stand. Obviously biased, I expected the article be rated at least B-class, but hey, that's only one opinion. Could you please elaborate some more (other than just stating it C-class) on where the article is failing a B-class status? I expect, given the nature of the article, not to reach any higher than B-class, but want the article to get as high as possible. Where do you reckon should I focus my attention to? —— Dandor iD (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll do a more detailed review on the articles talk page. I can also be quite harsh with my interpretation of the criteria :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Archives

Hi, what I was going to continue doing is using my common sense. There have been so many comments that the talk page has been unmanageably large for some users and mizabot is not comming only once a day if we are lucky, if as we had today over one hundred sections it will benefit from some manual help. Hopefully if won't be an issue in the future as it is not easy choosing what to archive and what to keep. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added that template loads of times and Mizabot does come once a day - its just easy to screw up the template. That's one of the reasons I moved it right to the top and everything should work as expected at 4.30 UTC tomorrow morning, but if you want to archive it more often than that go ahead :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"with" v "at"

Might not "at an intermediate level" be more idiomatic than "with an intermediate level"? Or are the pretty ribbons hardwired to that odd sounding construction?--SilasW (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shunting off valid Talk

Is there a cogent reason for shunting valid Talk items to a nonce use Template so that they are not visible to would-be commenters?--SilasW (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I just moved it to the GA review page so it was visible there and on the main talk page for the article so that it would be visible to everyone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Manning

Hey, I just thought I'd let you know I've semi protected Manning for a week, but let me know if it keeps up. While I'm here, I saw you struggling with the undo button and wondered if you'd like rollback? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, why not. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. I'm sure you know the rules, but I'll template you just in case:

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

re Talk: John Vanburgh

No, you are not. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here - I'll leave it in your amply capable hands

  • Mallgrave, Harry Francis (2005). Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673-1968. Cambridge. ISBN 0521793068.

--Joopercoopers (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the full citation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thmc1

In case you haven't heard the news, Thmc1 was recently banned from editing on Wikipedia idefinitely. Knowing Wikipedia, this usually lasts until a willing SysAdmin comes along, or about 2 weeks. To prevent this from happening, you and other complainants may want to voice your objections by posting on Thmc1's message board as soon as possible. He has especially spent a lot of time wrecking havoc on nearly all of the Chinatown pages with anti-San Francisco Chinatown propaganda(he's from New York and feels that NY Chinatown is superior to all), but fortunately they were re-edited and restored by good, sensible Wikipedians. Hopefully, any SysAdmin who comes along to take up future unblock requests from Thmc1 will see these messages and think twice before setting him loose to continue preaching his bigoted views.

Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lim Bill (talk • contribs) 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

rachel maddow edit summary

Hi, was trying to revert the vandalism you had already got. Not referring to your edit as vandalism! de Bivort 19:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Smartphone share 2009 full.png

Hi, usage in Wikimedia Commons?. Ist es möglich diese Datei nach Wikimedia Commons zu transferieren, diese wäre dann auch in Internationalen Smartphone Artikeln nutzbar.--Reinraum (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to Wikipedia Commons, with the same name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 256d3f291cebe915902068019dde4478

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh

Hi again, you asked me earlier about the above, and I just glanced at it. There seem to be a lot of citation-needed tags, which are best avoided in an FA. I didn't look to see who put them there, but if you did, you might prefer to remove them for now, and copy the version with the tags to your userspace. That would remind you which material needs sources, but without leaving a mark on the article itself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm actually just going through and removing most of those I added (which is a fair percentage). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

iPad is GA

The Barnstar of Diligence
Congratulations, Eraserhead1! I award you this Barnstar of Diligence in honor of your hard work which has resulted in a superb article. You tackled this task single handedly and without asking for - or needing - assistance from other editors. You make us all proud. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:IPad-front.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:IPad-front.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Terrillja talk 19:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Romanian floods

Thanks for your contributions. Good game :) - SiMioN.EuGeN (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

On Chilean Cuisine by Rconner

Hi Eraserhead1! I just wanted to point out that, regarding the contribution by user Rconner in article Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chile&oldid=370811542#Cuisine), I'm positively certain that by 'Indian' Rconner meant 'indigenous', referring to the traditional cuisine of the native people (most notoriously the Mapuche), and not related to India at all. This usage of the word 'Indian' to refer to the native people of the American continent is recognized by Merriam-Webster, for instance, and appears in Wikipedia too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian), although Cambridge Dictionaries also label it as possibly pejorative. 190.161.104.115 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The above comment was mine, by the way! I finally registered :) Saurion90 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, given its 2010 I'm not sure I agree. However I probably was a little harsh in my edit summaries :o.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Underground Electric Railways Company of London

Thanks for doing the GA Review for that. It's going to be the core article for what should, hopefully, soon be a featured topic. I just need to write the article on the Metropolitan District Railway and it's done.--DavidCane (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of the very limited number of reviews I've been involved with it went by far the smoothest :). Keep up the good work! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

sokratis

Hey, nice pic! I have the same one from BBC, and I have contacted them about re-use permission. If they respond in the positive, I'll forward the email to you so you can document it in the fair use rationale. Cwill151 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it looks ready for posting, though I will continue looking for more info. Thanks for all your help! Cwill151 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow dude, you completely revamped the references and formalized the talk page... thanks again, we might just pull this off yet. Cwill151 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like we did it. Hey, I really appreciate all of your help and revisions, they're what really put this together. Pleasure working with you :) Cwill151 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Assassination of Sokratis Giolias

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

iPad vs glorified PDA

See the iPad Talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to WikiProject Apple Inc.!

Hello, Eraserhead1! I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Apple Inc. We work on improving Apple Inc. articles and would appreciate your help. Thanks! —mono 04:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for 2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Love Parade stampede

--Two in one day! Nice work. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly I need to have more of a life :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Roman Catholic Church: What Psychologists and Counselors Should Know Thomas G. Plante1;2;3 and Courtney Daniels1, Journal of Pastoral Psychology, May 2004, Springer Publishing
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eraserhead1/Archive_1&oldid=1142549140"