User talk:Colonies Chris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello Colonies Chris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- GraemeL (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Wiki linking

When you make an internal link, you need to make sure not to put spaces before or after the "pipe" character:

  • INCORRECT: [[Extraterrestrial life | alien]]
  • CORRECT: [[Extraterrestrial life|alien]]

Do you see the difference? I'm posting this here because I've seen you make the same edit a few times now. Please let me know if you have any questions. :-) --nihon 22:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liechtenstein

The link to the Princely Family of Liechtenstein is a redirect to Prince Hans-Adam II's page. Are you planning on making a new Princely Family page? Prsgoddess187 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, now the link is working, darn this Internet Explorer!!! Prsgoddess187 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw the change earlier and it was a bad redirect back to Hans Adam. Looks good now. Good work. Prsgoddess187 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Liechtenstein

I readded the information because 1) I think it's relevant and 2) It's done this way for other royal families. When you look for a person's bio, you expect to find all the information about them, including if they married and had children. To put that information in another page is, in my view, both impractical and ilogical. Most people will think the information is lacking, instead of thinking it may be on the family page. If you don't want to add the extended family (ie only the children's names and not the grandchildren) that's ok, but I think the children, with optional links to their articles if they exist, are necessary. --Andromeda 18:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why

Why you removed the Liechtenstein templete?Why Prince Phillpp's page will be redict to the Princely Family of Liechtenstein?Astorkknlam16:30 18 January 2006(UTC)

[edit] Redirects

I see that an anonymous message was left on my page, which I have managed to trace to you. I accept your point and have no intention of having an edit war over it, but I was surprised to see categories on redirect pages. Also, you should have added Category:Living people on each page. - Runcorn 12:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Mountain

No, it's the same mountain as the one in Maryland. It's clearly visible from Gettysburg to the west and the NPS rangers there refer to it as such. Hal Jespersen 19:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no personal knowledge of the area, so I'm just going by the atlas. There seems to be more than a little scope for confusion over this name. According to Encarta & Multimap, there's a South Mountain PA about 10 miles a little North of West from Gettysburg (and about 8 miles SE of Chambersburg). This must be the South Mountain that's mentioned in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (The Borough of Gettysburg ... sits in the shadow of South Mountain, eight miles west of the town). And it must surely be the South Mountain that's mentioned in Gettysburg Battlefield (To the northwest, a series of low, parallel ridges lead to the towns of Cashtown and Chambersburg. Seminary Ridge, .... Farther out are McPherson's Ridge, Herr's Ridge, and eventually South Mountain).
According to Battle of South Mountain, South Mountain is the name given to the continuation of the Blue Ridge Mountains after they enter Maryland. It is a natural obstacle that separates the Shenandoah Valley and Cumberland Valley from the eastern part of Maryland. And certainly South Mountain PA is part of a range of hills that to the northwest connects to the Blue Ridge mountains and to the south extends into MD. So it seems to me that we sort of have two places, because South Mountain PA is a specific peak (mentioned in the Gettysburg articles) in a range which becomes known as South Mountain in MD (where the battle took place). (Does this range of hills have another name in PA?) Colonies Chris 15:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wrote both of those articles (at different times), so maybe my wording got out of sync. When the rangers at Gettysburg NMP point to the west, they are definitely referring to a mountain range when they say "South Mountain", not a town. Perhaps it is not literally true that the range that extends north from MD is called SM after it crosses the border, but that's what the local Civil War historians call it and that's good enough for me. Hal Jespersen 17:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

I note you restored date sorting on "July 1". I understand your point but it was already addressed earlier in the article. Doesn't it only need to be done the first time the date appears in the article? Regards, Accurizer 13:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Regards, Accurizer 13:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexton Blake

Thanks for improving the article. ant_ie 12:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibleverse

I know you have made them entirely in good faith, but your changes to Ten Commandments were not positive, but in many respects problematic. I suggest you go and clean up the trail of mess you may have made. In particular:

  • You added extra |s to two thumbnail links. This did nothing- not harmful, but also not useful. [[Image:Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The Ten Commandments on a monument in the grounds of the Texas State Capitol]] does the same as [[Image:Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg|thumb||right|250px|The Ten Commandments on a monument in the grounds of the Texas State Capitol]]
  • You changed {{bibleverse-nb||Exodus|20:2-17|HE}} to {{bibleverse-nb|Exodus||20:2-17|HE}} and similar. The link still works fine, but it disagrees with the usage described at Template talk:Bibleverse.
  • You changed {{bibleverse|2|Corinthians|5:17|}} to {{bibleverse|2|Corinthians||5:17|}}. This was incorrect and broke the link. In particular, the first argument to the {{bibleverse}} and {{bibleverse-nb}} templates is the book number and the second is the book name. While, for all intents and purposes, they can be switched around, you can't just add an extra | after the name. This breaks the link.
  • You changed [[613 mitzvot|613 commandments]] to [[613 mitzvot||613 commandments]]. This, too, shows incorrectly as |613 commandments.

I realise that you didn't quite understand the argument structure of the bibleverse template, and so went out to change them, but (1) if it ain't broken, don't fix it (2) some of your other changes were a little careless.

Additionally, while I thank you for giving an edit summary, "links" wasn't clear to me. It could mean you were adding to / changing the external links. It could mean you were wikifying an article by adding wikilinks to plain text. It could mean you were disambiguating wikilinks. It could mean you were fixing broken wikilinks. It could mean you were fixing link formatting, and even that has many flavours. If you specified "fixing wikilinks" or at least "wikilinks" in the edit summary, it would be much clearer at least to me.

Finally, I want to welcome you to the community of editors, and hope to continue to see more of your good contributions around!

jnothman talk 11:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. This must have been a recent change in the software and I'm going to take it up with the developers. Still, the biggest problem is that you broke bibleverse links for references where a book number was specified. For instance, in Ten Commandments, I had to fix 3 links to Kings and one to Corinthians. Please go back and find these, if you can... jnothman talk 11:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The bug with MediaWiki has been fixed. See mediazilla:5081. You don't need to change the argument order anymore, but we still need to find out where you've broken links with book numbers... jnothman talk 02:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The annoying thing is that no idiot changed the template. Someone changed the software that runs Wikipedia. Brion, the head developer of MediaWiki, said that "apparently due to a misinterpretation of what one of our parser tests meant". So it's a pity, but there's not really anyone to blame. Rather, we need to fix it sooner rather than later, because a revert is easiest done before any further changes. jnothman talk 23:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going through and fixing them up. The only article I haven't dealt with (because it's had too many changes since) is Sabbath. This still may have mistakes with book numbers (and I also found other mistakes where you over-fixed).

Although I scanned the differences quickly, in general, I rolled back your changes in case I missed something (sometimes you had changed the || to |, but forgot to reinsert it). If you or others had made additional changes, I edited the page to keep them. In some cases I kept all your changes.

Thanks for having been ambitious and bold in the first place. It would have been worthwhile to leave a note at Template talk:Bibleverse that something was strange. Further, you could have arranged for a bot / script to make the changes for you, saving you a lot of time and error. But they're just notes for the future. I think we're fine otherwise.

jnothman talk 23:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Butterbean

My mistake. I never even noticed your previous edits in that regard. Barry Wells 00:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euphrosyne

Kudos on your work disambig-ing Euphrosyne. Thanks! Sparsefarce 01:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speedy deletion of Belvoir, Doubs

Hi, you added "prod" to the article Belvoir, Doubs. "prod" has to wait several days. You can request speedy deletion of your own articles with {{db|author requests deletion}}, see WP:CSD. --Austrian 21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection and Links

Hi, sorry about the SEPA redirection link. I didn't know to check for previous links and will do so in the future. Cheers Nathan Beach 15:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrondissements

Hi, Great work on the disambiguations! Dlyons493 Talk 23:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cantons

Thanks for pointing out the more-specific canton options. I actually did use them in a couple of cases, but in other cases the comment seemed to be sort of generic even though the topic was in Switzerland or France. The hard part of what I was doing was keeping the difference between Guangdong and Guangzhou straight. By the way, it wasn't a bot; it was just me, so I have to take all the blame for any mistakes I made. Dpv 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bremgarten

TYVM! Rich Farmbrough 10:32 30 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re: Communes of the Oise département and others

Hi Chris,

thanks for pointing that out. It's an interesting way of using pipes, although it is rather fragile as people like me can come along, not notice the subtle distinction being made, and compact the links.

I would have thought HTML comments might be more suitable for this kind of to-do note.

In any event, I'll hold off from doing any more compacting on these articles.

Cheers, Cmdrjameson 13:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South West Coast Path

It wasn't me reversing your disambiguation! There must have been a glitch in the versions seen - I was editing a version dated April 30, despite you having made some changes on May 18. I have restored your edits so it hopefully won't happen again! Geof Sheppard 07:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shirk

You have a point about fixing the links. So, last night I did just that. There were 23 articles, each one of them now has been fixed. Ifnord 12:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DTM

I noticed you did "dab DTM". Please double check if you correctly used Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters for the current series since 2000, and Deutsche Tourenwagen Meisterschaft for the original series until 1996. You picked the wrong one in Zakspeed and Bernd Mayländer, and I haven't checked the others. --Matthead 18:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thusday

Thanks, I'm developing whitelists for these links, it will take time. Rich Farmbrough 15:01 20 June 2006 (GMT).
Thanks, It is very hard to programatically spot these, as with the film May, but I'll do what I can. Rich Farmbrough 15:00 20 June 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Superior Art Creations article clean-up

Thank you very much for the clean-up of the Superior Art Creations article. I really appreciate it. Cheers. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Château de Chimay

The redirect didn't work for me for some reason. I removed a space at the top of the page and then it did. --PiMaster3 12:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [1]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Ingrid) Dahlberg

The question is, what's the alternative? Linking directly to the county neither of us specifically wants to send it is definitely worse; at least the mere redirect may become usefull if anyone does write Ingrid. That leaves either the 'potential' redirect or no link at all, which may be the way to go if you're confident no page is likely to be written on her - frankly I wouldn't know. Fastifex 05:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Netley Abbey

Thankyou very much for your cleaning up of the formatting and links on the Netley Abbey article. It's much appreciated; I'm new to writing for wikipedia and I'm not yet au fait with some of the mark-up. Best regards, Faeriesoph

[edit] unlinking temporal words

Before unlinking common temporal words, please be sure that they are not relevant to the article -- in Darian calendar and Christianised calendar, for example, linking to words like "week", "month", and "Saturday" is entirely appropriate. Likewise, "Wednesday" should definitely be linked from Holy Wednesday, as it's an article about a Wednesday. —ptk✰fgs 23:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unlinking on Seventh-day Adventist Church

I think you misunderstand the guideline on this issue. In terms of common words, there are justifications as per that guideline (although it is consensus, not as I said non-consensus) to link to even what you consider to be common words. For instance, you noted one example among the changes you made, to North America. In terms of the church it is entirely appropriate IMO as the church was founded in North America and the customs and cultures are helpful in better understanding the article. You also unlinked Saturday, apparently not noticing that it was the keyword in that sentence, and hence has to be in context. I suggest you back off on your deleting links to common words just because they are common and focus on getting the context of words right. Ansell 00:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How did you manage this edit? I can't even edit that page without going round in circles, and all the links are purposefully not to that page... :) Cheers, Ansell 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I kind of overreacted. Sorry! You do a great job, I checked through your other contributions finally :)
On a similar note, have you thought of applying for a bot flag to back you up with your multiple edits per minute? It may be easier to have those edits done by a specific bot account so criticism is directed just at those edits and not you as an editor. Ansell 11:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word delinking

Greetings; Your significant unlinking of “common words” seems to be overboard in a number of instances; you are delinking items that while on their face may seem “common” may in fact be apropos to the article. Also, in general I prefer to see and abundance of linking, makes for richer exploration. Bdelisle 08:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: American Gods - (un)linking Wednesday

Thanks for your message about AG. I guess I felt that this was one of the few circumstances where linking a day of the week was justified (and perhaps the Wednesday page gives a bit more information on the Woden->Wednesday derivation?) - apologies if my edit caused any offence. Cheers, Mrabbits 19:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word delinking

I like what you are doing. Keep it up. --Guinnog 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Clean up tag Sir Robert Bell

Please offer suggestions on how the artice can be cleaned up, on the articles talk page. Thank you. Wales 27 September 2006

[edit] David Bell (baseball)

Baseball player for 2003 FIFA World Youth Championship (squads), a football (soccer) event ?! Something wrong on your edit summary. Matt86hk talk 14:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sesame Street (closing sequence)

This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Inappropriate accusation of vandalism removed. Colonies Chris 15:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum channel edit summary

Hi,

In the edit [2], you mentioned in the summary that you had "de-linked common words". I've looked through the edit a few times, but I can't find any wikilinks that were removed. I see a lot of other helpful formatting fixes, but I just wanted to make sure that I checked on the wikilinks. I don't know if I'm just missing them, since the article is rather dense with mathematical stuff. Thanks, -- Creidieki 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Munich

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 22:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlinking dates

Hi, I'd like to ask why you're unlinking dates on articles. Thanks. JDtalk 00:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake; I thought you were unlinking full dates. JDtalk 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Home Improvement

Why are you dewikifying the article? Anthony Rupert 16:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/User_talk%7EColonies_Chris_729a.html"