User talk:CharlotteWebb/Archive/002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 RC patrol 2 Explanation needed 3 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Tappenden (3rd nomination) 4 Rennet 5 Help desk 6 Some Pig! 7 40 days 8 Louis Le Prince 9 Thank you! 10 September Esperanza Newsletter 11 Johnny Cash edits 12 Interstate highways in Hawaii 13 Danish Union of Metalworkers 14 Userbox 15 Sheesh 16 Help 17 School article 18 Please use the G.W. Bush Talk Page 19 Thanks! 20 3RR 21 Halley's Comet 22 Signpost updated for October 2nd. 23 thanks for revert 24 Your edits to NY 1A and NY 2 25 Talk:Bow tie 26 Signpost updated for October 9th. 27 Citing sources 28 Signpost updated for October 16th. 29 Qiryat Gat 30 Signpost updated for October 23rd. 31 Thank you for supporting my RfA 32 Just letting you know... 33 Signpost updated for October 30th. 34 Yogh?urt 35 Gender vs. Noun Class 36 Yahoo! vs. Yahoo 37 Neil Bush 38 Otheruses 38.1 Rhetorical only, or were responsive answers desired? 39 November Esperanza Newsletter 40 Signpost updated for November 6th.

[edit] RC patrol

Wow, you sure got to Tomo Razmilovic pretty quick - if only everything in this encyclopedia were fixed so quickly. Keep it up...best, Paul 16:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation needed

Why did you revert my changes to the "Nigger" article? I'm also curious why the link to my talk page is the blockip command??--Ujhm2 08:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Nigger, Niger, and Negro are completely different terms. Implying that they are used interchangeably is, quite frankly, offensive. — CharlotteWebb 08:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Negro is technically a different term. There's more than one meaning for niger, though--one of which is "nigger."--Ujhm2 08:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Technically"? Get out of here. There is a reason that the United Negro College Fund is a highly-regarded charity and the Gay Nigger Association of America is a troll group. If you don't see the difference, you might consider avoiding African-American topics. — CharlotteWebb 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicola Tappenden (3rd nomination)

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. Thanks. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not notice the template was there. I usually contribute to AFD discussions by browsing through the daily log pages and using the "section-edit" links along the right side of the screen. It would be better if whoever adds these category templates would put them below the "===Article title===" section heading, rather than above it. Doing so would make the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE" template visible in section-edit mode. — CharlotteWebb 13:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rennet

Thanks for restoring the rennet article (Wolfgang 11:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding comment was actually added by Bioren (talk • contribs).

You're quite welcome, but please be aware that I probably know less about the topic than this goofball does, so I am not likely to contribute to the article's content. — CharlotteWebb 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I know enough about this topic - thats I contributed most of the new stuff as well in German as in English - I only do not know, why this nice guy deleted all - so thanks again (Wolfgang 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Help desk

Wow! How'd you do that so quickly? I was just starting to clean up double redirects, saw that you had changed my Move (from Help Desk (Web Comic) to Help Desk (webcomic), went back to fix what was now a triple redirect, only to find you had beaten me to that one too! --Bob 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I redirected Help Desk to the lowercase generic term. Some of the inbound links will need fixing. — CharlotteWebb 18:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a Good Thing. I was curious how you do it so fast. Looks like you edit about three pages a minute when you get going. I flounder about with edit boxes and multiple tabs in my browser, and am lucky to get in one good edit a month. --Bob 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Pig!

Oops. I don't get why it would work that way... I thought including a template would replace the tildes with the sig of the person making that edit... oops! Sorry! I put it back... thanks for catching that. Herostratus 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 40 days

why did u revert my edits, i think the dendrofilial flower orgasm and the positioning of the text are very noteworthy. In regards to the latter, many film posters do this, see Deuce Bigalo: European Gigalo. The film is about sex and the poster clearly insinuates the text as a penis. Qrc2006 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if it's worth mentioning, do so in the trivia section, not in the caption of the infobox. — CharlotteWebb 23:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Le Prince

Hi, your "minor" edit in the Louis Le Prince was not really a minor edit right? The problem is you've merged the References (or Sources) section with the Bibliography. Actually I did not used all works existing about Le Prince (the biblio), but only a part of this corpus (quoted sources). By merging the two in a single "References" section it's like i had used all existing books to build the article which is untrue, there is possibly others points of view in some of these books. Cliché Online 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. It'd never been vandalized until last week, and now it's been vandalized 3 times in less than a week. Anyway, thanks for fixing it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Barnstar Brigade Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! What's New? September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived. Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage. The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself! The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it! TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly! Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, Freakofnurture, and Titoxd 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] Johnny Cash edits

Thank you for catching the recent edits to the Johnny Cash page by 208.102.42.211. I agree with reverting the changes given how much material was simply blanked without comment. However, I think there was a baby in some of that bathwater, so to speak. I'm going to attempt to extract some of the useful-seeming edits for brevity that seem to have been in among the hacking and cutting.

Just, you know, so as to not make the same error as 208.102.42.211, and actually take things more moderately and talk about them and such. -Stellmach 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate highways in Hawaii

Per your question on the deletion review page, see here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danish Union of Metalworkers

You know - I've placed that infobox on over 800 articles... and I looked at your change, where you moved the commented out text to the top... and I looked at it again. Such a simple thing, but it makes sense (and looks better)! Where were you 799 edits ago. :) Thanks.--Bookandcoffee 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Regarding this userbox, it is one of the most Aww! ones I have ever found in Wikipedia. Don't give up! -- ReyBrujo 06:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheesh

Aw c'mon, lighten up. But OK, in future I'll try to be more tactful toward murderers Homicido-Americans. But anyway I do appreciate your note. Herostratus 18:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hi, I'm a long-time Wiki reader, but recent editor/contributor. I'm somewhat overwhelmed by what I should do in the case of vandalism. A vandal struck "Buddha" on Sept 11 and you reverted his changes. Since then he has struck "Council of Trent". I don't know what to do now that I realize he's done it multiple times (just an IP address, no username - 72.25.155.34), so I'm writing this here. What do I do next? I reverted his changes. I'm assuming you'll reply here on your page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MobileOak (talk • contribs) 20:43, September 25, 2006.

Two edits in two weeks, not really a big deal. If it becomes a serious issue, try WP:AIV. — CharlotteWebb 20:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School article

I've added a copy of the article in my sandbox - see User:JoshuaZ/Sandbox. JoshuaZ 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please use the G.W. Bush Talk Page

Please use the G.W. Bush talk page before editing the opening again. The information you added is already mentioned elsewhere, and is not important enough to be in the openning. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lolakitty (talk • contribs) 00:26, 27 September 2006.

Though I think you're panicking over nothing, I took the time to respond at Talk:George W. Bush. — CharlotteWebb 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. I think I made somebody grumpy. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 01:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. You currently have three (3) reverts on George W. Bush for a 24 hour period on ending on September 27, 2006. Lolakitty 02:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you're having fun, but my first three edits consisted of finding the correct version to revert to. My fourth edit consisted of reverting to it a second time after seeing that your arguments on the talk page were weak and amounted to accusations of bias. I have no further comment. — CharlotteWebb 02:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just pointing it out to you, and trying to follow guidelines. Rules are meant to be followed, even when they are as badly written as the ones on Wikipedia.We should try tocome to consensus on this. The nickname is superfluous in the opening paragraph. The pragraph should be reserved for pertinent information. For Bus, this includes the fact he is President, family, and past service as governor of Texas. Do you honestly believe the nickname is equally as important?Lolakitty 03:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halley's Comet

Under the year 467 BC, you have added an entry about Halley's comet first being observed in that year. I have tried to find another reference, other than the one you have added, to confirm this date. The internet reference you refer does not seem to give any explanation to support a first sighting as early as 467 BC.

As you may notice, I am slowly adding entries from various published sources on historic events from 500 BC forwards. None of my source documents have any reference to Halley's Comet being observed as early as 467BC. Can you help with any other sources??

Thanks

--Chaleyer61 09:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did search the internet for "467 BC" and found, in addition to the online copy of the Sunrise article, several other references to Halley's Comet in the first couple pages of results. [1] [2] [3] [4], and I selected the one that appeared most reputable. One of these links refers to page seven of November-December 1996 issue of Mercury magazine, but I don't have access to this (or anything else in print form for that matter). — CharlotteWebb 09:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I was relying on my ancient history text books rather than the Internet. Is it OK with you if I paste your references onto the 467 BC page?? --Chaleyer61 10:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 2nd.

Volume 2, Issue 40	2 October 2006	About the Signpost

New speedy deletion criteria added	News and notes
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	RSS Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for revert

Hi Charlotte, thanks for your revert on Galatasaray article. That user is really a problem for months.:)--Ugur Basak 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted what? Don't remember it, must have been half-asleep. — CharlotteWebb 03:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to NY 1A and NY 2

Your recent edits to New York State Route 1A and New York State Route 2 violate both WP:GTL and WP:NYSR. Please consult both pages for the proper layout of these articles. Thanks. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps yours violate WP:OWN. Could you explain what it is you find objectionable enough for a full revert? — CharlotteWebb 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:OWN plays into this, as I have little to no personal affection, for lack of a better term, with those articles, nor did I create those articles. My edits are made only to comply with the two policies I mentioned above. As for why I reverted, I'll explain.

1. There's no need at all for a "See also" section containing a link to a list of the state routes, when a link in the infobox does the same.
2. At WP:NYSR, we use "References" for a header, not "Notes" or "Notes and references", or any variant.
3. Some of your edits rearranged the lower sections in violation of WP:NYSR, and thus WP:GTL (since WP:NYSR is compliant with WP:GTL).

For discussions regarding the above points, particularly point 1, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_State_routes/Archive_1#Project_Standard_Changes. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bow tie

Hi,

You may have an interest, since I saw your name in the history list of the Bow tie article: There's a separate article, List of bow tie wearers and an admin is suggesting deleting it. When I looked into the Bow tie page, I found there's already a list there. I don't have an opinion on which list should remain, but one really should go. I'd appreciate your advice on the Talk:Bow tie page, if you're interested and have the time.Noroton 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 9th.

Volume 2, Issue 41	9 October 2006	About the Signpost

Interview with Board member Erik Möller	Wall Street Journal associates Wikipedia with Grupthink
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down	Report from the Portuguese Wikipedia
News and notes	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

It looks like most of the sources you have been citing are books or other matter not available online. Could I persuade you to migrate these to the format outlined in WP:FOOT/M:Cite.php? This would make clear which portions of article content are supported by which sources. It is important (for various reasons) to know what goes with what, but it with a dozen books in a clunky summer reading list, it becomes difficult to verify even one statement, and impossible to do it quickly. — CharlotteWebb 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on the citing of books. I am pretty busy with work at the moment, so I will get onto improving the references when I have some spare time. In the meantime, if you think it better, I am happy to delete the references until I can update them properly. --Chaleyer61 03:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if you remove them somebody might assume the entire article is unsourced content, and that would make things worse, possibly. As it is now, we only have to worry about bogus content being added, and later editors taking no action (not reverting) because it appears that generic references are intended to pertain to the article as a whole. Just a thought. — CharlotteWebb 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually you have raised an interesting issue. One of the challenges in trying to develop a verifiable timeline for fifth century BC Europe (or China/India for that matter), is that the primary sources are very few and far between (e.g. in the case of southern Europe and the Middle East, a small number of Greek and Roman historians who mainly wrote a century or two after the events occurred). Also, these historians were not particularly accurate when it came to clearly identifying the year, let alone the date, of an important event in ancient European or Middle Eastern history. So any timeline is really based on the best interpretations by various modern authors of the information from these primary sources. Therefore, I have tried my best in adding information for these particular years to not only look at material I have available from various academic and popular texts, but also to try and match the dates to information already on Wikipedia that seems to be reasonably authoritative. The last thing I want to do is see more inconsistency between information provided under each of these years based Wikipedia articles and information that is contained in historical articles on ancient Greek and Roman cities and towns or articles about famous Persians, Greeks and Romans. So some of the changes I have made to information for some of these years mean that now dates match what was already in Wikipedia (e.g. birth dates and dates of deaths of famous individuals). So the issue for me is that for historical periods as old as the fifth century BC, what is acceptable from a Wikipedia point of view in terms of authoritative references when any information about the likely year of an event will be subject to controversy and/or uncertainty? Or should we put some sort of qualification at the bottom of the information for these early years to indicate to readers that all years (let alone dates within a year) should be taken with some caution and should not necessarily be taken as factually accurate? --Chaleyer61 10:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 16th.

Volume 2, Issue 42	16 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wikipedia partially unblocked in mainland China	$100 million copyright fund stems discussion
Floyd Landis adopts "the Wikipedia defense" as appeal strategy	News and notes: Logo votes begin, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qiryat Gat

You did a "Reverted edits by 69.199.119.144 (talk) to last version by 213.42.21.75" on the Qiryat Gat article. The material added by the anonymous author 213.42.21.75 was really quite good and some parts of it are vital to any sensible account of this town. But this person has probably gone over the top and added too much. Furthermore, this anonymous account (which could be several different people) seems to have been accused of vandalism according to their talk page. WP:NPOV might be better served with a version that only covers the bare bones of the ethnic cleansing of the town. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.146.112.233 (talk • contribs) 22:49, October 20, 2006.

Hmm... You're probably right. I did not see the first edit (with the descriptive edit summary), only the second one, but incidentally I reverted both edits. I'd suggest that accidental reversion would be less likely if everybody edited with a registered account. — CharlotteWebb 00:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 23rd.

Volume 2, Issue 43	23 October 2006	About the Signpost

Report from the Finnish Wikipedia	News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just letting you know...

...that I fixed your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foetry.com [5]. I wouldn't have bothered with this post to explain what I did, but I copied your signature from the above section and timestamped it, and I've know some people who have cried "impersonation" etc. (not saying that you would - this was purely precautionary :D). I would have used {{unsigned}}, but considering it was closing an AfD, that wouldn't look too good. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, thanks for catching that. Not sure what happened there. Let me know if I screwed anything else up  ;). — CharlotteWebb 09:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 30th.

Volume 2, Issue 44	30 October 2006	About the Signpost

Wales resigns chair position as reorganization underway	Hypothetical valuation of Wikipedia scrutinized
Work underway to purge plagiarized text from articles	Librarian creates video course about Wikipedia
Report from the Japanese Wikipedia	News and notes: Commemorative mosaic started, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogh?urt

I am bemused. How did you manage to find a ratio of 42.5:1? Did you misspell "yoghurt" when you typed it into Google or something? When I do a Google or Yahoo! search for the two terms, I get back a ratio of between 2:1 and 3:1. A Google fight brings back about 3:1[6]. And Google results are not compelling evidence in any event, unless they are truly overwhelming one way, like they would have been had your 42.5:1 ratio proved correct. If the choice was based entirely on the population of people using a word, then the US English spelling would come out on top every time. But it's not, so it doesn't. - Mark 11:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read the talk on the discussion page for Yoghurt. I've noticed Google comes up with different results for different people, and I'm not sure why it does this, or how it reorganises links. Maybe it has something to do with that "Smart Search" function, and your past browsing history? Google tends to put Australian links at the top of my results now, even though I'm not searching google.com.au. Weird. - Mark 11:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender vs. Noun Class

Please be so kind and read my explanations and my evidence that genders and noun classes are two different things: Talk:Grammatical gender

Grzegorj 06:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with your evidence because it seems quite irrelevant now. If these are two different concepts, it would be appropriate to create an article discussing each. Moving an existing article from one title to the other would make no sense (given the circumstances as you've just stated them). — CharlotteWebb 06:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are two different concepts. But the article treats about noun classes, not only about genders. Is this also irrelevant? -Grzegorj 07:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And have you noticed this? -Grzegorj 08:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing my attention to that... wait... you wrote it yourself. Nevermind then. — CharlotteWebb 11:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! vs. Yahoo

My name is BJ Nemeth, and we are currently involved in a discussion at Talk:Yahoo! about whether or not to use the exclamation point at the end of "Yahoo!" I'm addressing you here to clarify that we're arguing about the same issue.

I lessened my stance on the move from "Yahoo!" to "Yahoo" down from "Strong Support" to "Support." I'm still passionate, but I realized that the technical context of the discussion was the article title itself. Speaking for myself, I don't have a big problem with the exclamation point in the article title. My objection is with the punctuation showing up in the sentences inside the article. In my opinion, it creates confusing and distracting situations where a statement like "Mr. Smith bought 100 shares of Yahoo!" would be read as an exclamatory sentence, and weird punctuation combinations like "Yahoo!'s purchase of Company X." End-of-line punctuation (such as ! and ?) in the middle of a sentence is distracting and affects readability.

Here's one proposal: How would you feel about keeping the title of the article as "Yahoo!," and mentioning that as the company's own preferred usage in the introduction, before transitioning to the "alternate usage" of "Yahoo" in the rest of the article? Since you seem to be the most involved Wikipedian supporting the use of "Yahoo!," I wanted to get your input first before proposing it at Talk:Yahoo!.

Thanks. :) BJ Nemeth 07:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not have considered the mid-sentence punctuation issues to be a factor at all. Maybe I subconsciously read it as a six letter word, who knows. Anyway I look at it, it doesn't appear any more awkward than a comma or full stop looks when placed before a quotation mark (to people of a non-literary background anyway). I might write a sentence like this: The company's name is "Yahoo!". The other sanity-checking factors in relation to sentence syntax are more subtle, and the result of a wider context: It's an encyclopedia. It doesn't shout at you. It doesn't ask questions. :Hopefully it tells no lies either. Like a good lover, in a way. So, if I see any of these {!,?,‽} in an article I generally know it's part of a title, trade mark, proper name, etc., or part of a direct quote, or factorials, boolean operators, regular expressions, or some other non-prose. The risk of actual confusion, I feel, is grossly exaggerated. — CharlotteWebb 10:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That answers my question, and I think I have a better understanding of your position now. I'm afraid we still disagree, but there's nothing wrong with that. :) If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask. BJ Nemeth 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Bush

Why do you keep reverting the Neil Bush article to an obnoxious version? The third party mentioned is dominating the article with negative links, and is opposed by several editors. Attempts to moderate keep being shot down. The article should be about Neil Bush and not Boris, but apparently someone has an agenda. Another note: Story they insist to dominate article happend over a year ago. Even if it were significant, it is not timely. Please consider your reverting policy so that a fair balance may be reached.Schlotzsman 14:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also confounded by your silent reversions. Could you please enter the talk and explain yourself?BlazinBuggles 03:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otheruses

Please revert yourself. All but one person on the talk page agreed the new version is an improvement. The word "uses" is ambiguous and needs to be clarified for the sake of first-time google visitors. If you don't like the new version, discuss it, don't revert. — Omegatron 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rhetorical only, or were responsive answers desired?

Did you ask those questions because you wanted responsive and informative answers? If so, see above. Please tell me what your specific objection is to my statement that "other uses" could reasonably be expected to be understood by newbies to mean other uses of Wikipedia, and to my other specific objections to this obnoxious template. Michael Hardy 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!) Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach. Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins. What's New? The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.

The last AC meeting (full log) The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived. There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia. The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested! In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias. A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted! Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello. Signed... Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.

[edit] Signpost updated for November 6th.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 45	6 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration election campaigns begin	Blogger studies Wikipedia appearance in search results
Intelligence wiki receives media attention	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and notes: Foundation donation, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)