User talk:Hu/Archive3

Archives
1: 2005-11-10; 2: 2006-02-08; 3: 2006-11-15; 4: 2006-12-23; 5: 2007-12-02; 6: User talk:Hu.

Daytime Emmy's

Hi, David Bowie won in the category of Outstanding Special Class Special in 2003. Barbara Walter's won for Best Talk Show for The View for producing. They are listed on imdb.com and used to be listed on emmys.org but since the current nominations are underway they have been removed. Dowew 02:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw that thing on your discussion page saying to answer on mine. Dowew 02:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's ok, you included enough context that it is not especially confusing. Even better, you supplied enough of a clue (2003) that I was able to find a reference, so I updated the 30th Daytime Emmy Awards and David Bowie articles. I know it is more work than merely adding categories to articles, but I would urge you to find all the articles you added the category to and update the page with information such as you supplied here. Thanks again. Hu 02:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Guitarist list links

On Michael Snow's talk page I wrote: You are removing a lot of links to Rolling Stone's List of the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time, claiming in the edit summary that the page is to be deleted, while there is no AfD or any evidence it will be deleted. Please stop. Hu 13:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no AfD because the page is going to be deleted due to copyright issues, but somebody had inappropriately removed the notice from the page. --Michael Snow 18:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely the proper order for this would be to get the page deleted first and then delete the links. It would save a lot of bother for everybody to do it in that order. Who knows if the page will actually be deleted. If it is a slam-dunk, then it should be deleted already. But it isn't. If you can't speedy delete the page, then don't speedy delete the links. Hu 19:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a speedy deletion, the page has been listed as a copyright problem for weeks. The page will be deleted. But the typical order is to remove the links first, then delete the page, because it's easier to find the links while the page still exists. --Michael Snow 19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it is not a speedy deletion, so don't speedy delete the links; there is a more thoughtful way (read on). If there were zero doubt, then it would be posted, but since this has apparently been going on for weeks, then it is not decided that the page will be deleted, or it would have been deleted long ago. Once the decision has been made, i.e. some number of minutes before the page is deleted, and after a notice is posted on the talk page explaining, then by all means use the page to find the links, as you say, but do it properly, not like it has been done. A very important thing is that non-copyrighted information would be erased from Wikipedia by doing this improperly the way it is being done. If it were done properly, then you would make a note on each guitarists page about the ranking in the list. Each individual ranking is not copyrighted, though the list may be. Furthermore, whether or not the list should be deleted, the page should NOT be deleted because there is non-copyrighted discussion of the list and the controversies surrounding it. Hu 19:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of the Rolling Stone 500 greatest album page that has a lot of discussion, but the principle is the same. Hu 19:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to make out what you want here, but you seem to be dreaming up a lot of instruction creep to make deleting this page as difficult as possible. I am not "speedy deleting" the links, I am removing them. It is decided that the page will be deleted. It hasn't been deleted yet because nobody has gotten around to it, and because the links still need to be removed. The notice was posted on the article two weeks ago, which is where it belongs, not the talk page.

In announcing this deletion on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4, I already gave time for people to mention the ranking in the articles of individual guitarists. Very few people have bothered to state the actual ranking, mostly the link is just dropped into a "See also" section. If the ranking is stated, I leave that text in place, but I'm not going to do the work of adding it in to every single article. The list is still available from Rolling Stone, so anybody who wants to list the actual ranking can still do so after this list is deleted. --Michael Snow 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

signing posts

I thought I had been. Sorry. Hmains 21:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Group mind page

Thanks for fixing the Heinlein link. Is it really important to you to put the 's outside the link? I personally much prefer inside; is there a style guideline either way? --David.alex.lamb 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the possessive apostrophe 's issue is very important compared to other Wikipedia issues, but I think that it looks cleaner to not link the apostrophe 's since the link is invariably to the article about the person and not to an article about their ownership or authorship of books. Hu 05:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just think the blue-stuff'grey-stuff looks awkward. I'll keep doing it my way but won't revert if someone changes it. --David.alex.lamb 05:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Starship Troopers copyedits

Hu, you rock! Have I ever told you that? Well, I have now... Seriously, awesome work. Can you please hold off on doing the "Themes" section, though, just because I still need to rewrite it? Palm_Dogg 04:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll hold off on the "Themes". Hu 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, *finally* finished the rewrite. Palm_Dogg 02:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, am making a second push for Featured article status. Palm_Dogg 02:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Philip Danforth Armour

I've responded to your question at User talk:Aecis. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 08:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004

Greetings. You were involved in the discussion regarding the deletion of certain lists as copyright violations. TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 was determined to be a copyright violation, and was deleted. I restored the article, but removed the list itself, simply describing the list so as to avoid copyright problems. The article is now nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004 (2nd nomination). If you'd like to weigh in, I'd appreciate it. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I voted to Keep it. Hu 18:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Images

I've now uploaded image:SLz20hanuman and image:SLz21hanuman as requested - these are the only copies I have on file and may not be the originals. jimfbleak 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into it soon, I hope. Hu 12:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert A. Heinlein

No problem at all buddy. Heinlein was and shall remain a man among children in the literary world of speculative fiction, and I'm just glad that I can be a part of disseminating his knowledge and exposing others to his work. Ayesee 21:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Manitoba (band)

Hi, I see you left a link re Caribou (musician) on the Manitoba disambiguation page a while back. When I came across the page someone had reoved your entry. I added it back but it's been removed again. I'm going to keep a watch on the page and invite you to do the same. I'm not sure why someone repeatedly removes our entry but ? Take care Hu Gadarn 01:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Figures

I uploaded new versions of the two figures that you had reversed after flipping over the original vectorized copies. At the same time I updated the licensing to reflect multilicensing options that I support. In so doing, I took your name off the copyright notice, since it was no longer your modification but a new original with different licensing. If you would like to put your name back as having created the original inverted copies feel free to do so, but I wanted to sidestep the appearance of a licensing conflict when uploading the new versions. Dragons flight 03:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and I'm happy to have full credit reassigned back to you, where it belongs. Hu 17:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Heinlein

Heh - thanks for fixing the link on my user page. I was uncertain anyone actually read those things :) - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 01:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Hu 09:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanx

This is a message for Hu from Abbadonnergal. Thank you for correcting the spelling error in my article, "Russian traditions and superstitions". However, I think your commentary, "(decline of English language skills due to internet bad habits)" was a bit superfluous and I don't really appreciate it. It was obviously something I overlooked, unlike the title of this message, which is very much deliberate. My English language skills are just fine, thank you. I'm not sure what "internet bad habits" are. I suggest revision of this statement for better clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbadonnergal (talk • contribs) 23:14 UTC, Oct. 5, 2006

You are welcome. I apologize if I was a bit harsh in my edit summary on the Russian traditions and superstitions article, but you may note that I did not direct it at you personally. Edit summaries can't be changed. I was in a run of similar corrections of the kind of errors in English language usage that have proliferated dramatically in the last five years. The error I fixed was repeated twice in the same sentence so it wasn't a simple oversight. Please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes to give proper attribution and time&date stamp. Hu 00:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Chronology of Everything

Thanks for visiting my odd little side project--you may be the first person besides myself to see it, let alone edit it.

I wanted to point out, though, not so much for the Chronology as for your broader disambiguation efforts--WP policy suggests not piping links that redirect from a topic to a broader topic, because those redirects are a clue as to when a chunk of an article should be spun off. I believe there's a discussion at WP:PIPE. Nareek 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'm all in favor of "projects". I understand the sense of that, but I think that articles and links should be clean and efficient. If a topic needs to be spun off, it will make itself apparent by occupying increasing space inside another article. Hu 00:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you deleted your original comment...

...but seriously, don't you think this is just a bit snarky?

Contrary to some of your recent edits, the clear style guideline for Wikipedia is that book titles are italicized.

Especially given that I was working through an extensive copyedit of that article, and you sent that note long after I'd already cleaned up the references?

If you have any thoughts on the content of what I changed, let me know on Talk:Variable Star. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologized for my original comment when I deleted it, because I had misinterpreted the edits. Your edits were fine, which is why I deleted the comment. Apparently my apology and correction were not enough for you. I was mistaken. I am sorry. I apologize. Okay? Hu 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess my point is that I went through the entire article, making substantive changes, and your impulse was to snark about formatting details rather than content; it just seems a bit of a misplaced priority, you know? That's all I was getting at. But I'll drop it. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done my share of editing on content on Wikipedia, so I have no illusions about priorities. In fact I created the very page you were editing, Variable Star. My original note on your talk page was in reaction to what I perceived to be a mistake (whether it was content or format, I perceived it as a mistake). So in that note I simply directed you to the appropriate style guide. However, it was me who was mistaken about your edit, so I retracted my comment and apologized. I think you are being overly sensitive, especially since I apologized. Hu 23:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

British Commonwealth numismatic articles

Hu, these have to be written to make sense.It is often better to use the name 'British Commonwealth' as opposed to 'Commonwealth of Nations' to reflect the context that the article is written in.The Commonwealth is better known as the British Commonwealth,especially among numismatists, and besides, the name 'British Commonwealth' is actually politically neutral, as it avoids the wrong use of the word 'Nations', which is an ethnological term as opposed to a geographical term. Do you see where I am coming from? - (Paisleyite1976 02:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

The British Commonwealth ceased to exist in 1949. That was 57 years ago. When coins were issued more than 57 years ago, but after the British Empire became the British Commonwealth, it is ok to use the appellation "British Commonwealth". But if coins from after 1949 are included, then the inclusive appellation must be "Commonwealth of Nations".

The "Commonwealth of Nations" is the official name chosen by the organization and the one they want used, and it has been this way for many years. There is no valid reason not to honor their wishes. Regardless of whatever quibbles you may have over the word "nation" versus the word "country", it is not a problem in the context of the Commonwealth of Nations in common discourse and not a problem in this encyclopediac context.

To push the term "British" in the context of the Commonwealth of Nations is to deny reality and to push an antiquated chauvinistic Britan-o-phile agenda. This was all explained to you before you were banned, Aidan Work, banned for pushing political and chauvinistic agendas among other things. Now, get with the program, please. Hu 02:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a citizen of a Commonwealth country, I can say that Commonwealth is the most common term, and British Commonwealth is next most common; Commonwealth of Nations is never used in everyday conversation. Speaking as Wikipedian, the official term is Commonwealth of Nations, and in the interest of being internally consistent and avoiding embedding a redirect in the original article, it would seem to make the most sense to stick with Commonwealth of Nations.

Also speaking as a Wikipedian, and being completely ignorant of any backstory that might exist here, "Now, get with the program" seems a tad uncivil. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you stated the case for "Commonwealth of Nations" well.

And yes, there is a backstory. The user, Aidan Work (talk), was banned in January 2006 for extremely uncivil behavior: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Aidan_Work. So my request, phrased with a "please" to temper it, is actually a de-escalation. It is my opinion that the user Paisleyite1976 (talk), also posting as 202.180.98.82 (talk) and 202.180.72.84 (talk), should be banned on sight (cf. [1]), but for the time being I've been letting things develop. Hu 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

From a quick scan, the similarities between the interests of Paisleyite1976 and Aidan Work seem more than coincidental. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gutting Waldo

I did originally consider a move or redirect. I didn't consider the article history angle at the time. I was more concerned with those nitwits who have been doing the vandalism getting sent straight to the new article, where they might continue fooling around. If I had done a redirect, it would have been to the disambig page.

I did look at the history. The article was never very long, and only recently acquired the section on the Waldo, which I copied. Do what you must, but please keep the new article intact. Djdaedalus 00:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The move has been accomplished, with the help of an Admin. The article history and your most recent edits are now at Waldo (short story). Hu 22:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hell-bound fuckwit!

Hu,you are a fuckwit who belongs in one place - the Lake of Fire in Hell! It is because you are a nutcase and an untermenschen faggot! - (124.197.16.95 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

I see that the banned Aidan Work / Paisleyite1976 is back trolling, unable to learn his lessons and badly in need of anger management classes and christian humility. Hu 01:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hu, you aren't a Christian! You're a hypocrite like the pointed-hatted gay Nazi gorilla in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome! - (124.197.16.95 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

zzzZZZzZzz Hu 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

How stupid. Why do people waste their time with such petty insults? Keep up the good ignoring, Hu. Chris53516 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Platinum Edition Page

The information that was added to the Platinum Edition page is not vandalism. It is information that is easily verifiable. The Ultimate Disney.com website, although independent from Disney, is extremely accurate and 100% reliable for information. Since its inception, the site has been accurate on all the information they give on Disney DVD releases. All dates have been correct, as have been all previews. Earlier this month, Australian retailers were told to expect Pinocchio and Snow White as 2008's Platinum releases, and since their releases have so far been identical to ours, we can assume that that will be true for us as well. In any event, a disclaimer was added to the page for users to check the website for more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldude98 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 October 2006

Thank you for your note. Please sign all comments on Talk pages with four tildes ~~~~ so that the time, the date, and the user ID or IP address is automatically stamped. Regarding the Platinum Edition DVDs, the anonymous IP was making vandal edits on other articles at the time, and the changes on the DVDs article were major. If a user wants to not be reverted, they are advised to create a user name and then never make vandal edits with it. Hu 23:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Starting over....

I just reviewed my response to your comments about my formatting of story titles. I was overly sensitive, and I'd like to apologize.

I'd like your opinion on a new question. There are a lot of red-links in Expanded Universe (Heinlein) and Requiem (book). Would it be worthwhile (for me or someone) to start fleshing those out? In particular, I can see Who Are the Heirs of Patrick Henry? being an interesting article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology, but the original mistake was all mine. You de-escalated nicely and we were very quickly on an even keel and have been ever since. I've observed your reasoned edits and we've interacted quite amicably.

I encourage you to create articles about the Heinlein stories and articles. They are all deserving of articles and analysis. More content, not less. I've thought of adding some myself, and I have done so from time to time. Hu 20:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. A few days ago, I printed out all of the existing Heinlein-related articles, with the intention of reviewing them as a group. It's a daunting job; there's a lot of content there. Now I'm thinking a more practical approach would be to start by creating stubs for the redlinks, then reevaluate. I have this vague idea that it would be nice to add predecessor and successor links in the future history stories, but I haven't really investigated what would be involved. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest not creating stubs for redlinks unless substantial material can be written (about the size of "A Bathroom of Her Own" when I created it. At that length they still qualify for stub tags, but the red links are flags for what needs a basic article. On the other hand, if your successor/predecessor link idea is implemented, that will be a powerful incentive to create articles regardless of how small or stubby they are. Hu 22:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of reformatting the story titles in the Robert A. Heinlein bibliography since they are italicized and should be enclosed in basic double quote marks. Hu 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I was also thinking of reconciling the Robert A. Heinlein bibliography with James Gifford's New Heinlein Opus List. Feel free to take a look at it if you're in that article anyway; otherwise, I'll keep it on my pending list. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Gifford's Opus list is invaluable, but we shouldn't quote it since the condition of including a copyright statement in every such article would be onerous. However, I think it is fair game to reference his G.nnn numbers, rather like Köchel numbers for the Mozart opus. If in time enough numbers are used, we might establish an article explaining Gifford's opus numbers and link the letter G to it. Reconciliation (meaning conforming Wikipedia to facts) is definitely the thing to do. It would be a big job, but fortunately it can be done methodically and sequentially, a bit at a time to avoid being overwhelmed. If anyone takes a run at it, they might drop a note on the bibliography Talk page to let editors know how far they got.

About predecessor / successor links, I think the way to go would be a sidebar box with useful (I hope) summary info, but I would like to see it kept spatially compact. It is a lot of work, but I think it would ultimately be a boon since it would encourage sequential browsing, which is a highly effective web navigation system. Hu 22:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the copyright status makes it impossible to directly include the list. I understand where he's coming from, but it's not copyright-free, so we have to tread lightly. He does authorize use of the G.### numbers; I just haven't thought through if they're useful. By reconcile, I mostly meant just cross-checking our list against his to ensure that we're not missing anything. Using it that way leaves us entirely free of any copyright issues.

Here's an interesting question about those hypothetical predecessor/successor links: Do we include the "stories not yet written" in the chronology? If we do, they'd clearly have to be stubs and they could never be significant articles, but you could argue that they have a place in the future history. (You could also argue that they never existed outside of the chart and presumably some story notes, so they're not entitled to individual articles.) -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest only published stories and in order of initial publication. I would include all published works. It should be possible to have three sets of successor/predecessor links for each story: s/p published work, s/p story, and s/p Future History story. Only the FH stories would have all three. This supposes that the sidebar boxes would be generic to Heinlein publications, and not just the Future History stories. I would not suggest articles for unwritten FH stories since they would be non-notable and subject to deletion. Hu 22:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right; it would have to be publication date. In too many cases, the date of original writing ends up being speculative original research. In your three categories, what's the distinction between "published work" and "story"? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Published work includes novels and non-fiction. Hu 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Commonwealth Infobox

Yes, I know that it has been the Commonwealth , not the British Commonwealth. However I created that infobox because I believe in the British Commonwealth, as in, it having British in the title. --Sicamous 23:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch

Just notice all of the poker related articles being spammed that you caught, Well done :) ~~=Sirex98= 12:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (for ref: User Talk:johhnyrothman) Hu 12:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work

In catching all those vandals, you've beaten me to reverting twice this hour, keep it up :D Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! User:INVERTED was beating me many many times! Hu 10:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alwise

Not english is not a criterion for speedy deletion - just ask WP:PNT to translate it. This one [ Alwise ] is delete b/c it's Russian G11 spam. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected something was up because of the embedded link, but really I didn't know. Thanks for clarifying. Hu 14:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jessica Thomale purge nominaton

Please review subsequent edits and offer constructive improvement suggestions. -- User:RJBurkhart3 03:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed it and nothing and none of the changes makes her notable. There are millions of programmers. Furthermore, what part of Summarize Group, Preview don't you understand? Hu 03:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On October 20, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joshua Then and Now (film), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You! (appeared on main page in the Did You Know column on Oct.24) Hu 10:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple Vandalism warnings

Hi - thanks for your note. I agree, looking at that talk page, that I posted a few too many, however, judging by that, I think it must have been one of the times that I was reverting every edit I saw with WP:VP2 this evening. With VP2, I have been dispensing with using WP:AIV for the majority of cases, instead asking an admin to do the blocking using IRC. Thanks again, Martinp23 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'll be careful, in future, just to rollback without warnings after reporting the user :) Martinp23 20:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hu 20:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of this page

Thanks Jim Douglas for fixing it. The user wrote on its talk page:

Sorry. I was just very frustrated that he deleted part of neuron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.143.20 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Which of these four vandalism reversions was it?

1. this one ("Nerve cells look like freaky little strings.", "Nerve cells appear useless.", "AHHHHH:" ) Oct. 26,
2. this one ("And llamas are lucky because they have nerons !! GO LLLAMAS") Oct. 25,
3. this one (a deletion plus "... no changes ... no changes ... no changes ... no changes ... no changes ... no changes ... no changes ... no changes ... no changes ... no changes ... no changes ...") Oct. 15, or
4. this one ("it is named the nerve cell by a great scientist named Albert Einstein. he has many discoveries in his hands.") Oct.12.

There are no other reversions I made to the Neuron page. Hu 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it was the llamas one; that looks like a valuable contribution. Hu, you should be ashamed of yourself for deleting such critically important material from Neuron. 141.156.143.20 certainly taught you a lesson. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Arf, arf! Hu 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Wp-mad.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wp-mad.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Somehow the info got obliterated during the upload, but in any case I have explained that I made the screenshot so I own the copyright and I have shown the site the screenshot is documenting for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning magic debate, which is fair use. Hu 12:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming template changes

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards! Srose (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked and made a comment there. I may make some more soon. Hu 17:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Rerutiozy

So you know, I've already re-added the templates back to the articles again.. Oy.. He deleted a lot of them..--Vercalos 09:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. Hu 09:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And he seems to be inactive since you warned him. That's a relief.--Vercalos 09:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Laurasia and Gondwana

Hi, you recently reverted me at Laurasia and Gondwana. I had added that they are hypotheses, and you said they are well established. While I'm not saying this is not the case, Encyclopaedia Britannica does state that they are both hypothetical [2][3]. I consider that in itself sufficiently adequate to source my edits. Take care,--Rudjek 11:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you didn't source them in the article. Besides, it is well established that the earth revolves around the sun, though some may say it is hypothetical. See a similar discussion about theories and facts on the Evolution talk page. Hu 11:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Britannica also says (at the bottom of the article - you need to log in to see it) that it is widely accepted. Perhaps they takes a more skeptical approach to everything, they also say that evolution is a "theory". As far as I can see, no one is actively disputing the former theories, so if you feel strongly about it, I'll give in :-) Regards,--Rudjek 11:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope I'm not doctrinaire on this. I think hypothetical is far too strong since it makes it seem like just a vague idea cooked up by a few eccentric scientists (I'm over-dramatising). However, wording like "a widely accepted hypothesis" might work, but then even that probably needs to be backed up by a reference because otherwise it starts to shade into weasel wording of the "many say" variety. Ideally there would be some discussion of the evidence found (contiguous geologic formations, possibly some kind of fossil records, etc.) Hu 15:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm terribly sorry for not getting back to you sooner (real life concerns). As I was saying, no one seems to be actively disputing Laurasia and Gondwana, and I just found that the MSN Encarta Encyclopaedia seems to present them as facts [4], there's nothing wrong with leaving the articles as they are. What you are proposing about discussion of the evidence sounds good though.--Rudjek 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Inuit

Hey there, thanks for the appreciation ;) Moez ^talk 17:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(Writing in Big Letters)

I don't know how writing in big letters is considered vandalism, but okay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DJDavis92 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The writing in question, [5], was reverted by a third user, so someone else considered it vandalism too. By the way, sign your posts on Talk pages with four tildes ~~~~. Hu 08:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the signing information. However, I still do not understand how writing in big letters is considered vandalism. DJDavis92 23:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Huge letters are shouting. You mustn't expect to win arguments or get respect on an encyclopedia or in its forums by shouting. Hu 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

copyvio

Re The India Doctrine: I understand the rules have changed. You can apply {{db-copyvio}} to any recent article. -- RHaworth 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the news. I'll use it. Hu 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User page revert

Not a problem, my friend. Keep up your own good work too! Cheers! Budgiekiller 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Jack007

You are doing quite good work. Just one (more) word from you and I will be away. Thanks.--Jack007 17:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Ei syytä ylireakoida. Palauta Bdurie ja pyydä purge sysope:lta ;)--Jack007 17:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Replying

I responded to your message on my talk page. Could you take a look? Thanks. Ajooz 07:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect of History of Jews in Persia, as you requested. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've replied on Ajooz page. Hu 15:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Next

Archive4 2006-12-23.