Editing of this page by new or unregistered users is currently disabled. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this page and you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection, log in, or create an account. |
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. |
Home | Bling | Content | Userboxen | Editcount | Talk | Guestbook |
Big Events |
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it". So I archive my mistakes and arguments here, almost every section contains a lesson that I hope I've learned. ϢereSpielChequers 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi.. I noticed your edits at Ancient astronaut theories[1] , and feel that they were a bit misguided. In Robert Temple's section you changed the wording from criticism, to 'rebut', why? That is considered a weasel word first of all and secondly it isn't neutral since Sagan's views were challenged. Also, there is no need for an extra section on Dogon Astronomy in a "refuted ideas" section since nothing about Dogon astronomy has been refuted. One of the people you cite in James Oberg even suggests that the evidence against the Dogon is mostly speculation, same conclusions were reached by Griaule's daughter. So I just wanted to inform you to please watch your edits as some of them seem a bit over zealous.Taharqa 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This user has chosen to withdraw from the Dogon - Ancient Astronomy v http://skepdic.com/dogon.html debate and would appreciate no further discussion of the issue on this talk page ϢereSpielChequers 14:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the ((prod)) tag from Image:Boonyay.jpg, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article, user page, or user talk page. If you still think the page should be deleted, please don't add the ((prod)) template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles, user pages, and user talk pages. Instead, consider using Images for deletion for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! -Interested2 03:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK Fair enough, actually I think its a great picture of a baby rabbit with a credit card for a scale, perhaps I was a little harsh and should have just changed the comment to it needed another justification for being in the public domain than being over a 100 years old. It was really the series of love letters that were posted on it that I thought not fully appropriate for an encyclopedia ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the ((prod)) tag from Image:Ray_Toro_at_Event_2007.jpg, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article, user page, or user talk page. If you still think the page should be deleted, please don't add the ((prod)) template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles, user pages, and user talk pages. Instead, consider using Images for deletion for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! -Interested2 03:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've removed the comments about the subject of the photo being Fugly and replaced with Images for deletion as you suggest. ϢereSpielChequers 06:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Legendary Texians" was correct. See http://www.amazon.com/Legendary-Texians-Davis-Joe-Tom/dp/B000UDX22K/ref=sr_1_2/105-7572984-2123641 Studerby 23:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
An article doesn't become protected by someone putting a template on it. It takes an admin action to set the protection, and a non-admin can make a request for protection at WP:RFPP. However, I suggest we don't protect this article, although I acknowledge most anon edits to it are not constructive. The levels of vandalism are not particularly high (compared to the levels that the daily featured article gets, for example) and are best dealt with by encouraging a range of editors to include the article on their watchlists. See also Wikipedia:Protection policy.-gadfium 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Football hooliganism, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My tidy up of football hooliganism didn't add a new point re sectarianism being a cause of football hooliganism - it was already there and still is, though I gave it more prominence. Not sure what your point is about biographies of living people as I didn't name anyone. However as you haven't restored the typos I fixed I'm unlikely to return to that article. ϢereSpielChequers 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan. Thanks for your very constructive edit to HNoMS Stegg. One small issue, though: April is written "april" in Norwegian, with a minor "a". The book title that included the word "april" is a Norwegian book title and was clearly marked with [] Error: ((Lang)): no text (help) to avoid being mistaken as English and having "corrections". I'll fix the book title now, but if you use a bot to make language corrections you might want to make it ignore words inside a language tag. Keep up them good work and be well. Manxruler (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I stand corrected ϢereSpielChequers 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
When you edited the article, why did you not checked the vandalism done and not reverted the vandalism [2]. This kind of poor article patrolling is doing no help in building an encyclopedia. If you really want to do some clean up tasks in articles, do it constructively and more carefully. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed webiste to website, a non controversial fixing of a typo. You may not regard that as constructive or helpful but it wasn't careless, if there were other things wrong in that article they were out of my expertise and I left them unaltered. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the issue here is whether an editor can make a change that improves an article without checking every detail in the rest of the article. My understanding of the way Wikipedia works is that one is allowed to improve an article even if you can't perfect it, and my changing webiste to website was an improvement. If there is a Wikipedia policy somewhere that one can't edit an article without checking every detail in it, please post me a link to that policy. ϢereSpielChequers 23:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I made an edit to the History of Easter Island page which you appear to be concerned about. My concern is not with the reliability of the source, but rather the. The relevant sentence is as follows:
"Jean-Baptiste Dutrou-Bornier—arms dealer, gambler, bigamist, murderer, slave dealer, encourager of apostasy and alleged ship wrecker—was to have a long lasting impact on the island."
Firstly it is not appropriate present a list of a person's (alleged) misdeeds in this fashion, particularly as several are repeated later in the section. Secondly some of the things are wholly irrelevant to the history of Easter Island - it is in no way presented as relevant that Dutrou-Bornier gambled, for instance. Put it on his page, if you must. Thirdly the material is presented in absurdly loaded language - for instance, it is inappropriate to describe someone as an "encourager of apostasy" because he encouraged people to convert from one religion to another. That's an extreme violation of wikipedia's NPOV rule. Finally, of course, the sentence is written in unencyclopaedic style.
Frankly it's just an appalling sentence, in what is easily the worst-written section of a very good article. My edit was simply to cut the sentence to:
"Jean-Baptieste Dutrou-Bornier was to have a long lasting impact on the island."
which is a much more appropriate way to start the section. Other editors can find an appropriate place for the material removed, should it be relevant and presented appropriately.
However my change has been reverted. I have no intention of getting into an edit war here, so I will make no further edits to the page. I simply hope that common sense and the wikipedia policies will prevail.Salim555 (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I take your point about apostasy and may well rewrite that bit myself, in light of experience that paragraph may not have been my finest contribution to Wikipedia - hence my query on the talk page of the IP address you used. I suspect your edit was reverted because you deleted some info without completing an edit summary, and as you weren't logged in at the time it appeared as an unexplained partial delete by an anonymous editor. Please don't be afraid of Edit wars, especially on Rapa Nui topics; just remember to explain your edit in the Edit summary field. ϢereSpielChequers 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I've declined your ((prod)) request on Jim Stanton. The prod process isn't shoot-till-you-win, and this has already had a prod declined on it; feel free to take it to AfD if you want. (Although, be aware that the reason it's so short is that I've recently removed about 90% of the article). – iridescent 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Shoot till you win? Oh yes there has been a previous ((prod)) - though not from me, and no offence to the editor who removed it, but he has only made two edits so may not be fully conversant with policy. More pertinently it was before this diff when the article's creator and main author admitted that he was the subject. But if you reckon AfD is the path then I may well check again to see if any refs to him have appeared on the web, and if not go there. ϢereSpielChequers 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You left a note on my talk page implying I was the creator of an article, The music Man, warning me of its deletion and noting that the article exists under another name. I did not create the article. I merely tagged it for speedy deletion. User:XXreyXX is the article creator, and the one to whom your message should be addressed. gnfnrf (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoops Sorry. My mistake. ϢereSpielChequers 19:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you meant "predominantly" not "predominately". I altered the text. Cheers. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
In which paragraph(s} are the attack)s}. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
What makes you sure that This is an attack page? It does not look like one to me. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure why you keep changing the character's name in the plot section. Especialy since you claimed Rocky was the character's only name. It is not. Rocky Horror is the character's credited name. It is also the "Title" role of the film.....you know....Rocky Horror.....Picture Show. Anyway, that does not mean that it must stay that way. It means a discussion is begun and a consensus is formed. If the consensus is to simply refer to the character as "Rocky" in the plot section then that is fine. However I objected as you seemed convinced for some reason that Rocky Horror is not the characters name. So I referenced the information and ask that you discuss further reverts on the talk page to gain consensus. It is totally possible. As it stands you made an incorrect claim on your last edit summary. So I felt compelled to to revert what was clearly incorrect information.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm the guy who edited the opening paragraph on the RCC wiki page anonymously - I made an account to write back.
I am in fact an Eastern Orthodox Christian, which was why I disputed the Roman Catholic Church being THE oldest Christian church. Obviously I believe the lines of succession of both communions go back to the Day of Pentecost in 33AD, so I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church is just as old as the Roman Catholic Church (hence, why I edited the page to say that it was "one of the oldest Christian churches" rather than the oldest church, seeing as though the two bodies are now separate entities, as the article goes on to say later).
If I could have some more elaboration on why there was anything wrong with my edit, I'd very much appreciate it.
In Christ, Tom. Anastasis777 (talk)
By the way, can you help me with setting up a basic user page please? Anastasis777 (talk)
Just a note that american football does not draft from high school. The youngest they can draft is those 3 years removed from high school. It is a blatant hoax. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from using purely numeric date formats on Wikipedia, as you did on Danny Morris. A date written as 01/02/03 means 1 February 2003 to a European, 2 January 2003 to an American or 3 February 2001 to a Japanese. Rather, use one of the date formats that is standard across Wikipedia: 18 April 2009 for articles on British/European topics, April 18, 2009 for articles on American topics, otherwise just keep it consistent throughout the article. Thank you. -- Smjg (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi
I don't get it: You say "remove lady GaGa disproved rumour", the link I listed in the PROD says that Rihanna denys having anything to do with the song - why do you remove the PROD then?
Amalthea 20:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Consensus was achieved to move to SMS. In fact, it was unanimous (6-0 I believe, but of course, !vote). Please check talk pages before moving articles, especially when dealing with such high-traffic pages. I expect way more from an admin. Please move the article back immediately. Guy0307 (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello, looks like you moved Harrier Jump Jet family to Harrier Jump Jet earlier today. Could you move Talk:Harrier Jump Jet family to Talk:Harrier Jump Jet as well? No rush, whenever you get a chance. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I happened to notice that you indefinitely blocked Evando (talk · contribs) just three days ago, although the account hadn't edited since September and they have a number of normal edits, including talk page comments, in their history. Many of their "bad" edits could be attriubuted to lack of knowledge or simply poor wiki skills, or aren't specifically attributable to vandalism according to WP:Vandalism. Would you consider unblocking this account? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I added Louis Cullen the other day, had a cup of tea, added the various links around wikipedia, and found that you had already tagged the article as having one source within 4 minutes - see:Revision history of Louis Cullen. Couldn't you give us lesser mortals 24 hours? Or look him up on google and add a few more yourself? When one creates an article there are naturally other links to tidy up. I know that it is a much smaller article than Pokémon regions, and therefore probably much less important, but overly-hasty comments could drive away serious contributors.Red Hurley (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I just checked and according to our own article she did invent the game Candyland. I'm not sure if she meets the notability criteria, but I don't think the entire article was vandalism. ThemFromSpace 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the DEFAULTSORT
markup is correctly in uppercase with a colon, not lowercase with a pipe, e.g. ((DEFAULTSORT:Kaplan, Erin))
, not ((defaultsort|Kaplan, Erin))
. —Paul A (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
And Template:DEFAULTSORT is itself a redirect – the real DEFAULTSORT is an inbuilt magic word, not a template, which is why it uses a colon. —Paul A (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you fully protected Murdochand added pending changes. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to do, so I've changed it to move prot and PC1. Is that what you were trying to do? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The design is fake, designed by me, and realeased (sorry about the spelling) into the public domain by me. I understand your mistake, am not mad and aprreciate your intrest. OttomanJackson User:OttomanJackson 19:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)
I'm curious about the claim that anyone with an Erdős number of 2 has a pretty big claim to notability. One would expect numerous doctoral students of researchers with Erdős numbers of 1 to have Erdős numbers of 2 but to never have been notable in their own right. (This is just me being curious and not a comment on the oppose.)--RegentsPark (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you've done... but instead of correctly splitting the article into Richards Hays and Richards Hays (health sciences), I think you've duplicated them... and at the wrong name - it is Richard Hays, not Richards! Read the Bond Uni profile - it mentions working in the UK, James Cook Uni Medical School and rural health. Must be the same guy... searching, searching, found it! This newsletter proves it. Can you merge it back please, and then move it to Richard Hays, not Richards. Thanks The-Pope (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi WSC, hope you're doing well. It'll be nice to talk to you about something other than RFA!
Back in January, you performed a good-faith page move on Scusa ma ti chiamo amore based on the title capitalization in the article. This capitalization (which hit every word American-style) was incorrect, as Googling Italian media coverage of the film or a glance at the Italian version of the article will attest. I've added a link to the English article providing an authoritative source of the correct caps (first word only).
I'd like to do some work on the article, but don't want to start on it til the page resides where it properly ought. Any chance you can help me with this? You'll certainly know how to do this efficiently and cleanly better than I will. Questions, concerns? Thanks - Townlake (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi WSC. Tectonic plates done a sudden shift over the holidays? Fortunately there was no tsunami here in Thailand this time ;) --Kudpung (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I reverted your edit of SAS 3, "stared" to "started". I think you are maybe a Deutschsprecher, and might not have noticed that "stared" is the past tense of "stare" (to look intently), which is what was intended. But a lot of people who are not native English speakers might go there, and also be confused, so maybe a better word would be possible? Feel free to suggest something; you might judge better than I. Maybe just "looked". Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
What sort of references is this? The link leads to nothing. --LA2 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you included Orlando Barone in the category "University of Belgrade faculty". There's no reason for the inclusion obvious at the article. Perhaps you'd like to check whether there's been a mixup with his position at Belgrano University. Opbeith (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
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. |