User talk:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Archive 2
 | 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. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, I saw your revert on my e-meter edit. I though that the sentence I removed was extraneous and poorly worded.. Daler (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Avoiding contractions
Hi. Basically because it sounds informal, which is the wrong tone for an encyclopedia. See The Wikipedia Manual of Style. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Problem
I have a problem on the other project. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will look into it. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.J.W.C. (talk • contribs)
I removed some of the tags you placed on this article. {{introrewrite}}, {{cleanup}}, and {{expand}} are not really appropriate for stubs. Please reconsider using these tags on stubs in the future are they are really in-actionable for stubs and simply bloat the maintenance categories until someone removes them.--BirgitteSB 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Please do not remove that long section. I added to it, much of what you removed was already there; had been for a long time. As it happens, I am still working on it at this precise moment. If you challenge anything, please tell me which bits, or leave tags on the parts where you would like to see sources and I will do what I can to improve it. Right now, I am still tidying the page and putting some touches to it so please observe this. Thank you. Evlekis (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you are still here, I accept that finding sources is a little difficult, but what I am now going to do is go back over the entire section and remove anything which appears POV or written as though to promote certain sentiment. Looking back at what I wrote, I accept that there are a few remarks which I should have checked before I submitted, human instict caused me to save first. You are very welcome to assert yourself or question anything if you are not happy with it, I am happy to cooperate. Evlekis (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
List of Zen centers in the United States
Ah why bother? You aren't about to listen anyway. (Mind meal (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
nom
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Christians (2nd nomination) seems to be the third nomination. cygnis insignis 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The way it was named is my guess, 2nd and second. The template on the article also has a bug that causes the listing to redlink. You might need to get some help from someone who knows about these things, I have never looked into it. Regards, cygnis insignis 18:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nom
Hi Otolemur crassicaudatus, I would suggest you keep the nomination open a little while longer. I really don't see how the article doesn't violate original research policies, and it'd probably be better to see if the wider community agrees... especially given the precedent set by the deletion of the other two "Historical persecution by X" articles. Regards, ITAQALLAH 19:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Reversion of reference requests
What is the reason for reverting my good faith request for references? ✤ JonHarder talk 19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand what the problem is with asking an editor to provide the references before jumping to AfD. Can you be more clear? ✤ JonHarder talk 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
FUR
It can be uploaded under Fair Use if you want. Reply on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit Summary
Thank you for telling me! I apologise for my forgetfulness. Jump Guru (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Flags
Sorry I reverted your revert on White Eagle Aviation - just to explain my position a user is adding flags to all the airline infoboxes without any concensus, I have brought up the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines for guidance. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have left a note at User talk:Tobibln and invited him to join the discussion at project level, although he appears to be going at great speed adding flags to notice! MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
French communes and references
I think you'll find most information particularly on the smaller settlements will only be in French unfortunately -this is why it is so important that more people are willing to translate on wikipedia. Statistical references are from INSEE -try googling that but it is only a statistical website unfortunately. Many of the communes have their own websites. Perhaps you could try looking at them and try to uinderstand the information given there -or use babel fish to get a rough translation perhaps . I'm gradually working through Yvelines but as I say it will be a gradual thing and not my only area of concentration ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm renaming the categories to prepare for growth in the near future, ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverts of my edits
Hello. I was just wondering why you had reverted my edits to Ranmoor House and Katy Fox? In the Ranmoor case, the information removed was of no importance - in the Katy Fox case, I removed future spoiler information. In future, please use an edit summary when reverting edits, explaining why you feel it is necessary. Thanks. ~~ [Jam][talk] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit summary is not a good place to talk with you. You asked why I was replacing night picture with daytime one in that article.
I understand it is not true that a daytime picture is always better than a night picture, but in this case, I believe the new one, the daytime picture, is better than the previous one, the night picture because it better represents original color of the subject under the daylight. In addition, for this short article, two images are excessive so that I replaced the picture instead of adding one. This is the reason why I tried to replace the picture. I don't want an edit war, so please give your concent or comment to my opinion before I make further edit to that article. --Sushiya (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have rolled back your massive deletion on this article. I believe that the better and customary procedure for an older WP article which has undisputed but undocumented content which need to be improved is to place a WP:sources template, which I have done. This is one of many articles in the scope of WikiProject:Virginia which we are gradually upgrading. I know of nothing in it which is not accurate, we just need to cite sources using the newer WP methods. If you have any specific items you wish to challenge as incorrect, please do so and cite your source, of course. Please contact me on my User Page if you disagree, rather than engaging in an edit war with the article. Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Persecution
I have no objection to any article on the persecution of Religion A by Religion B, provided that it is adequately sourced and is significant. Such persecution certainly occured on a substantial scale during the BJP govenment and I hear examples of it continuing. It appears usually to take the form of trying to force Christians to reconvert to Hinduism, and can be extremely violent. Christians are prosecuted for "forced conversions" when conversion is in fact voluntary, whereas Hindus never seem to be prosecuted for attemopting forceably to converty Christians. I refer to India, of course. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent Changes
Hi i'm sure you are aware that when you patrol recent changes you should mark them as patrolled. You seem to have forgot on Shift (video games). This saves editors time patrolling articles which have been patrolled already thanks. BigDunc (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Your warnings on User talk:Schmidty211
Are you really fed up with User: Schmidty211 or did WP:TW have a hiccup? Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The b-class milhist criteria are here, if you think I have made a mistake then please seek a third opinion, thanks. Harland1 (t/c) 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- What was the controversial edit I did? User:Odikuas 19:33 11 March 2008
- The fact that the University of Piraeus was called Higher School for Industrial Studies is included in the relevant Wikipedia article. All the other information can be found in the external links I list at the end of the page. User:Odikuas 19:37 11 March 2008
Twinkling for instant edits, what's going on here?
I think that a thumbnail size image for this subject Silver line is too small, and I enlarged it slightly. The caption is detailed and there are no other pictures in the article. Before I revert it again, I want you to justify how it is that you are reverting my edit instantly and automatically (twice so far). Looks like an edit war by robot could ensue. Who are you, the Terminator? Weird. Please explain here. JohnClarknew (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ships' pages are handled differently, and the lead depiction is never a thumbnail. See HMS Queen Mary, RMS Queen Elizabeth, RMS Queen Elizabeth 2, RMS Mauretania (1906), etc. & etc. And, BTW, can you keep subject discussion on the same page, so we can all see the thread? To have question and answers on separate pages leads to obscurity, don't you agree? I see you started your contributions just 4 days ago, Otolemur crassicaudatus, and already have made maybe a hundred edits. I respectfully suggest you hang back a bit, and familiarize yourself with the site. And I'm reverting once again, and please stay off my talk page on this subject. JohnClarknew (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Beg pardon, I was wrong, I see that you had archived the past since you signed on last September. JohnClarknew (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Excessive referencing
Please read the talk page on Russia.--Miyokan (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Edit Summary
Sure thing. Creamy3 (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Melbourne shuffle
Mind holding off a bit, I'm in the middle of a major cleanup. Cheers. NathanLee (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, just trying not to chop so much out of it as to have nothing left. Take a look at the pre-major chop and you'll see what a mess it was. Trying to find if there are any links for any of the stuff. But main thing was to get it looking semi-respectable first. :) NathanLee (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Animal rights in Nazi Germany DYK
|
On 14 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Animal rights in Nazi Germany, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
you forgot
to list this on the main checkuser page [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.187.94 (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you'd care to inform me why this article would not fit in Category:Islam in Uganda. That's the one I added it to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of slected recordngs box on Madame Butterfly article
Please look at the TALK PAGE and lay out your reasoning rather than just reverting. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thank you
Thank you for removing the warnings on my talk page. I know that it is good form to provide an edit summary, but I've been replacing {{WikiProject Ballet}} with {{WikiProject Dance|Ballet=yes|nested=yes}} and marking this as a minor edit, which it is. In some cases I have added the latter when the former was not present and in a few rare instances created the talk page where there was none. The other minor edits your Twinkle script has been flagging are equally minor formatting changes, not a word of text. I know it's a bad habit, a wicked thing, to make edits without providing an edit summary, but there's so much work to do and so little time to do it. Thank you again for making your script clever enough to know an incorrigible sinner when it sees one! Robert Greer (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism on Loco Roco
What exactly are you warning me for vandalizing? Strongsauce (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
A vandalism4 for that matter, considering you have not warned me about any previous "vandalism" Strongsauce (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
In the future I'll remember to add something into the summary line when making removals like that. Strongsauce (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank ya
|
I guess I was just reading a little too much into some of the wording. "One of the most famous consumer electronics brands in Europe" is what caught my attention. Aar☢n BruceTalk/Contribs 19:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I pointed out to you the milhist assesment criteria which are here, I failed this article as it did not meet al of the criteria, it did not have enough inline citations. Hope that helps! Harland1 (t/c) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Palais de justice de Montréal
Whar are you referring to? The info I just added to Palais de justice de Montréal is sourced. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. You're referring to the merge I did for the sculpture. If you had checked the Talk page, you would see that I was simpy effecting a merge was discussed there as well as at the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board; b) I added the citation needed tags myself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you asking me why? As in, why did I make that edit? I was not sure what your edit summary meant. Please let me know (at my Talk Page). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
I did not understand this edit. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- When the edit prior to that edit (which you reference above) was made, I had no idea what the effect of the prior edit was. So, I asked the editor who made the edit. He/She said that it was done by mistake. So, I reverted his/her mistake. This (below) is the conversation between me and the editor. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
- Hi. I saw that you edited the Milestones Chart for the Best Picture Academy Award article. You added a notation like "border = 1" or something like that. What exactly does that edit do? I did not notice a difference in the chart at all. Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
- Sorry about that. I had numerous Wikipedia sites open and I accidentally edited it into the wrong post. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience and I will take better care next time. I'm unsure if I fixed that up or not. Again, sorry about that.Chocaholic29 (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, then I will self-revert. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. Do you have any idea what that command is supposed to do? That "border=1" command. I saw no difference at all in the Chart ...? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
DYK for Crime in Bhutan
|
|
On 23 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crime in Bhutan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Utrecht (city)
Could you please be a bit more constructive. I wrote more then half that article and provided ALL the references so far (which IMHO are decent for a B class article). You reverted edits I made just now (this morning). You could at least have the decency to wait more then 10 minutes for me to provide references that make sense. If you think it is not good enough you can always add lack citations tags yourself rather then destroying my work. Arnoutf (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are different ways to enfore WP:V. Yes, if an edit is WP:NONSENSE it should be removed immediately; if it is insulting it should be removed immediately. However, if it is very very likely there are sources (that are easily found), and there is no harmful information whatsoever (as for example the claim that certain highways connect to a city) you should assumes good faith and not seek conflict. The most constructive way would be to try and find the sources yourself, thus contributing to the atmosphere of co-operation which is the core of Wikipedia. If you feel not qualified to find the sources, you migth consider the text, look for statements that are likely to be challenged and mark them with the fact tag (or if you see a whole section such) with the unreferenced tag. You might also consider discussion on the relevant talk page how to take it further.
- Removal should be considered the last resource, while it follows the letter of WP:V it goes against the core spirit of the whole of the Wikipedia project. Please consider rule 1 in such cases. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Hudson River School
I left you a message here:Talk:Hudson River School. If there is material there that needs referencing please tag it, before deleting it. Thank you. Modernist (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Please give me a second while I add the sources. I'm simply translating the German article section - by - section. Best, --Javits2000 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
Why thank you. Thank you kindly - it shall sit proudly on my Wikidesk. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 20:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Lope de Vega
Hello Otolemur crassicaudatus, I'd like to protest against your recent removal of a large chunk of the text of the Lope de Vega article, with the edit summary "entire article is unsourced", and your subsequent reversion of my "reversion-with the request to you to discuss first". In a quick scan of your talk page above, I see what appear to be similar concerns related to the following articles: Mountain Lake (Virginia), the ? article referred to in the section header "Melbourne shuffle" above; Utrecht (city), Hudson River School, Byzantine Studies? What's up? In the case of Lope de Vega, at least, you have not been deleting newly added questionable text, you deleted longstanding text; yes it needs references, but in my experience on Wikipedia, the usual procedure is to seek to add the references yourself, or to tag, not blanket removal of most of the article. Thanks for taking this into consideration. Lini (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Addition of material without providing WP:RS is violation of WP:V and I am aginst any kind of addition of unsourced material. The procedure should be to find reliable sources first, then add information. No matter if the text is longstanding or not, WP:V must be followed. It is better to remove material instead of tagging, if not, then provide reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Dragon Bridge
|
|
On 24 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dragon Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Hey congrats on the DYK. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop reverting and let's talk
Please stop long enough to talk. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you want me to look up the sub-categorization guidelines, I will. But in general, for cities like this, the main city category and it's sub-cats are much better organized when most, if not all, of the articles are actually well-categorized down in the sub-categories. That's what the heirarchical categorization system of the project allows for. Thus people who want to find things can easily go to the specific sub-cats that they need, instead of having to wade through many misc articles all jumbled together in the main category. I am slowly working down the list of US cities cleaning up their categorization, and it happens to be Atlanta's turn. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- As for an article like Pace's Ferry, in general articles are not supposed to be in both a category, and a parent/grandparent/etc category of the first one. See Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories for more information. This specific example is already in Category:Atlanta ferries, which is in Category:Transportation in Atlanta, which is in Category:Atlanta, Georgia. Having it also in Category:Atlanta, Georgia is overcategorization, and is clutter on the Category:Atlanta, Georgia category. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I see you put the media list back in the media category. Are we OK now? Can I resume clearing up the Atlanta category? I'm 3/4 done at this point, though I will certainly not get the category down to zero entries directly in it. Anyway, I'll remain halted for a little while longer (an hour or so) to give you time to voice more concerns. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, your categorization is ok. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I see you put the media list back in the media category. Are we OK now? Can I resume clearing up the Atlanta category? I'm 3/4 done at this point, though I will certainly not get the category down to zero entries directly in it. Anyway, I'll remain halted for a little while longer (an hour or so) to give you time to voice more concerns. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
How is a book with an ISBN-number link not a reliable reference? - Dudesleeper / Talk 16:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Tireless Contributor Barnstar
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| This is for your timely intervention of onslaughts CRUFTS and NONSENCE articles along with additional contribs on crime & historical areas Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC) |
Bangladesh Districts
Wikipedia already has a set of pages on bangladesh pages, simply put District after the name, eg. Lalmonirhat already exists at Lalmonirhat District, can you please make all your new pages redirect to the old ones when you make them and the same on all the old ones - Highfields (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Blimey! I did not notice this. I created the district articles by clicking the red links in List of cities and towns in Bangladesh. In List of cities and towns in Bangladesh, the word "district" is omitted. If the articles already exists as "X District", then these should be redirected to the "X District" articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ouch thats rather annoying isn't it!! Can't believe nobody created the redirects. If you want some districts to do, Central African Republic and Sudan need doing. I'll look at creating some templates over the next few days ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC) I wouldn't rely on google for smaller areas within developing countries, it is extremely inadequate on many places. Burma also is the same. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll do some updating based on quality german sources. However the notorious Göring picture is not yet available in the german wikipedia - may be one of the Gurus can help? --Polentario (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, you added some unsourced information in the article. I have raised the concern at talk page. Please answer there. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Which talk page? Havent seen the claims nd would like befor i have to leave --Polentario (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Download PDF file
Hi! It times out! I cannot download that PDF file you refer to. κaτaʟavenoTC 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment
I may be lil busy in the next couple of days and I think that your imperative comment is crucial here and here.
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Based on User:RegentsPark’s comment, do you think that we have to alter the intro & other areas of the article in a polished format? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Bangladeshi bridges
Hi sure, do you have a list or shall I use an existing category? As you can probably see though I am having a quiet few days of editing and have barely been on here the last few days, but I'll try and get something done this evening. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
IN case you are interested I created Template:Bridges in Europe some time ago . As you can see the level of development is rather poor. I'll create one for Asia too if you like ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ontario stubs
Hi, just noticed the series of Ontario location stubs you're creating. Nice work on that, but the articles could be greatly and easily improved by adding categories and references. Do you plan yo go through them and add them later? J Milburn (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
On assessing articles
Hello! It's the first time anyone has suggested to me that one must be a member of a WikiProject in order to assess an article! Any user can do this, AFAIK. Anyhow, perhaps you did not check out the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members carefully. I'm pretty sure I am there, at Nr. 156. Cheers, Cplakidas (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, it is good, concise and well-referenced, but: it is very short and, in relation to its title, very limited. "Science and technology in Nazi Germany" is a title with a very broad scope, not only missiles & aircraft. It should encompass anything from synthetic fuels to radar, and from nuclear research to biology. "Science" in particular is a very broad term, which would also cover the universities under the Nazis, the general attitude of the Nazis towards "intellectualism", and the exodus of German scientists in the 1930s. If you want to limit your scope a bit, I would suggest renaming the article to "Military technology of Nazi Germany", but still, that would cover much much more than is already covered. I suggest using this article as an introduction, listing the various topics, with a brief outline (as is already pretty much done for missiles and aviation), and providing links to dedicated articles, e.g. "German rocket research during World War II". Also, "Aviation research" should cover much more than just the development of jet engines. The Germans were pioneers in air medicine (making tests on concentration camps inmates), ejection seats and much else that has become standard in post-war aviation. Best regards, Cplakidas (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Roman Constitution
You added a tag to my entry on the Constitution of the Roman Republic, which said that it needs to be shortened. I am not sure how to do this without breaking the flow of the article, since the Roman constitution was so interconnected. Do you have any ideas on how to do this?RomanHistorian (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article is at present 163 kilobytes long. According Wikipedia:Article size, such articles are considered too long. Read Wikipedia:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb. If an article exceeds 100 KB, then the article "almost certainly should be divided up". To maintain wikipedia's standard article size, a length 32 KB is preferred. The article certainly need to be spitted into multiple articles. The History and Origin section should be shortened and the excess information should be mention in a different article. For that, you can create a new article titled History and Origin of the Constitution of the Roman Republic. The Senate section is too long. It should be shortened and details information should be given in the main article Roman Senate. The Executive Branch section is too long. Give information in concise manner and create new article titled The Executive Branch of the Constitution of the Roman Republic where you can give the details. In this way the article can be shortened. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Currently, the executive branch of the Roman Republic is divided into many different articles, one for each office (consul, tribune ect). What do you suggest be done to reconcile a potential article on the entire executive branch, and the articles on the individual offices?RomanHistorian (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Executive Branch section is clearly too long. If there are different articles present, that's fine. But a confined article is needed only for the Executive Branch. Which is why a new article titled The Executive Branch of the Constitution of the Roman Republic can be created and the information in this article should be mentioned in two to three paragraphs. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Currently, the executive branch of the Roman Republic is divided into many different articles, one for each office (consul, tribune ect). What do you suggest be done to reconcile a potential article on the entire executive branch, and the articles on the individual offices?RomanHistorian (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Why? Because I find that italicising the names of non stations makes the diagrams fractionally easier to read and piping words like and, for and to etc avoids that "black and blue patchy print" effect you can get. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Religious violence in India
I noticed that you had contributed a lot to Religious violence in India in a professional WP writing tone. Unfortunately, two users are adding unnecessary long-cruft details in the beginning and spoiling the enhancement of the article. They are only interested in edit warring and not interested in any sort of discussion. I fed up reverting their vandalism and requesting you to solve this issue.
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 07:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I moved your suggestion & my comments to admins notice, please participate there. Thanks. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
SKA-B-Q
I speedy deleted this article. I just took a brief moment to look past the article into the event itself to check for notability. -- Longhair\talk 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
 |
Hi Otolemur crassicaudatus/Archive 2! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3).
|
Unwanted advice
I am sure you will not like this advice, but it is in your interest. Wondering why you behave so strangely I had a look at your editing history for today and came to the conclusion that humour is something relatively abstract for you and you don't get the exact bounds for what is and what isn't generally considered humour. I would say that admins reacting to WP:ANI are likely to do the same, and unless this is part of a meta-joke it might be wise to remove your message there before anybody responds, and apologise to SteveBaker. (Your post to his page was a boundary case, and he does have the right to be offended. Note that Kmweber is poking fun at himself much more than at anybody else. Have you looked at the edits he claims to be proud of?) --Hans Adler (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- PS: Feel free to remove this, of course. :-) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Pacifica
Can we discuss your recent revert at Pacifica, California? I am curious about your reasoning. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I recall that both of those external link edits have a long history of Wikipedia:Single-purpose account editing, going back over many months, which in my judgment they run contrary to WP:COI and WP:EL guidelines. If you check the contribution history of the users, and what I view as indications of IP sockpuppetry. Also, for the surf forecasting[2], I suspect you may agree with me. Much of my opinion comes from memory, as I have had this page on watchlist for a while, and the exact diffs are buried in the page history. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I agree with you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
nofootnote tag
I'm about to insert in-line footnotes in the article, but what I really do need is a proofreading by any native English speaker. If you are as such and interested in the content, can you do me a favor of checking my grammar? I want to raise to DYK in my first time, so really need a help. --Appletrees (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- All right, but how did you find the article? The dish is not widely known in English speaking world and I just freshly expanded the article. --Appletrees (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Image removal bot
Just going though the images in album infoboxes that were deleted due to either just a missing fair use or license problem. I then restore the image & add the appropriate fair use/license. Can't keep up with the bot, just trying to get some of the album/film images back. SkierRMH (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Awarding Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
Category:Civilians killed in World War II
Thanks it will take a lot of work, Im surprised this category wasn't already in existence. -RiverHockey (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:
I use WP:HUGGLE which warns the users like that automatically :-) Hope this helps! ScarianCall me Pat! 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Hochwohlgeboren
Thank you, I will do this as it seems to be without controversy. Charles 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Meghna Bridge
|
|
On 3 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meghna Bridge, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
- Thanks for the article, man! --Tarif from Bangladesh (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for a cheering surprise
It does help to know that the work on Iran-Iraq is appreciated by some, as it's certainly a battleground for POV, and I've come close, on several occasions, to giving up. I've copied the Barnstar into the Iran-Iraq section of my userpage, to remind myself as much as others.
In that section, I've tried to describe a reasonable summary of the external, international world involvement in the conflict. While we may not call things "World Wars" any longer, when 30 or more countries are involved, at least as suppliers, it's more than a bilateral issue, or even an issue with a small number of key players.
Also in my userpage section, although I haven't done as much on it, is something that I don't believe violates WP:OR, although I'm just starting on a draft that has the appropriate references: the Tanker War was essentially a separate conflict from the Iran-Iraq War. Certainly, they were at the same time and there were interactions, but I believe there is abundant evidence that the US had quite different motives for its support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and what might be called the Iran-US war (i.e., the Tanker War). Not only are there declassified Presidential documents referring to freedom of navigation, there is a history of the US being willing to fight over freedom of navigation that goes back to the War of 1812 and the Barbary Wars.
The preceding is not a popular view among people with the POV that the US acted from simple anti-Iranianism. Nevertheless, I believe there is considerable evidence that the two conflicts were generally separate in the minds of U.S. policymakers, and such an analysis actually simplifies the analysis, rather than creating the political equivalent of epicycles to explain US and other behavior.
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation is a shining star in the manner in which Wikipedians, of intensely differing POV, manage to work toward consensus and accuracy. While that isn't a major interest of mine, I've had some very interesting and worthwhile interaction with them over defining terror and measures against it, which led to improvements in the counter-terror article and a better understanding of what was meant by counter-terror regarding the Sri Lankan civil war. Just today, I've shared some ways that I was able to help deal with POV clashes regarding Central Intelligence Agency, by setting up a rational set of sub-articles for a very complex topic. Perhaps if that approach works in several places, it may be worth an essay suggesting it for other POV battles.
Again, thank you. The Barnstar came at a time where my emotions needed it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Newanimal.org
My first instinct is ... no it isnt a RS, for two reasons. 1) it references Wikipedia for the very topic it is discussing. 2) the author appears to be [3], who has dabbled with vanity publishing, but hasnt yet published himself, and I couldnt quickly find a bio which could be used to better evaluate the author/maintainer of the website. I think it is fine to include the link as an external link on Buru (cryptozoology), esp. considering it doesnt have any better links as yet. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Thanks for the pointer. I believe it is considered polite form to notify the subject as well, so you should let Firefly know as well. Jfire (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Illegal Bangladesh
I wonder if you've heard of the "allegations of X apartheid?" mess? I'm quite certain this one could start something very similar... resulting in a waste of efforts in a lame wikiwar by all involved instead of doing some productive editing... ¨victor falk 09:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: F&G
I agree. Delete it. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemjok (talk • contribs) 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
RE:Mario Kart Wii
I don't think so try if you wish.--Lbrun12415 16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't see that their before when I clicked on it it really has nothing to do with MK or MKW it should be removed.--Lbrun12415 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What tag do you speak of? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Err, the article has a tag above saying "Part of this article may be confusing". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Agapitus
Hi, thanks for your message! I listed Agapitus of Palestrina under "child saints" because he is described as a "young martyr," which I believe has a very specific sense -and he is depicted in terms of iconography in the English source as a child. Peter the Aleut is also described as a "child saint" even though he was around 15 too. But I'll look into it!
--Polylerus (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Slacklining
The entire article is written like garbage; the wikihow doesn't qualify as valid references, and there's far too many for EL. I changed the cleanup templates at the top of the page to reflect it. It needs an almost complete overhaul, and I don't have the time nor ability to re-write it. But I do know what makes a Wikipedia article good, and this doesn't have any of it. Anthony Hit me up... 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: MySpace in EL
MySpace should be avoided unless it's being used as a primary source for the account owner's article. You can also use it in external links if it has significance, something which is becoming more and more common for music artists and movie studios today. east.718 at 20:47, April 8, 2008
Re: Birganj
Thanks for your note on my talk page abouth the Birganj protests. I'll try and obtain some more information. Pahari Sahib 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
RE: Crime in Russia
Hi. Thanks for taking note of my edits, and thank you for your work on Russia related articles as well. I'd certainly be happy to assist you in improving both the crime article and Operation Amba. Krawndawg (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Josh Kelly
The lead section only has two sentences. I didn't add the tag, but that seems pretty short to me. There is a link to the guidelines in the tag itself that would be helpful to you if you want to know more. --Glennfcowan (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am not the "primary contributor", if not, in other words, I only started to edit the article this few months. And as you can see, my focus is on recent development. History part is definitely out of my scope. While the name written in capital letters I have no idea too. Since I know nothing about military organization. But anyways, I will try my best to edit them. Regards, ChowHui (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Turks and Caicos Islands
Hi Otolemur,
Actually the photo has nothing to do with the history of T and C, other than it adds a bit of colour (or color if you prefer) to an otherwise long and somewhat dry section of the article. Any thoughts at your end? Cheers from Halifax! --RobNS 04:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion if the photo is not directly associated with history, it should be removed since it is not relevant to the subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I have just added an English reference. Regards, Mibelz 10:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi Otolemur crassicaudatus. Your note and the barnstar came as a pleasant surprise to me :) - I had not missed your message, and the barnstar: the same propelled me to continue to move forward, and hence the delay in responding to your message. Thanks & Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Skelmersdale
By all means feel free to expand the article. I'm afraid local geography is not my area of interest, I just keep the vandalism to a mininum on it. Cheers - Galloglass 19:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Tunguska event and UFO sighting
Response on my talk. --Elliskev 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Rab concentration camp
Yes, I certainly could change it, but it might be more appropriate to ask the editor who put it there to do so. See [4].
As a matter of practicality, perhaps it's best to leave the article alone as right now Gennarous is busy inserting his outrageous POV into it. This procedure will probably take him a few hours. Once he's finished, I (or another editor) will revert his edits, and I'll see if there's a better source than the one you have rightly questioned. Best regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
My RFA has closed
My RFA that you weighed in on earlier has closed as no consensus to promote, at a final tally of 120/47/13. I thank you for your feedback and comments there, and I'm going to be considering all the various advice and comments presented. I might end up at RFA again some day, or not. If you see me there again in the future, perhaps you might consider a Support !vote. If not, not, and no hard feelings. The pen is still mightier than the mop! See you around, and thanks again. Lawrence § t/e 18:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Cointelpro
I accidentally removed and then readded it. Check: [5] Chendy (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I haven't really thought about it to be honest - Depends on how you use the word, but all in all i don't think it really makes much sense to label it a conspiracy theory. Chendy (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Adam Smith quote: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Re: Exit Mundi
Will do. I'll make a comment on the talk page. I deprodded it while PROD patrolling because I found it had been previously prodded. If OrangeMike feels it should be deleted, he needs to do it through AfD. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Deletion sorting
Please do not add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to every irrelevant deletion sorting. The article (and its general subject material) is not related to Islam, Iran, Iraq, Russia, El Salvador, or Lebanon, and likewise should not have been added to their deletion sorting. Yahel Guhan 05:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, the subject is relevant to the countries because those countries have made allegations regarding US state terrorism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: User:Xenocidic/ubxadopted
They're already categorized for the most part (I'm finding them in the galleries), but where exactly did you mean? xenocidic (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I mean that if you list all the userboxes you created in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Animals, it will be helpful for others to find them and use them. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, they're already there - I'm just performing userbox migration and adopting some because the original creators are inactive. Thanks, though. =) xenocidic (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I agree that this article could use some wikification as well as referencing. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Terraxos (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the article's a stub though, stub articles are generally much shorter. Terraxos (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
caps "in theory"
It's true. The thing is still new. However did you notice that theory (brand) spells it all lowcase! Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: 성동구
Please visit this page Category:Redirects from alternative languages.
The redirect page is for whom can't not correctly find the "gu" or ward in romanized spelling. The two countries officially have adopted two different methods about 10 years ago, so which are not firmly settled yet. 성동구 in Korean can be spelled like the below.
|
|
etc.. too many varieties exist, so the alternative redirect is necessary. --Appletrees (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
TallGash
Concerning "Tallgash", the user name is offensive. Why not ban it based on that? He / she is obviously a vandal puppet. Proxy User (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands it looks like original research and therefore has bigger problems than just its name. Can it be cleaned up or is it irretrievable? Unfortunately I don't have the patience to read it to find out - it's not a subject that interests me that much! -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
RS
IMHO it falls into WP:SPS, the word you linked to would be more a subject for Wikitionary rather than here. Gnangarra 01:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
3rr
Why don't you start discussing instead of reverting everything? NJGW (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- What about the ref would you like justified? NJGW (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- The terms are cultural terms which are used both pejoratively by outsiders, as well as by the insiders. The eclipsenow.blogspot ref gives insight on the different terms, and backs up the other link. It improves the reader's understanding of the topic and is in much clearer language than the other link it backs up. Please read the essays attached to wp:ignore all rules and let me know if you agree.
- As for the http://www.oilpeaks.com/week/article9.html link, it is dated 2005, and contains far more info than was ever in the Wikipedia articles, but I do see that it does reference Wikipedia. I do think you are over using the CN and OR templates by pasting them on the definition and entymology of the term though. NJGW (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have not "overused" OR or CN tags, they were placed in sentences which were really OR and needed citation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- The CN template is for use when you genuinly believe that the information might be false, or you forsee future editors feeling that way. For the most part, your use was fair enough, and I provided references. To tag the definition and entymology of the term is overuse though. As for OR, I do think you went over board with that tag, and you really need to give some sort of explaination when ever you use it as carries a heavier stigma than CN and is a very different issue: something is either needing citation, or OR... I don't see how a person could assume it to be both at the same time, and always remember to assume good faith in other editors (as I have in finding references and working with you instead of assuming you have some ulterior motive in your efforts to have the articles removed). I do believe that the information in the articles as they stand can be reasonably obtained from the sources, and that the many sources available (both in-group and out-group) show that the terms are widely used, gaining in noteriety, and connected to an important topic.
- Just remember to ask youself it the information is good, and does it help the whole project. I think these two terms in question are gaining in use, and will continue to do so as peak oil becomes a larger and larger issue. They are cultural terms which add context to the subject as a whole, so that while the terms themselves might not be extremely important on their own, they do help complete people's understanding. NJGW (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I used the CN and OR tags in places where they were appropriate and needed. In the article Doomer, there were several statements which bordered OR and needed source. I used the tag in the following sentences:
- Just remember to ask youself it the information is good, and does it help the whole project. I think these two terms in question are gaining in use, and will continue to do so as peak oil becomes a larger and larger issue. They are cultural terms which add context to the subject as a whole, so that while the terms themselves might not be extremely important on their own, they do help complete people's understanding. NJGW (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- "A convinced Doomer believes that the Green Revolution will collapse at the end of cheap oil"
- "According to Doomers, humanity will be in a state of overshoot after oil depletion makes modern farming methods economically unviable"
- "Doomers also hold a wide range of theories about the collapse of complex societies and systems"
- "The influences of Thomas Malthus and the Club of Rome are present in the doomer movement"
- "The typical Doomer response to peak oil and the collapse of the industrial system is to “ignore civilization to death” by setting up a Permaculture village"
- "This Survivalist mindset is what distinguishes the Doomer from the Peaknik"
- "The Peaknik may spend many hours campaigning for peak oil awareness, societal change and changes in government policy, while Doomers would generally see this as a waste of valuable time"
- "The Doomer focus is more on preparing the family and local community for the imminent collapse of civilization"
- "A purist Doomer concentrates on their "Lifeboat" survivalist permaculture farm"
- "If the purist Doomer raises awareness at all, it is to selectively encourage necessary tradespeople to join their eco-village, sharing their vital skills with their village to add to their security"
- "Some Doomers call for making active Survivalist preparations to be ready to survive a protracted societal collapse". This version.
In the article Peaknik, I used the tags for the following statements:
- "Peakniks are also involved in promoting public awareness of peak oil"
- "Peakniks question the view held by some cornucopians that the market will solve the peak oil problem by itself, as the market may not adequately discount the future cost of an unanticipated decline in petroleum production"
- "Peakniks stress that liquid petroleum is a finite resource, and some argue that Hubbert peak theory posits that production will not increase above some finite maximum rate, no matter how much demand increases"
- "Peakniks also argue that alternative energy cannot simply be plugged in, since these alternatives lack the fungibility, portability, and energy density of liquid hydrocarbon fuels"
- "Peakniks contend that because transportation, food, and petrochemicals are so critical to modern economies, and because these sectors depend so heavily on petroleum, the peaking of world oil production combined with the general lack of preparation for it may pose a stiff challenge both to the cornucopian view of economics and to the modern way of life". This version
All of these were unsourced information bordering OR at that time. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's the one most contentios question of Peak oil. A lot of folks are saying 2006/2007, but there's no way of knowing for sure until 5-10 years down the road (plus there's not much transpanrency in the oil business). 2010 is also a popular number. So is 2030, but that's more along the lines of what OPEC and oil lobbyists are saying. NJGW (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- According to Hubbert peak theory, the decline should be roughly symetrical to the rise in oil use. It's highly unlikly that the aviation industry will be able to continue to use petroleum based fuels until 2100 (or rather, the use of those fuels will be so cost prohibitive that it would make absolutely no sense). Say the peak is in 2010, and that demand keeps growing the way it is growing now (keep in mind that there has been a huge slow down in production in the past 8 years, but at the same time, China and India are just now starting to see large portions of their populations buying cars), then prices for oil may become astronomical by 2011 once not enough oil is available to meet world demand. Of course, once that happens, we hope new technologies will be ready and in place to step in and take the place of petroleum (peakniks think new tech won't be ready, doomers think it's better that it's not ready because the world has too many people). Another factor is how much it costs to take the oil out of the ground. See the peak oil article for quotes from VPs and engineers in the oil industry saying there is not much more cheap oil in the ground. NJGW (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Stonehenge
I don't know, buddy, it was there when I recently went to clean up the template. I can guess though, or at least give you what seems to me a good reason. Stonehenge is an excellent symbol of Britain, don't you think? It is a national symbol everyone can appreciate without plugging one ancestry over another. Now, I presume you must be puzzled by it or you would not be contacting me. If you care to take this further you need to move the discussion to the template discussion page, get the names of others who have worked on it from the history, open a discussion and contact them. If you have an alternative put it on the discussion page and we will consider it. I did not feel and do not feel I could just arbitrarily change it without discussion, as it is a national symbol and impacts quite a few articles. So, I approve your contacting me and I look forward to your either deciding I have a point or following my suggestion about proper channels to follow. Needless to say, your not following channels might raise quite a tempest in this teapot. The British take their national symbols seriously, as do Americans. PS my time on this is intermittent so if I do not immediately reply forgive me. Sometimes issues take time to resolve.Dave (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: United States Ambassador to Pakistan
Maybe, depending on one's perspective. --Tom (talk - email) 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Canadian encyclopedia
I imagine it almost certainly is an RS, although we prefer not using encyclopedias for sources if other, perhaps more specific sources, are available. Are there any particular articles you're thinking about here? John Carter (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Use it. It certainly qualifies as a source for everything it says. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank You For the Cookies
Thank you for giving me cookies and officially welcoming me to wikipedia. I have actually been on wikipedia for a while, but I have mostlly just editted "Communism", it's a mess. Anyway, thank you for your help, it was very useful.
Chucky
No, because you'd have a difficult time proving that someone coming here and typing "Chucky" was looking for a fictional character over the basketball players. Then again, you could argue that if they are only typing "Chucky" they most likely are just looking for the character, given that he was known in the film's as simply "Chucky", whereas the other people by that name are not known for that name. If you feel it should be changed then you should start a discussion at Talk:Chucky, and see if there is any consensus to change the names of the respective pages. You can argue that, per naming conventions, there is no other "Chucky" on Wikipedia, though there are people who's first names are "Chucky", but they have last names that follow; the fictional character does not. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Cow tipping
Sorry, but (for lack of a better way to say it) what are you talking about? J.delanoygabsadds 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- The tag was added by an IP, and Cluebot removed it. And no, although I have thought it would be fun to try, I have zero knowledge about this subject. J.delanoygabsadds 22:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:MoS
You recently edited Klaus Löwitsch, reducing the birth and death dates to birth and death year only, and said in the edit history that this was "per WP:MoS".
If the MoS really does say that, I'd appreciate you showing me where, because as far as I know the way I did it is per the MoS. Specifically, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), subsection Dates of birth and death, clearly says to provide the full dates if they are known. The only case in which it supports having only the years is when the years are all that is known. --Paul A (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Amazon as RS
Hi Otolemur, you said that these reviews are published elsewhere. I think you would have to cite where the reviews originally came from even if it takes time. But you should ask a few more people just to be sure. Btw, I joined WikiProject Books because I have an interest in writing articles on books, novels etc. not because my expertise was in RS! Having said that, my understanding of WP:RS is sound as it should be since all Wikipedians, especially admins, should have good knowledge of Wikipedia's main policies. Good luck and hopefully you can find the original sources for these reviews as soon as possible! GizzaDiscuss © 11:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Though I did not entirely agree with your reasoning on that AfD, I notice that the Russophobes have again been able to create the faux impression that there is no consensus on this one (to see who they are, just check who voted keep last time as well, though add Ostap)). Seeing that csloat, User:smb and User:Ttiotsw were obviously not warned about this, if you have any inkling to improve or rename the article or try a third nomination, please warn me about that, so I can see what I can do against this WP:OR, WP:NOvel Synthesis and WP:OWN (by Biophys, that last one). Since you may be a bit reticent to trust me on this (in view of my ethnic origin and our different politic stand), you have my permission to wp:stalk me to assure yourself that I am "on the level". --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Composite ship
It's borderline. I've seen plenty of longer stubs and shorter start-class articles – there's no set-in-stone standard. You could post a message at Wikipedia talk:Stub and seek further advice. Otherwise, if you wanted to remove the stub tag, I don't think anyone would mind. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Spam or not spam?
I guess it depends on who is posting it, where and why... It does look like a commercial enterprise, and the level of cooperation by the (certainly notable) people they have awarded prizes to isn't clear, but it may also be notable enough for its own article or inclusion in an article. I'd say look at the context. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
|
On 26 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
I've looked into this a bit more. According to Marxism, you can be a Marxist and not be a communist. That being said, "Marxism" is, as you said, one of the "classes" of communism. It kind of looks to me like either can be a subcategory of the other. Am I wrong here? Is there a standard for WP; i.e., should Marxists always be a subcategory of communists? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK!
|
|
On 30 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article February 4, 1998 Afghanistan earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
IHRO - Urgent
Please give your vote at Wikipedia:RSN#ihro.in if you beleive that Human Rights Watchdog is a unbiased organization.
Please remember that huge number of crimes committed by Indian security forces in Punjab will go un-referenced on wikipedia if www.ihro.in is declared POV site. Reason this is among extremely few unbiased sources available online. Eventhough some of the north-Indian newspapers always published govt crimes in Punjab, but unfortunately they do not have this old data archived. For example, The Tribune (a 125 year old newspaper group), one of north-Indian newspapers does not have any online editions prior to year 2001 and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc did not have any online editions untill very recently. Also, India’s National magazine, Frontline does not have archive records prior to 1997.
Please read "Amnesty International", "Amnesty International, "Human Rights watch" where it says that "Thousands of mothers await their sons even though some may know that that the oppressor has not spared their sons’ lives on this earth. A mother’s heart is such that even if she sees her son’s dead body, she does not accept that her son has left her. And those mothers who have not even seen their children’s dead bodies, they were asking us: at least find out, is our son alive or not?" and "ENSAAF". As per HRW, Indian security forces arbitrarily detained, tortured, executed, and “disappeared” tens of thousands of Sikhs in counterinsurgency operations. Please remember, Amnesty International was not allowed to enter Punjab during these troubled times, hence Amnesty can not provide records of most of the crimes committed by Indian security forces as an India based Organization IHRO.
So please vote at Wikipedia:RSN#ihro.in ASAP .Singh6 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Move of New Zealand Elections
If you're going to move a page, can you a) ask first; b) spell it properly; and c) bother to do the necessary cleanup on articles linking to it, rather than leaving it for someone else? IdiotSavant (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed the error. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've moved the page properly. Please don't try to move pages using cut and paste, as the page history gets lost. If you are unable to move a page because the target exists and is not a history-less redirect, please use WP:Requested moves.-gadfium 04:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Website
Hello. For me it looks definitely as a non-reliable source. - Darwinek (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: World War Userbox
I think using this image or a crop of it would work well. Captain panda 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing that userbox. I have added it in place of my previous one. Captain panda 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Prostitution in Pakistan
|
|
On 2 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prostitution in Pakistan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
re:Category:Black and white films
Best place is to discuss it at the talk page of WP:FILM for a consensus. Lugnuts (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think this categorization is non-controversial and will be beneficial. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
King Leopold
Hi, King Leopold is a disambiguation page and hence there should be no more information than what is necessary to identify who is meant, and exploitation of the Congo mentions does that job.
If at all mass murder of its citizens should be in the article. Incidentally the article on King Leopold doesn't explicitlly mention mass murder because at best this is controversial. He was responsible for forced labour etc. etc. that resulted in the death of thousands, if not millions of Congolese, I don't deny that all. But that is not necessarily mass murder, as it does not clearly fit the defintion of mass murder. Hence for these two reason it should not be included. Novidmarana (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have reworded the sentence. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
5/3 DYK
|
|
On 3 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zimbabwe Open University, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
I think I've fixed this; as far as I can tell, the software doesn't distinguish ZOU and Zou so both now go to Zimbabwe Open University with a hatnote there to the new disambiguation page. Let me know if this isn't right. --Rodhullandemu 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
West Virginia history article Help
Thankyou kindly. I was wondering about the size for slow modem loading reasons. May be "West Virginia Prehistory" and "West Virginia River History" might make sense? Conaughy (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Mediation
I understand you wish to delete the comments of a certain user you're having disagreements with. As I stated above, that is certainly your right. I would encourage you, however, to participate in the mediation cabal opened up at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-04 Zimbabwe Open University. It's an open discussion, and should help both of you. Good luck! Redrocket (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
May 30, 1998 Afghanistan earthquake
|
|
On 4 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article May 30, 1998 Afghanistan earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Hi, I gave a rating to this article. I see that there's a lot of dispute on sources but most every statement has a source on it, which is better than a lot of articles. The main thing I'd like to see is a few more images in the article. Tobyc75 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
New Norcia
No problems- will re-phrase - thanks for the nudge - cheers SatuSuro 10:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Lake Erie Islands
I'm trying to edit this other article in another tab, but I'll do it next time. SpencerT♦C 11:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Trolleybuses in Poland
Hi, I was only converting the existing text into a template: it was already like that. Sorry, I do not have any extra info. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 11:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: your deletion of the section on Bill Demong-- it's reasonable to request a source, but it is not reasonable to delete the section for lack thereof. If you want to complain about the lack of a source on Demong, see his wikipedia article. -- Mwanner | Talk 11:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
agritourism.it
Hi Otolemur crassicaudatus. Sorry if my edit summary was confusing. I removed two links. The link I thought had probably been spammed was the changemakers.net link - the person adding it seems to have gone round numerous travel articles mainly adding that link - hence spam.
I didn't look at who added the agritourism.it link so I have no reason to think it was spammed. But I removed it because I thought it was inappropriate on the article according to our external links guidelines because it was mainly a listing of Italian places that provide an agritourism experiences - I don't think that's very encyclopedic especially as it's for just one country. In general we don't include links to listings of commercial services even when they are related to the article. The page is also in Italian which is not generally appropriate in the English language Wikipedia - I tried the "English" version (which is how I got the impression it was mainly a listing of places providing agritourism experiences :) but that just used Google's Automatic translation service and isn't really of a great standard to be sending our readers to.
Hope that explains my thinking behind my actions. Sorry about the "spam" confusion. -- SiobhanHansa 11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Airline sex discrimination controversy
Hi thanks for creating this article - it is certianly a more appropriate title then using the term "policy". I'd suggested myself that we needed a better title for the article. Perhaps you like to participate in the deletion discussion for the page? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airline_sex_discrimination_policy --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not particularly. Feel free to remove it if you like. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Patience
Could you please be more patience? I got called away form the keyboard...
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Against Civilization
I added the selection of writers that was listed on the AK Press page, since that's a pretty notable selection of writers. Seems okay to me otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Talas District
I know. I will create the template in a few minutes. BernardTom (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
USS Princeton
The reason is quite simple, compare that article's structure to USS Port Royal (CG-73). -MBK004 10:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, when the improvements include adding the technical data from the other articles and possibly an import of the ship's DANFS history. -MBK004 10:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent WIKI helper
Thankyou for being an excellent communicator and WIKI helper, Otolemur crassicaudatus. You are very much appreciated Conaughy (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: 2006 Lebanon War
Neither is great, but the map one is especially bad. That is a map of the attacks inside Israel - it doesn't include any of the attacks inside Lebanon, so it will have obvious neutrality problems. The picture of the smoke over Tyre used to be balanced with a similar image from attacks inside Israel, but I'm not sure what happened to that version. ← George [talk] 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read the page Wikipedia:Galleries. In short, image galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia.
Images included in articles should contribute more-or-less directly to the article content, and therefore do not go into a gallery. The better thing to do is to place extraneous images on Commons, where they are appropriately included in galleries, and then provide a link to the commons gallery at the bottom of the Wikipedia article.
Correct tags to use are {{Commons|Article name}} or {{Commonscat|Category name}}. --jjron (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
RE: Image
Well, as the image was taken by BBC, it's probably copyrighted. In which case, a {{Non-free historic image}} tag would be appropriate, as it is a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who took the image or the agency employing the person. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. The Chronic 15:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Velcro
As per your request, I added some more references to the velcro article, among other things. Look good? Loggie (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. This improves the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)