User talk:Pinktulip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Fplay 2 Categorization 3 Jamaican American actors 4 External links 5 TS 6 Shirley Temple 7 I cannot put links 8 South pole 9 September 11, 2001 attacks 10 Re: Spelling 11 Sock Puppet 12 Nobel Prize 13 Prion citations and Cambrian explosion 14 Apology!!! 15 Vandalism 16 Talk:Terri Schiavo 17 Prion 18 Paul Van Arsdale 19 Personal websites as sources 20 Birth years 21 The homogenizing force of Western civilization 22 Articles 23 Nanako Matsushima 24 Challenger disaster 25 Edit summaries 26 Categories 27 Schiavo 28 Corretta Scott King 29 Schiavo (yet again) 30 Hilarious 31 Agreed 32 SourceWatch 33 The Chomsky & Castro Picture Debate

[edit] Fplay

Eh. I'm not worried about either of his personalities. Thanks, though, liked the haiku.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Hi Pinktulip, thanks for the job you've been doing on categories. However, please always consider if a category is not a duplicate of another, or if it can be categorized in one or more categories.7

For instance:

Category:People who disappeared in the Mediterranean Sea, which you categorized as a subcat of Category:Seas:

First, this a category of people, so it should be somewhere under Category:People. Looking at that one, we can see Category:Disappeared people, and further down, Category:People lost at sea. That's a very good match. Then, these people disappeared in the Mediterranean, so looking at Category:Seas, we can find Category:Mediterranean. So two quite useful and sharp categories.

Also, you categorized Category:National parks of Italy as a subcat of Category:Italy. I changed that to Category:Conservation in Italy and Category:Geography of Italy, which are sharper, and I added Category:National parks.

As a rule of thumb, you should always try to set at least two parent categories to a given one, and make sure there are no sub-categories which are more precise.

Another point: Category:Religious Movements. If you look at Category:Religion, there is already a sub-category Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements which is well-populated. So Religious Movements is a duplicate, and I nominated it for deletion. You should always check if the category you're looking at is not a duplicate.

Please feel free to discuss these points with me, and again thanks for the work you've already done. -- Ze miguel 14:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamaican American actors

This category has been nominated for deletion. If you are interested in keeping it please vote here Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 11#Category:Jamaican-American actors. Regards Arniep 22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Hi, I just noticed the links you added to Plasticine. One of them is a commercial link (though not yours) and offers a picture of a miniature of a plasticine box (presumably as sold by Harbutt). The other one is really about William Harbutt, so it would belong to that article, but all there is on that external site is a picture of a bust of that man. Please read WP:EL to learn about our criteria for external links (and yes, many of our articles currently violate the style guide). Algae 08:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the man is prominently featured in the article on plasticine. That said, I like your idea and I'd love to have a picture of an old plasticine box for WP (or a picture of Harbutt for his article), but it would have to be under a free license (and preferably real, not a miniature). There should be one in some collector's closet or in a museum. Algae 10:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TS

It will likely be an hour wasted as other editors will come along and revert it. Really, go to talk first would be my advice. Marskell 07:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it appears Musical Linguistic has reverted. I will pick up on the talk thread there. Marskell 14:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pinktulip. Thanks for your note. It's generally courteous, when reverting someone, to leave a message on the article talk page. I'm afraid I don't always have time for that, so I use the edit summary as a talk page, which, of course, is less satisfactory. I put in my edit summary my concerns about changing "diagnosed as" to "was". It was discussed at length several months ago, and was the subject of some edit wars. A comment I remember from another editor at that time was that the issue had split America in two, and yet the introduction was written as if there had been no dispute at all. Remember that the courtcase was decided on a 3:2 doctors' verdict. In any case, Wikipedia is not the same as newspapers; newspapers don't have to be neutral. Wikipedia articles about convicted murderers generally don't begin with "X killed Y"; rather they begin with "X was convicted of killing Y". That's not with the intention of making the reader doubt; it's just a question of not taking sides. By the way, I also had problems with your phrase "allowed to die", which I found quite POV, although that was not in the version I reverted.

I conceed the point on the "was diagnosed". -- Pinktulip 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope that answers your queries. I might add that I have a lot of things to see to in real life, and I'm also involved with other articles here, so I may not be as active at Terri Schiavo as I once was. I remain very interested in the article. I will have a look at Paul Schenck in the next few days. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 22:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley Temple

Pinktulip:

I noticed that you never responded to my suggestion that links to Shirley Temple video clips be added ...although they are commercial links. Just wanted to know if the reason was the commercial in front or maybe you did not like the clips? Jaffer 14:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I cannot put links

Pinktulip: I know you suggested that I put the links up, but I cannot because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can put the links in "External Links" section...that way they do not take up a lot of space.

• Shirley Temple Dancing With Bojangles

• Shirley Temple War Babies

• Shirley Temple’s 6th Birthday

Pinktulip, use whatever you like...I think the Bojangles clip is very famous... Jaffer 21:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Shirley Temple War Babies http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-223

Shirley Temple’s 6th Birthday http://www.evtv1.com/index.asp-itemnum-225

[edit] South pole

Hi. Why did you remove this picture from the South Pole article please? --Rebroad 11:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks

"I suspect that the problem is that some of you guys are despirate to label Bin Laden a "liar". Or else you simply have your precioius supporting documentation, and therefore the item MUST go in as early as possible. Pathetic." This is both uncivil and a personal attack, and could be taken as an imputation of bad faith. I suggested on the talk page that you not do this, and I'll say it again here. Please do not make personal attacks on the other editors. The page is contentious enough as it is without incivility and suggestions that others are persuing some agenda other than trying to write a good page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Spelling

I hope I didn't strike you as insensitive. I'm just doing my Wiki-best. Take care, and have a great day.  :) Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppet

I know you are a sock puppet for User:Amorrow. I would report you for being a sock puppet but I'm too lazy to gather up the evidence. --203.177.64.155 (Mr. Pelican Shit X-2)

[edit] Nobel Prize

Updating the Nature list - you beat me to it! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prion citations and Cambrian explosion

Are you going to do the {{ref|name}} citations in Prion? --JWSchmidt 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of all that! --JWSchmidt 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at Cambrian explosion. I know next to nothing about the topic. We really need to push for better citations in science-related articles. --JWSchmidt 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work to get those last green checks at Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005/Errors. --JWSchmidt 22:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology!!!

I apologize if it was not spam but a friend assured me it was spam. if you could reply to this and accept my apology i would be very grateful. R107 09:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Thanks for experimenting with the page Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.--Adam ^(talk) 14:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw this warning. I see that another user actually added the vandalism although at first glance I thought it was you. Sorry.--Adam ^(talk) 15:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Terri Schiavo

Hi Pinktulip. You made a suggestion a couple of days ago on the talk page of the Schiavo article about moving much of the medical discussion to a subpage. I suggested that you consider putting a draft of the new article on a temporary subpage, to let people review the change fully before implementing it. Would you be willing to take up this suggestion? Let me know on my talk page. Regards, Proto t c 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi; I think this [1] could be taken as a personnal attack. In controversial articles it's especially important to be avoid personnal comments of any kind, since they can so easily be misunderstood. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prion

Hi. I'm disambiguating Elk, and I wonder if you could clarify a small point from the above article, on which I see you have done a lot of work? In the table of "Mammalian Prions", the Natural hosts for CWD are named as Mule Deer and elk. Could you tell me what is meant by "elk" here - Red Deer or Moose? My guess is Red Deer, but obviously it is far better to be sure about it. Thanks, Staffelde 15:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Staffelde 15:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Van Arsdale

Hello. I noticed that you added Paul Van Arsdale to the category "University at Buffalo alumni". The sources I have on him indicate that he started training as a machinist after high school - I have not seen anything indicating that he went to college. Are you sure that he belongs in this category? The only association I've heard of between Paul and the University is the McCutcheon concert mentioned in the article. Thanks. Dsreyn 16:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal websites as sources

WP:RS states that "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source." I have no objection to the re-insertion of any of the material that I removed; however, as I made clear on Sam Sloan's talk page, and on the article talk page, the material ought to be accompanied with citations to somewhere other Sloan's website. Else it does not qualify as sourced under WP:RS. --Pierremenard 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth years

What led you to believe, incorrectly, that I was born in 1956? -- Touretzky 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm appalled that you simply guessed a date and then stated it as fact in a bographical article. In addition to WP:NOR, surely there is a policy along the lines of "No Making Stuff Up". Please remove your erroneous guesses from the article. -- Touretzky 00:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The homogenizing force of Western civilization

There are many ways you can try to stop this force: writing books, maintaining your own website with the information you want preserved, etc. If you want to stop it by contributing to wikipedia, that is laudable; but then you have to be open to the idea of other users asking you to abide by wikipedia policies on citations, original research, and so on.

As for the Charles Weldon article you refer to in your comment on my talk page, I would agree to all of his changes if he would cite the reference, which he claims exists. Untill then, the information is unverifiable.

By the way, have you seen my reply on the Sam Sloan talk page? What do you think? I suggested two ways to modify the article; I'm completely indifferent about which one to choose. --Pierremenard 01:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you having any trouble commenting on the Talk:Sam Sloan? I've been trying to reply to Sloan's comment, but it won't let me save the webpage, saying theres an "http://tinyurl..." somewhere in the article, which is blocked by the spam filter. Have you had the same issue or is it just me? --Pierremenard 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

I have been looking through the list of unwatched pages (available only to administrators) and found 18ft Skiff. I see that you recently edited this but are not watching it. You may want to go to your preferences and under the "editing" tab turn on "Add pages you edit to your watchlist". This will enable you to keep an eye out for any edits that are made to pages you create and help to revert vandalism. If you do decide to turn it on can you please drop me a note on my talk page so I can cut down my excessive watchlist (6000+). Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanako Matsushima

It seems to me that the statement we were discussing at the Sam Sloan page is still problematic even with the words "mainly" and "mostly" removed. Is she more known for these movies than her other roles? If yes, then this ought to be referenced; if not, then why are these roles so singled out in her article?

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% certain that the statement is true - I was the one who added it after all. But this was my very first wikipedia article and I consider the addition of that sentence to be a newbie mistake of mine. I'm 100% certain that Ringu was the only movie of hers to be watched by so many people outside Japan and Korea, but I don't think there is a source out there that states it. What do you think? --Pierremenard 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenger disaster

Your edit was a good one, and I fully agree with the logic behind it and its effect on the article. FWIW I didn't think your edit summary was funny, and I think it might be considered offensive by some. Certainly, you're free to express your opinion, as am I, but...people died here. Kaisershatner 17:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Please refrain from using racial slurs in your edit summaries. Thank you. Gamaliel 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite aware of who Mark Fuhrman and thus I recognized your cheap joke for what it was, otherwise I would have blocked you immediately. There is no need for you to employ edit summaries for cheap "satire" in this manner, and glancing at your contributions history, I see that you apparently have a history of making such tasteless jokes. Given this history and the fact that you replied to my polite request with a personal attack, I'm going to block you briefly to impress upon you the importance of civility on Wikipedia. Gamaliel 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't get the joke, so please bear this in mind. For those not in the know, it seems offensive. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming from. Still, edit summaries really shouldn't be used in such a way. All we are asking is that you use them for their intended purpose. You're a good editor from what I've seen so far, it's a pity that your use of edit summaries is getting in the way :( Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

You have been adding the Terri Schiavo category to articles that are only tangentially related. From Wikipedia:Categorization: "If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" It's not at all clear why States' Rights, for example, should be in this category. Just because a page links to TS does not mean it belongs in the category. I'll be expunging most of these. Marskell 14:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at existing cat's and decide if the level of specificity being introduced by a new cat is appropriate. States' rights is not categorized under Cannabis, Gun control, or Abortion and doesn't need to be in the Terri Schiavo. Media circus lists 40 odd examples. Each of these could demand a category of its own but again this doesn't make sense. Marskell 14:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reposting the following:

"...you are misunderstanding categories. We could under U.S. House elections, 2006 add every conceivable category that might be an issue in the election: Category:Iraqi insurgency, Category:Taxation, Category:National security, Category:Political corruption etc. etc. Categories are not meant as placeholders for every conceivable linkage between a subject and other subjects."

The logic regarding categories here is very straightforward. I did not mean to expunge legitimate work of yours (for instance, Terry --> Terri, which I did not remove). The fact that you Cat'ed an FA candidate page tells me that you're unfamiliar with categories.

Please cease referencing my nationality and place of residence. It is Ad hominem and a personal attack. Marskell 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pink, I'm not going to rise to flamebait. As I say, the logic on categories is very simple; the pages I removed the cat from had general categories in place and you added a tangential, over-specific cat with Terri Schiavo. See above example--do you really think we should add all those categories to the House elections of 2006?

You seem only able at this point to attack me personally so I will cease messaging you after this. I have certainly never seen the point in insulting a country because of one foolish citizen. Cheers, Marskell 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Marskell. Please do not add categories that are not directly related to the subject. -Will Beback 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate that you contributed to Wikipedia:External_peer_review/Nature_December_2005/Errors. Thanks. But that is unrelated to this matter. Paleoconservatism is not a related concept to Terry Schiavo. You appear to be adding every article that mentions Schiavo to that category. Lastly, please be civil. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schiavo

I edited out a clearly loaded phrase, and from what I read on your site, you have been inserting very opinionated, editorializing things in this section. --Herculaneum 16:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not feel it is NPOV to state something that didn't happen, as a substitute for not being able to put loaded words such as "illegitmate" and "adulterous" into this article. This isn't a place for advocacy of political or religious views. I'm copying this information and your comments to the Schiavo discussion page where I feel this belongs. -- Herculaneum 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corretta Scott King

I removed your speedy deletion tag from this redirect. Per Wikipedia:Redirect, having redirects for common spelling mistakes is a good thing. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged. -- Pinktulip 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schiavo (yet again)

Hi Pinktulip (Pink? Pinky?). I've been doing my best to defend you because I really do believe that your heart is in the right place and you're doing your best to make sense of the Schiavo article, which really does need fixing up still. I even tried to stick up for you on WP:AN. But your latest comments on the Schiavo talk page are very unfair and perjorative to Marskell.

Please try and consider others feelings before you make comments like you did - would you like someone to draw conclusions about you and inferrances about your editing based on where you were from, and say they're from the 'stupid stupid' school of editing? I hope this doesn't end up in people getting blocked for incivility, personal attacks and other unpleasantness, but it's heading that way.

It would be awesome if we could get to a more amiable conclusion, as life's easier that way; could I ask you to try and think a little bit more about how you get your point across? Just do it for a week & see how much more progress the article makes. You may be suprised! You probably don't want any more advice, & might feel that this was too much, but if you do, feel free to drop me a line. Proto||type 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilarious

Me, a neo-con? That's good. Ummmm, not so much. But I do know something about NPOV. What the hell does the Frist cat controversy have to do with Schiavo? Hmmm? George Bush using the common turn of phrase "like herding cats"; yeah George W. Bush is going to make reference to that. And any time he says the word "cat", it's about that. I am white though, so I must be pissing on Correta's grave. The beauty of NPOV is that if you're right, you don't need POV edits. The facts speak loud and clear and credibly for themselves. So leave the POV to the Freepers; they're the ones who need it. Derex 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed

I agree, which is why the mention of the photos is int he article, bt the other two points regarding her employer and start in the radio business are not exmpales fo hypocrisy, so I reverted them but edited the first bullet point to refer to her then boyfriend as her "boyfriend/employer" that's should be fine.Gator (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm totally confused about what you want. I agreed with you and you say you disagree...whatever. Take it to the Dr. Laura page and explain what you want there. The menntion of the pictures with a supporting cite is in the article what more could you possibly want?Gator (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, have you looked at the article lately? You added no citation just a "fact" template and then I found a good non-porn cite and put it in as the citation? What are you talking about?! No more of this on the talk page, just take it to the Dr. Laura talk page. You're making no sense, I'm sorry.Gator (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, see you in a year...Gator (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you use these pictures?

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5294/doctorlaura27jd.jpg http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3740/doctorlaura14mp.jpg NiftyDude 21:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SourceWatch

See Template talk:SourceWatch. You have created an amazing amount of work for other Wikipedians who have to clean up this mess. Thanks. Rhobite 22:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Chomsky & Castro Picture Debate

I would like the get your thought on this. Personally, I am convinced that Tcsh has no real interest in improving the Chomsky article. He degenerated the discussion in Archive 6, and has completely degenerated the discussion on the current talk page. I know that he has also been reprimanded for trolling the discussion at the Moral Responsibility talk page. Although, if you disagree with me, please be frank. However, if you do agree with me, do you have any suggestion as to what can be done? Thanks! PJ 22:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)