User talk:Mrzaius/Archive1

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.

Four hyphens is all that is needed :)

BesigedB 23:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

M

References Re: Range of Realization.

I have provided the references for the 'range of realization' page. Thanks for your help. So should I assume that the American spelling takes priority?? hehehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YBorg (talk • contribs)

Doesn't matter really. Just supposed to standardize on the one or the other for any given page, per Wikipedia:Spelling. MrZaius^talk 10:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are the references and notability issues still showing on this page ? I do understand, this is an original idea. How do I go about keeping this page online ?

The Wikipedia discourages and tends to remove original research. Might be salvageable with references from a reputable publication/popular press source. If none are available, the page is likely to be pulled at some point in the not too distant future. MrZaius^talk 10:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability Re: Materiality (architecture)

Now the issue of notability. The man who established the idea is a reader in architecture. If you don't know what that is, I urge you to find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YBorg (talk • contribs)

It still probably needs to be more effectively demonstrated in the article. See Wikipedia:Notability. Thanks, MrZaius^talk 10:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean like provide more references ? I don't understand. This is a relatively old and accepted idea in architecture.

That'd do it, especially with a quote or two from authors covered in the wiki or that worked on buildings with articles here. MrZaius^talk 10:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC

Ok, can you please check it out now ? I'm sure the section will grow after it is permitted to remain. Let other people contribute.

Requesting Articles

I understand you recently posted asking for a definition of 'Sane build environment'. While we encourage users to request new articles, we would be grateful if you reposted it on Wikipedia:Requested articles. Thanks. --Xyrael 14:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-Done, MrZaius^talk

Okay...

would do it myself...

Need to update

You really need to update your User page. You don't go to USI anymore and you don't work in a cornfield anymore. Why aren't you in any of the WikiProjects, btw? Jablair51 07:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do still work in corn fields, on occasion. Point taken, though. Mrzaius 14:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. MrZaius^talk 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Good jorb there mate. ;) Jablair51 06:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Chicagoland

I'm glad that you have joined me in my quest to free Little Egypt from the opressive rule of Chicagoland. We need to start a movement. First business: a flag! Jablair51 03:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No. First step, a userbox! MrZaius^talk 17:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unusual articles

Best Wikipedia page ever: Wikipedia:Unusual articles - Jablair51 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

It would appear that your Userbox for Lincoln MarkVII has gotten messed up. You might want to look into that. Jablair51 02:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The original image was pulled due to copyright concerns. The current image isn't cropped to the right size, as it was a 5 minute rushed job taken w/my digicam yesterday afternoon. Crappy image all around, as I had to airbrush out my busted radio antenna. MrZaius^talk 13:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Too much wasted time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wireless_internet_service_providers Check the history. Today I wasted an hour editing the list and then reviewing its validity under Wikipedia guidelines, and then requesting its deletion. WP:HOLIC#You_know_you_have_a_problem_when...MrZaius^talk 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

MQM

Hi, there is someone changing longstanding parts of the MQM article. He removed CITED points from organizations like UNHCR, Department of State, and the BBC. He simply comes in and deletes everything. Please help! --Disinterested 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not an op. See User_talk:Disinterested. MrZaius^talk 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It'd be great if we could get a person familiar with Pakistani politics to mediate this matter. I'm not against valid, relevant points but this guy just keeps removing material that is cited many times by reputable organizations. --Disinterested 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Need your opinion

There is this article on Hindu Unity the terrorist organization that has made threats against people like the Pope, Musharraf and even Sonia Gandhi.

First, the organization's OFFICIAL website lists people on hit lists. I added a CITED entry pointing to that specific page but this guy keeps removing it.
Second, they keep remvoing the Hinduism and India categories. Now, some time back there was an issue with Osama's article where I said that since he's an evil devil, he should not be identified as a Muslim but several back-and-forths later they said that that label will stand no matter how bad that makes the religion look. Shouldn't the same logic be applied here? Will appreciate ur thoughts.--Disinterested 08:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's really not my problem, nor a field in which I care to dabble too much. I am not very familiar with internal Pakistani or Indian politics, nor am I particularly interested. The only reason I edited/was watching the Islam in China article was to fix a little dangly bit at the end of an odd-looking sentence: [1]. While I am not uninterested in the topic(s) at hand, you might be better off seeking help/advice/guidance at Wikipedia's Islamic portal, where the relevant admins host several relevant projects. On a final note, I'm pleased to point out that Madman_0014 was banned from the wiki for a certain length of time, over the Islam in China changes. MrZaius^talk 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Please read over WP:3RR and realise it only applies to using over 4 reverts on one page in a 24 hour time span. I will warn the user about copyrights though. Sasquatch t|c 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks for pointing out my misreading of 3RR, as well. MrZaius^talk 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you…

…for your gracious apology. It's easy to mis-read these things, no worries. —Phil | Talk 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-OPEC

Hi, Mrzaius. I just wanted to discuss the removal of the List of Oil Exporting Nations not in OPEC article. You redirected to the List of Oil Trading Nations article. I wanted to provide a more thorough list than that presented on the the latter article, which really only mentions a handful of the "NOPEC" nations.

Also note that the last two External Links I provided on the NOPEC page are examples of the term being used in that sense, i.e. not in relation to the "No to OPEC" legislation in the USA.

Ordinary Person 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just improve the List of Oil Trading Nations article so that it is more comprehensive, yes?

Ordinary Person 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly be the preferred approach. MrZaius^talk 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Milton Keynes

Like it says in the footnote to Milton Keynes "for a history of the origin of the name, see Milton Keynes Village". --Concrete Cowboy 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate, you saved me a heap of work!

G'day Mrzaius. Thank you for your nice job of disambig on the Traffic control page. It's neat, tidy, and saved me a lot of time.

Off-topic, luuuuv COBOL, it does what FORTRAN cannot, and is much simpler than PL/1... :) Gordon | Talk, 21 October 2006 @03:17 UTC

List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction & Wikipedia:WikiProject_ListMakers

Since you've edited this list considerably, I was wondering if you had any opinions as to what could be done to clean it up, deal with all the red links with no annotations (and possible non-notable items), and generally ensure that all the entries are actually on-topic. I've raised some concerns previously on the talk page, for reference. –Unint 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As luck would have it, I am currently also trying to decide whether a different list, currently at AfD, can be improved... Does that make me someone bona fide interested in lists? Caretaking for any one list can be, as you've shown, a gargantuan task requiring either knowledge or extensive research (which is why I was watching for editors on this one intently), so I don't suppose you're looking for a task force that will deal with any list regardless of subject. (I haven't seen many strongly active maintenance-based WikiProjects as opposed to subject-based ones, but correct me if I'm wrong.) What kind of project structure did you have in mind? –Unint 02:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Having never participated in a WikiProject, I didn't give any concious thought to structure, but I was thinking primarily of just setting up some shared space where we could list three things:

1: Massively overblown See Also sections that need to be broken out into seperate articles.

2: Lists like ours that just need cleanup, hopefully attracting editors more interested in interlinking topics than authoring large swathes of content.

However, as you say, there do not seem to be many guidelines for the manufacture and syntax of such lists. The closest thing is the only tangentially related, and, in this case, probably inapplicable Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works), which seems more related to the highly stylized episode lists. An organized group of Wikipedians with overlapping interests may be able to hammer out usable general guidelines for lists not covered by the aforelinked. We could provide some generic guidance to those asking questions like the ones posed in the talk page for

If this could be better dealt with by an existing project or through some other mechanism with which I am unfamiliar, I'd be very much interested in bugging/using them. I note that an External Links project exists, but none exist for the maintnance of See Also sections. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also - The project primarily was created/proposed when I got myself into a huff over the degree to which the See Also sections were swallowing up the articles mentioned elsewhere, and were largely breaking with the style guide by providing lengthy descriptors. As such, it might be advisable to propose a task force within some other project, such as the (possibly dead?) project for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linkification.

In the long term, I would love to dust off my coding skills and find a way to compare the length of any given article against the length of its See Also section, allowing automated flagging of articles in need attention.

However, the idea may have simply been unnecessary/untenable. Any thoughts would certainly be welcomed. My apologies for the unruliness & length of my response. MrZaius^talk 03:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Copying this discussion to the Talk page for the project, in hopes that it might attract some interest when/if linked to from the list of WikiProjectsMrZaius^talk 03:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Socially responsible investing

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Mrzaius! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule investmentu\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

rm'd the link and replaced it with an NPR/Slate link. Wasn't spam, but rather a noteworthy mutual fund that's attracting a lot of news attention, including coverage in Forbes, NPR at least twice, Mad Money, etc. Seemed worthy of inclusion. MrZaius^talk 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Longest articles

Here is the real answer to my question the other day Special:Longpages. Jablair51 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

James K. Polk article

Your recent edit to the polk article might not be up to WP standards. In the comments you mention "no need to cite since it's referenced in other Wikipedia articles." However, WP:ATT (which recently obsolted WP:RS) basically says that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. So it would probably make sense to put back the citation-needed template, or to find the reference the other articles also refer to. Since you made a series of edits, I wasn't sure which was the best route. Best regards --Otheus 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, as the statements were nothing but comparisons of the ages of Presidents. As the date of every President's death is public knowledge and present in each President's article, I'm not sure I see why a source would be necessary for the trivially simple statement that he was the youngest former President to die or that he enjoyed the shortest time of retirement. Note that List_of_U.S._Presidents_by_time_as_former_president is already linked to in that same sentence, and that it fully explains the situation.

Barring those situations where a citation template shows up in a tiny summary with a fully sourced article linked to with the main-article template, I would normally always support the notion that the Wikipedia is not an adequate source in and of itself. Recursion is bad. However, these statements seem so trivially simple that I simply do not see the need for a reference. Will copy these comments to the Polk article to make them more accessible to any other interested parties. Might be best to carry on this conversation there, if it need continue. MrZaius^talk 22:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Osoberry

Thanks for taking notice. I was just making the page for a friend who is about to write the article. It should be looking better in a moment.

Royal Dutch Shell

Well done having a go at RDS, it looks to me like it is heading the right way. Please do not americanize spelling. Policy is that we use both British and American English and changing from one to another is considered edit warring. Thanks --BozMo talk 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused, but I was on a major spelling blitz after correcting numerous errors on the Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell page. Basically got to the point where I was automating the process and running an American English dictionary spellchecker against both documents. Now, please note that it is actually policy to write an article with a single standard spelling technique in mind, be it British or American, to allow for computers to check the article. Take particular note of the Manual of Style's section: "Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout." Thanks for the feedback, - PS: Will copy over to the RDS talk page. MrZaius^talk 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, of course. But the RDS article was originally written in British English and Shell generally uses British English on its website. One spelling you corrected was actually a direct quote from their website in British English. Therefore I think here we leave with BE. --BozMo talk 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And properly so. I have no objections. I was, admittedly, half asleep when running the spell check, after fixing the Controversies article. MrZaius^talk 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional characters who can manipulate earth

You nominated this article exactly one hour after its creation. If you had checked the history, the article was created to replace a category. I created all the list articles at the same time and am populating them now. Thanks.—DomBot / ChiDom ^talk 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may, why would you want to duplicate the category with an automatically generated article? The general trend seems to go in the opposite direction, given the added overhead required to maintain a list article, compared with a category. Won't move to AfD, but I still don't really see the point of the article. MrZaius^talk 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The category isn't being duplicated, it will be deleted and the list article replaces it. This was decided at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 14#Fictional characters by power; I'm just performing the actions that were the outcome of the discussion.—DomBot / ChiDom ^talk 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Busch Stadium

I need a bit of your expertise with something. The article for Busch Stadium has a bit of a formating error, but I have no idea how to fix it. Specifically around the sections for Photo Gallery and Ballpark Firsts. Care to either give me some advice or fix it yourself? Thanks. ;) Jablair51 00:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it. MrZaius^talk 00:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! All they did was forget to close the curly brackets at the end of the table. MrZaius^talk 00:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That was quick work there, sir. I knew you'd be able to see it. Obviously not my article, but it was bugging the hell out of me. BTW, don't you have anything better to do on a Saturday night than edit Wikipedia? Jablair51 00:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dance with monkeys. MrZaius^talk 00:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you be talking trash about The Monkees. That Mike Nesmith was a genius before his time. Jablair51 01:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Projects by type

Thank you for your contribution to the Project article in the past. This is now linked from Category:Projects by type. However, there is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. In particular, if you would like to save this category, please add a Keep entry with your "signature" using "~~~~". Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 01:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

American diplomatic missions

Thank you for your contribution to American diplomatic missions.

I think your idea of moving the details of terrorist incidents to the top of the list is prudent, although I am tempted to get rid of this list altogether (which I originally wrote), or relegate it to a separate article. This is because I am attempting to develop a consistency with the other 110 diplomatic missions by country (DMBC) articles, which is part of a new WikiProject. Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Foreign relations, and share with us your ideas.

On that point, I will revert some other recent changes that are not in keeping with the style of other DMBC articles, such as the inclusion of the State Department logo and organising Oceania as a subbranch of Asia. Kransky 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust as Featured Article

Moved to Talk:Holocaust, to make the critique more accessible to all interested parties MrZaius^talk 13:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dust Bowl

The sixth-grade vandal is back on the Dust Bowl page. I reverted it to your last edit, but the page bears watching. Rmasbury 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to suggest it, but it might warrant a week's Semi-Protect status as well. Thoughts? MrZaius^talk 19:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A week would probably get the page past the school assignment that led the vandal(s) there - the IP's go back to Texas schools. Rmasbury 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - please advise

I wondered why that hadn't been removed. I apologise - I didn't understand the protocol for "removing" such discussion. I just thought if it was that old and nobody was interested in contributing it was not worth keeping. I will read more about WP. Thanks for the advice.--Grinning Idiot 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wicca tidying - thanks!

Thanks for neatening the links in headers etc on this article. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and this means I don't always do it the most efficient way first time. I'll copy your syntax from now! Kim dent brown 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

'The Holocaust' article cannot be considered broad if it fails to address the most commonly held view throughout the world. It would fail on broadness, and factually accurate in that two people can have a conversation and talk about two different things.Alexsanderson83 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the conversation on the GA/R review. I was asking you to expand your argument there, for all interested parties to read and review after the GA/R is complete. MrZaius^talk 13:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Lolcat

How does the reword look? I've removed one citation as it's unnecessary (like saying this), and trimmed it a bit. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland

From here [Battle of Arras (1917)]

On a related note, I removed the tocright template today from the Jutland article. It renders more cleanly without it, and eliminates the astandard TOC layout. Using that template tends to cause more rendering glitches than most anything I've seen here. Note however, that it is possible to force the use of tocright/tocleft sitewide through your monobook.js, or whatever skin you're using for the wiki. It is preferable, in my opinion, to have articles using the standard layout when presented to normal and anonymous users whenever possible. Feel free to revert if you feel more strongly about it, though. MrZaius^talk 02:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

ref: Battle of Jutland (edit talk links history)

Hi!, thanks for looking around on my talk for related discussions. Some folks aren't that on top of things! Kudos.

The effort is an attempt to come up with a better overall and acceptable (eventually an alternate standard) way of putting TOC's on the page, but it's beginning to look like various internal implementations of browser rendering are far more tricky and exacting than I like. The more common problem I'm trying to solve is the vast gaps of whitespace that render in far too many articles with big infoboxes and such on the pages. Alas that tendency tends to be exacerbated directly proportional to the maturity (and not infrequently) the quality of the article, as they tend to be both longer (Giving a fuller TOC to generate said problematic whitespace), and that falls afoul of similar problems with cleared margins, etc. as I'm finding out.

Insofar as scripts and browser customizations, I am adamantly against adding such to any of my browsers as I insist on the paramount need to see how a page might be rendering to the customer readers... hence I even use the default skin religiously. My formating attempts hence are aimed at the same unprofessional looking factors such a customer reader would experience. Alas the various OPSYS dependent factors and personal browser settings are still presenting too many degrees of freedom, it would appear. However, it's early days yet... I've only played with Template:TOCnestright(edit talk links history) now on a handful of pages on 2-3 occasions.

As such I would greatly appreciate a discription of what you were experiencing to write "I removed the tocright template today from the Jutland article. It renders more cleanly without it" as on the four browsers and despite checks of multiple zoom-in/out trials, it was looking pretty good for me. Considering the page viewed in this before and after diff, does the earlier version (uses table elements vice "div style=") present similar objections/problems? (Note, my trials are aimed to get text to wrap around the TOC, with the TOC shoved over tightly against the Right margin elements, where the TOC is positioned circa AFTER the first or second paragraph of Introductions, or high up in the first section following, dependent upon TOClength and text length.) In sum, any input (or collaboration!) welcomed and much appreciated, including an opinion on whether a (as yet untried) forked approach (Template:TOCsetright(edit talk links history) may have a better chance in your experience and knowledge. (I a good C/C++ programmer, but only an advanced-novice at HTML alas, and even worse when it comes to scripts and such!) Thanks, // FrankB 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(Un?)fortunately, I don't run Windows at home, and can't test the page under multiple OSes, but in Firefox 1.5 under Ubuntu Dapper Drake at a 1600xsomething wide screen resolution, I was seeing the TOC push the edit button for the first section out of whack, and possibly the second. Can't really recall. My personal approach to all this stuff has been to minimize the level of tinkering I do with templates and magic words because, except in the few cases where it is actually necessary to prevent a rendering glitch in pages with a highly unusual layout, I feel it is better to accept a bit of extra whitespace than to risk allowing raw HTML or tinkering with Mediawiki's HTML generator to create such rendering errors. The KISS principle seems like the best approach to wiki syntax. I'll see if I can get you a screenshot of what it was doing at a WS res later, though, if I can. MrZaius^talk 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On your last

re: Battle of Jutland (edit talk links history)

Good summary on your last change, but from (1) you can see I caught that myself, and was documenting to others in (2) & (3).

re: "except in the few cases where it is actually necessary to prevent a rendering glitch in pages with a highly unusual layout, I feel it is better to accept a bit of extra whitespace than to risk allowing raw HTML or tinkering with Mediawiki's HTML generator to create such rendering errors. ",

alas, I'm rapidly coming to that same unsatisfactory "Hold me nose" conclusion. Actually, I think I may have accumulated enough data to put this forth as a bug issue and need to figure out how to document the "Ordeal". (Apparently, No good deed DOES go unpunished! <g>) Perhaps an RFC. Should do a Bugzilla check first I guess. (Time, never enough time, and always something new coming up to add more to the list!)

Just looking at how the IE/Firefox generated boxes displace relative to one another (at times), and don't at others may help others figure out what's happening in the HTML generator as you call it. At a guess, I suspect one in using a stack and tokenizing elements, then builds the page by popping those off and the other building in order encountered. Perhaps there is a simple change that can render as an common anchor point. All I know for sure, is it's above my pay grade and it's cost me a lot of time with little gains! Cheers // FrankB 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Geography of the United States

I see your point on land area. It may make sense however to list total area first, and then list total land area. Total area seems more important, and it is doubtful that many would exclude inland waters when thinking of the size of an entity. The wording now does not mention that the US is behind Canada in total area. Regards, Kablammo 12:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, that approach would make sense. However, I went the other way because the total land area statistic, unlike the total area statistic, is unambiguous and lends itself to a straightforward claim that the US is the third largest nation, using that metric. Did point out that the US and China are both smaller than Russia and Canada in terms of total area and linked to the list of nations by total area. I wouldn't object if you wanted to rework the order, though. Admittedly, it does seem more common to discuss total area. MrZaius^talk 12:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand your reasoning. The Chinese issue makes it difficult to come up with a clear approach (and that dispute ignores the effect of Taiwan/ROC, a road we don't want to go down here). I'll leave your formulation unless I can think of a clearer way to reword it. Regards, Kablammo 12:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gibson Generating Station

I wrote a short article on Gibson Generating Station since no one else had. Seems weird that there was nothing on the ninth biggest power plant in the country. Feel free to add to it if you can. Jablair51 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Got a little more in there, and some wikification, all via my internetz. MrZaius^talk 13:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

7DS

Not the same content as before but just as non-notable I think, and a possible copy vio, but I haven't got time to check at the moment. Left comment on talk page. Thanks for the heads up and checking it out. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 09:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on the United States.

Hi,

As you can see above, I tried to award you a barnstar, but something obviously went wrong. Anyways, I guess you get the point: your hard work is appreciated. Regards. Universe=atom 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! Took the liberty of fixing the missing argument. MrZaius^talk 05:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Samoan Islands

You recently reverted an edit to Samoan Islands. The previous edit by User:Taulapapa had added 31K of information and you reverted it back to about 900 bytes. Was this a mistake? Your edit summary did not give an explanation. Would you please add your reasons to the article talk page? Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for neglecting to leave an edit summary. When I saw it, I initially acted on impulse, assuming it to be a copyvio. Never found any evidence of that, though. Left a comment on User talk:Taulapapa prior to the above above being posted. I just posted a linked to my earlier comment from the article's talk page proper to make it more accessible. Thanks for calling me on it MrZaius^talk 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not find any immediate evidence of copyright violation. While there are formatting issues, I think it a better idea to fix the formatting and ask for citations rather than revert it completely. Though not formatted per WP:MOS, a {{wikify}} or {{cleanup}} tag could be applied; and the Taulapapa and other editors could work to bring it up to standard. There are a great number of "references" that were added below the stub tag; since they were not separated into References and EL/Further reading, it is not clear which were used as references, but that could be sorted out. — ERcheck (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was a little torn over whether or not to make with the reverting, on the same grounds that you just mentioned, but my main concern was that the article didn't contain citations - given that, I would have just wikified it and tried to clean it up. Without in article citations, it was impossible, for the most part, to tell what came from where. I certainly wouldn't revert again, however, if you'd rather undo my initial revert and try to clean things up. Apologies for any inconvenience, MrZaius^talk 16:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Airshipworld Blog

Hello MrZaius, I do not understand why you removed the Link to the Airshipworld Blog, have you even read the blog, do you know who I am, and what our mission is ? We want to bring Airships back to the consciousness of everyone, and by being linked from the Wikipedia, people can find lot's of background information about current Airships and the Industry. I would really appreciate if you could restore the link to http://airshipworld.blogspot.com since we are the people whose heart is behind airships, removing the link from the wikipedia article just hurts. Other pages have many links too. So I do not understand why you removed this one. If you aren't from the industry then I think we the industry should take control about what is written in the article. If you are from the industry I ask you why you did that. My email address is linked from the blog, feel free to contact me.

Regards Andreas G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.169.31.208 (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't recall removing your particular link, but please see WP:EXTERNAL for our policy on external links. Those few pages that do have large external links pages pointing to several blogs are in violation of our policies, not examples to be followed. Case in point, the article in question, Airship, was already flagged with Template:External links, calling for large cuts to the section. If you think you can make a case for having a link to your blog under those policies, however, feel free to make your case on the talk page of the relevant article. However, you might also check out http://dmoz.org to help us keep the Airship article from descending further into the realm of WP:LINKFARMS. MrZaius^talk 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Internet forum software

Thanks for applying that spam tag to the article - you made a very valid point about the huge number of links in that article. I'd be glad to clean up all the red links, but I'm not quite sure what to do about all the external links... if you have any suggestions, I'd appreciate them. Wrldwzrd89 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking leave the external links for the blue links and axe them for the red, unless someone takes issue with them remaining. Of course, if anyone takes issue with the removal of the redlinks, we should just direct them to WP:NOTABILITY and challenge them to make a good case in a separate article. MrZaius^talk 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and cleaned up the article, following your suggestions. I removed the spam tag, also - I think you'll agree, it looks much better now. Wrldwzrd89 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blood Red Shoes

Why do you want to delete this article? Not only did I spend ages writing it (having been a studious editor on wiki for over a year, check my contributions), but they are also a notable band in the UK. In fact I was very surprised it didnt already exist, which is why I was "bold" and decided to create it (my first ever one). They have been around for over 2 years, supported major artists and are currently on a huge nationwide NME tour (the other bands have their own articles too), which is known for launching bands which are very famous now. They have been critically well-received, have a fairly large fanbase and toured Europe as well. I have every intention of adding all this when I have time (I cant right now as I have exams). Obviously this is only a stub (which I added myself), and so will in due course be expanded. If anything, if you allow it to stay for a while, I can guarantee you it will be expanded very shorty by the band's numerous fans. I am not part of the band/record label's marketing, nor am I spamming/advertising them, I am simply a huge UK indie music fan (not even that huge a fan of theirs), but am pretty certain due to word-of-mouth and good reviews that this band will be very big shortly.

I dont understand a) why you'd want to delete someone else's hard work, and b) why you care, its obvious you dont know who this band are. I am new to creating articles so unfortunately I did not know *exactly* what all the notability criteria are but looking through it now, the article meets criterion 11 and 12 (I promise I'll add this very shortly). Looking up the deletion policy, it says "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion" and I'm assuming you did the latter? If this article is deleted I will be very disheartened with wikipedia, and this is coming from someone who spends a lot of time on it, and has immeasurably and selflessly improved its state. We are encouraged to "be bold", and when we are, our hard work is needlessly deleted, when countless, countless articles from gay bombs to ridiculous frivolities are allowed to stay. Feudonym 00:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Making a strong case for WP:NOTE within the article is all it would take to have the flag removed. Per your comments above, I will remove the prod from Blood Red Shoes. I was drawn there by the one-liners that made absolutely no case at all for note on its members, and saw no verifiable case for note in the Blood Red Shoes article. Per your comments above, I'll pull the prod and replace it with a standard notability cleanup template. Concerning points a) and b), remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Takes a lot of work to keep the Wikipedia from being overrun with advertisements and WP:NONSENSE. Spend an hour or two monitoring the Special:Newpages queue sometime, and you'll see just how much work it takes. Please accept my apologies, however, as I do seem to have erred in the case of Blood Red Shoes. MrZaius^talk 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re United States infobox

Hi Sean,

Expansion request: Discussion on the talk page resolved a a problem we were having with the "official_languages" of the United States in the infobox, choosing instead to use the regional_languages field, but that field isn't rendering...

There was a typo in the parameter name, but even if that had been spotted the field still wouldn't have appeared, as currently it's dependent on official_languages also being used. Instead, I hope the combination of languages_type and languages has produced the desired result – and I guess I'd better check whether or not these parameters are mentioned in the documentation!

It looks like one other field mentioned in the /doc, the spoken_languages one, isn't actually present at all in the template.

Seems so; I suppose its origin is somewhere in the history...

...I bet you could do it with relative ease and considerably greater skill.

Any apparent ease/skill is purely the result of trials and errors that always remind me how much there is to learn about HTML, CSS, etc, etc – this very template being another example tonight, before your enquiry! Best wishes, David (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for the cleanup, too, btw. MrZaius^talk 06:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Superhero!

You know the stie from artful writers you've proved that they might not make the film? Well, you answered your own problem because that site did say Craig Mazin is going to direct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigammagicwizard (talk • contribs)

I never said the film wasn't going to be made or contested any of the details in the article other than the still-unverifiable speculation about Leslie Nielsen's participation. You will note that I am the only editor that expressed a desire to keep the earlier article and that I did not nominate it for redeletion. All I did was post a link to the former Article for Deletion debate when the page was recreated and a summary of the problems that led to it last time. MrZaius^talk 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wibberley images

Re several images of Leonard Wibberley: 1) just pictures of him with different women not a good idea. 2) Several other images planned (as we have access to family archives) re different stages of his life . New to this, we have trouble with protocols for adding images, and the present one has a warning. The existing tags offered don't fit family archives. Advice appreciated. Alethe 13:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It'd be great to get a more conventional shot of the man up there. If you're able to control the license under the photos from the family archives are released, it would be ideal to have them released under one of the licenses considered free, listed at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All. While releasing the pictures into the public domain would be preferred, it is also acceptable to upload them using a {{cc-by-sa-2.5|template:Attribution}} or {{attribution}}. Other licenses that prohibit commercial reuse will have to meet the Fair Use guidelines instead, which is somewhat more complicated, and may lead to their deletion if they can ever be replaced with a freely licensed image. What level of control, if any, do you or your associates have over the copyrights of these images? MrZaius^talk 13:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Andy Card

Very nice job on the changes. I looked at the article long enough last night to realize I didn't have the patience for it. Well done. DagnyB 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Alcoholic beverages

Hi. I'm interested in a couples of changes you made to the Template:Alcoholic beverages tag. Homebrewing is still brewing. Homebrewing is a subsection of brewing, as is microbrewing, etc. A direction to either the brewing article or the Category:Brewing would be the way forward rather than breaking it down into sub-sectiuons. People could add other sub-sections and the tag ceases to be a quick guide to the main areas of alcoholic beverages. And the same is true of moonshining as a sub-section of distilling. Regards SilkTork 07:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to strike them if you insist, but I'd rather not see another category link go in. Note that the section of the infobox in question was so short that it seemed to benefit, in my opinion, from being more fleshed out. MrZaius^talk 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)