User talk:Tasc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This blocked user's page is protected from editing for the duration of their block because of the nature of their block or their posting of abuse, threats, or vandalism here in response to it.

Archives: 1, 2

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Editors are cautioned that there may be exceptions to Wikipedia Guidelines and Style Guides due to unusual circumstances such as an important current event. Decisions need to be based on utility of the article to readers, not to literal compliance with Wikipedia rules. A diverse mix of blogs is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article. Any user, particularly Tasc, who engages in edit warring with respect to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict may be banned from the article for an appropriate period. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Armenia

Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&action=edit&section=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenians&action=edit&section=36 please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.

Re: Template:Asia

" " must have to be inserted or else the names in these templates could be broken across two lines. Meanwhile, please take a look at Wikiquette and WP:CIVIL. — Instantnood 20:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

End of conflict

You edited 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict and wrote that the conflict lasted June 25, 2006 – July, 2006. The conflict is clearly still going on, and the soldier is not back yet. Even if we leave it like it is, what will we do with 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict casualties timeline?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spoil29 (talk • contribs).

The fact that soldier is not back doesn't mean that conflict is not over. I don't see how conflict is 'clearly going on. As to causalities timeline, I'd definitely proposed to stop making a news agency out of wikipedia. Deaths are happening all the time, everywhere and I don't understand how gaza death may be regarded more newsworthy than west bank ones for example. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it was all part of the Gaza conflict article, and the West Bank wasn't involved. --Spoil29 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Welling

Don not re-add that image to the Tom Welling article. It is incorrectly tagged, a copyright infringement and teh consensus has been reached to leave the screenshot to illustrate his work. The image will be deleted soon, so do not re add it. - King Ivan 08:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

just for you to know, your image is uggly. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so YOU know, ugliness is not a criteria for removing an image. The consensus was to keep that screenshot, not add a non-free image that blatantly violates copyright, and the uploader LYING about it's copyright status. - King Ivan 08:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a problem of the uploader, and wikipedia which cannot promptly remove copyright infriging image, not mine. And please, don't leave your graphity on my talk page. -- tasc ^words_deeds 08:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Al-Quds Day

Hello. Today, Washington Post refered to celebrations in Iran as "Jerusalem Day", so I think it would be proper to include link to "Al-Quds Day" in the "Jerusalem Day" article. Readers shouldn't be confused. - Darwinek 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If they don't know how proper name for the holiday, that's their problem - not wp's one. -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

3 Revert Warning

Why are you edit warring?Kyosaki 09:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Tasc, this is the first question a new user is asking on someone's Talk page. I think responding to the question would be courteous and in the spirit of Don't bite the newcomers. Take care, Kla'quot 19:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think i can decide on my own what to do with the set of words on my talk page, which I'm not able to comprehend. Good bye. -- tasc ^words_deeds 19:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationalist POV pushing is not acceptable on wiki. Please maintain the NPOV. Sosomk 23:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

so, what are you doing here than? -- tasc ^words_deeds 06:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversions

Original post under heading "{{Africa}}":

Hi tasc,

(rm nbsps...

The  s assist linewrapping in this and similar templates, so I've replaced them. Hope you understand. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again tasc,

(moved Template:Countries of X to Template:X: that's the common name for template, as asia and other)

Thanks for indicating your rationale; I can understand your wish for consistency. Unfortunately, I don't think I can rename all the relevant templates at once as they're in various categories, so please bear with me. (I hope you understand my rationale for renaming them; seeing "{{Europe}}" (for example) in some code isn't as useful as "{{Countries of Europe}}" etc as the former doesn't indicate the template's contents.)

Re {{Africa}},

(sorry to say, but you wasted your time)

Given my original message above, I don't understand why you reverted the template without discussion...?  Do you understand the rationale for the amendments I made...?

Re your reversions of country articles: Thanks to AWB's automation, you may not realise that you've reverted more than simply the substitution of a template's name. For the time being, therefore, I'm rolling these reversions back; this doesn't affect the above.

Looking forward to hearing from you – best wishes, David (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

given your deletion of my replies on my talk page I'm not going to justify my action. if you want to discuss smth. go to the relevant template's talk page. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Was this the only reply I removed:

cause you changes weren't appropriate. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If not, my apologies. I hope you understand that there is now more than one reversion involved and therefore here is an appropriate place to discuss them as a group. Yours, David (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate place is template's talk page, as it has nothing to do with number of reversion, rather name of template. Don't revert so much, and number of reversion will be smaller. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you have reverted my rolling back the country articles despite my explanation above. Please stop doing so – thanks. So far, the only indication I have for your actions is "cause you changes weren't appropriate". I'd like to understand why you feel they weren't appropriate, as I'm not sure you appreciate why they were made. Thanks, David (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to understand - go to template's talk page. What part of my request don't you understand? -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There's more than that one template involved, tasc; that's the omission in your request that I don't understand. Please respond to my queries at the beginning of this thread; thank you. David (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

your edit are unhelpfull, you're creating unreadable text, nbsp are unhelpfull as they make editing dificult. template move's as at least unconsidered. bye -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately code tends to be less readable than the results it produces; I hope you agree. I'm not a programmer, so I too would love easier-looking code!  Perhaps starting each country on a new line in the code would help...?

template move's as at least unconsidered.

I'm sorry; I don't understand this. Please rephrase; thanks.

Meanwhile, however, I still don't understand why you re-reverted my amendments to the country articles; did you see that I'd made the infobox code easier to read, for instance...?

Yours, David (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indentation)
david - not my talk page! why it's not clear? now you'll invite coolcat to my talk page? and than half of wp editors? start new topic somewhere else. bye. -- tasc ^words_deeds 10:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat sent me a message while we were talking, so I asked him/her whether or not s/he knew you; Cool Cat has been involved in the templates you've reverted. I don't see where s/he has contributed here...?

Do you mind if I rollback the country articles again, as substituting template names weren't the only amendments I made to them (e.g. making the infobox code easier to read)...?

David (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

David, I moved template back! didn't you notice? of course i do mind! aparently those improvements wasn't so important since you didn't care to mention them in your summary. -- tasc ^words_deeds 10:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been able to keep tabs on everything here; I'll take a look at the templates and other pages once I have more than a moment. All the above, however, has not been about a single template; I'd like to understand...

1. ...why you think "Countries of X" is not an improvement (see above for rationale);
2. ...whether or not you would re-revert my rolling back the country articles, restoring the other amendments I made; do you realise doing so won't affect the templates used...?  As explained above, I was using AWB, hence the unchanging edit summaries. Do you diff pages before reverting them...?
3. ...whether or not you'd revert so many pages again without discussion or talk-page notification beforehand...?

Thanks!  Yours, David (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you understand my poor English? I said - not on my talk page. I'm not going to talk to you here anymore. -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

But my queries are about your intentions; hence my inquiring here, on your talk page. Please understand that I don't wish to make contributions that you then only feel must be reverted. I'd like to work with you without wondering when you might next revert something... I hope you understand. Yours, David (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm restoring the edits I made to the country articles except for the template name; contributions by other editors are already accruing.

Bulgaria

[1] (what a shamless lie)

Please assume good faith. I am trying to restore edits without undoing other work. The above was a mistake, not a "shameless lie". The same is true of those other edits to country articles you've marked "(isn't it blind revert?)". Please assume good faith. David (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"I moved template back"

From main thread above:

David, I moved template back! didn't you notice?

No, not yet... When you say "I moved template back", what do you mean...?  Thanks, David (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant that I revert you move. Do you remember that you move template? -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh... Well, I realiz/se English isn't your first language; Russian certainly isn't mine!  Yours, David (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat's approach

I feel it would be better to move the continent templates to "Countries of <Continent>" format. Is there a reason not to do this? The intended fucntion of the continent templates is to link to countries.

I believe nbsp's are used to fix text warping issues. What seems to be the problem?

--Cat out 20:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

there seems to be no problem with nbsp, 'cause there no 'text wraping issue'. -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

tasc, please take a moment to consider that:

1. ...what appears on other people's screens isn't necessarily the same as what appears on yours;
2. ...other people have concerns that may mean nothing to you but that does not mean they are to be ignored, left unanswered or immediately reverted;
3. ...this is a collaborative project where English being your second (or third, or fourth...) language is not an excuse for anything less than civility. Unfortunately it continues to appear that this is a difficulty for you.

Your talk page archives make interesting if unfortunate reading, as does the density of reversion in your user contributions. Please collaborate, not alienate. Thanks. David Kernow (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

please david spare me your preaching. my talk page is not the best place to practice collaboration - it's true. go to the talk page of particular article or template. and for now - just leave me alone. good night. -- tasc ^words_deeds 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I sorry if you feel I am preaching. It seems your unfamiliarity with the English language is a considerable obstacle to your being able to understand what people (not just me) are saying to you and for you to communicate in a reasonable manner on the English Wikipedia. I will see if I can find some assistance. What good is it trying to work with you if all you're likely to do is revert?  Yours, David (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And for those who gonna read it in archive - have a look at edit history

You're not working with me, you doing some tools assisted work which has little to no sense. Inspite your native English you David seem to be unable to understand simple hint. Get the hell of my talk page! I tired of having this pointless discussion and I don't need your insults. -- tasc ^words_deeds 23:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Cat out 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm specifically cooled by templates talking to me. thank you very much, template npa2! -- tasc ^words_deeds 00:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Таск, привет! А чего это ты на них всех взъелся-то? Я тут глянул на шаблон "Африка", и неразрывные пробелы, которые вставил Дэвид, очень даже полезны для улучшения презентации. Когда буллеты съезжают с одной строчки на другую, выглядит это отвратительно. Исходный код читать действительно становится немного затруднительно, но так ведь это ж не статья, а шаблон. Да даже и в статьях неразрывные пробелы используются довольно часто; в MOSNUM'е, например, открытым текстом предписывается использовать их между числами и единицами измерения.

Не хочу тебе тоже морали читать, но в целом по ситуации правы они, а не ты. Я вот как незаинтересованный аутсайдер прочитал перепалку вверху, и у меня сложилось (надеюсь, ошибочное) впечатление, что аргументы Дэвида и Крутокота ты вообще ни в грош не ставишь, но при этом ничего конкретного взамен не предлагаешь и дискуссию продолжать отказываешься. Если бы вы из-за одного шаблона подрались, то твоё желание перенести дискуссию на страницу обсуждения шаблоны было бы вполне понятно, а так кроме как твоей страницы обсуждения им и бежать-то некуда больше.

В общем, дело твоё, конечно, как себя вести дальше, но послушай мой дружеский совет с административной колокольни — если ты будешь дальше на них обзываться, в целом вести себя некооперативно и продолжать накаливать ситуацию, то это скорее всего закончится блоками/медиацией/арбитражем. Я бы тебе с удовольствием помог разрешить ситуацию, но проблема в том, что я не нашёл ни одного сто́ящего аргумента с твоей стороны.

В любом случае, если я могу помочь чем-нибудь, дай мне знать. Если нет, то удаляй этот мой пост нафиг — я не обижусь. The preceding post in Russian was an attempt to informally mediate the situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

abortion

why did you deleted this? Picture like picture... Szczur Zosia 09:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

but has nothing to do with health effect, now has it? -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

primo – response in my talk page, not yours (your are not talking with yourself, are you :P ) secundo you could just move it into good section... instead of threating my edition like a vandalism... Szczur Zosia 09:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

first - don't tell me what to do, and how to behave myself. second - i do consider your edits vandalism. good bye. -- tasc ^words_deeds 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"first - don't tell me what to do, and how to behave myself." hey! I'm not attacking you! I just wonder, why are you responsing in your talk page? "i do consider your edits vandalism." - :) "good bye." see you around :) Szczur Zosia 09:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed very much needed balance to the Israel article

The Israel article ignores the fact that this land was Muslim (by government and by faith) for 1300 years. (It was Italian governed for 670 years, something else that needs inclusion). This is good information, the kind that belongs in an encyclopedia. PalestineRemembered 17:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

well, aparentlly romans ignored that the land was jewish. as did muslims. I don't share opinion that land may be someone's, so please continue further discussion on article's talk page, and not on mine. Thanks, good bye. -- tasc ^words_deeds 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Navigation Template}}

David, let's move this discussion to your talk page, as you're one, who seem to be eager to continue communication. -- tasc ^words_deeds 22:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd apriciate it if you would adress me on my talk page. --Cat out 00:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got only templates for you. Template:Good night -- tasc ^words_deeds 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oyasuminasai Tasc-san. --Cat out 01:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

{{·}}

Hi tasc,
How about the above rather than "&nbsp;·" within template code...?  There's an example on the template's page and I've also tried it here. What do you think...?
Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

don't we try to simplify things? to make divisor (bullet) less prominent? Isn't bold middot is essentialy equals to bullet? The problem with nbsp is not that they look bad in code - they not needed! - template is text and line wrapping should follow general rules. There is no problem of having middot in the beginning of a line. Though I'm not sure about it - inclusion of so many templates may slow down page load (which is not that great anyway). -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What general rule is that? nbsp is needed according to David Kernow so that it is more compatible.

It has been established by a developer that template in template is not a problem as far as servers are concerned.

--Cat out 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say simplification is great so long as it doesn't take preference over user-friendliness; and that strings that are left to wraparound without consideration of name-breaking or starting new lines with divisors are less than user-friendly. In other words, I feel any "general rules" ought to include these kinds of considerations.

A bold middot (·) appears (far) less prominently than a bullet (•) whenever I've seen it on a screen.

I too used to think that multiple templates or templates within templates were something to be avoided, but, as per Cool Cat, apparently this isn't a problem.

Regards, David (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

revert to Talk:Same-sex marriage

Hi Tasc, this morning you made this revert to the Same-sex marriage talk page. It wasn't a well articulated posting, but it seemed on topic and potentially useful to the editors of the page. Could you let me know why you reverted? Thanks --Siobhan Hansa 15:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not signed, it was written with grammatical mistakes, information is already in the article (in one of the templates on the right, to be precise). -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Those don't seem like great reasons for removing someone elses post from a talk page, especially when the inclusion in the article has no source attached and the poster provided one. Have there been problems with spamming from the uk.gay.com site or discussions getting out of hand on the talk page? --Siobhan Hansa 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Those seems like ones to me. There is a separate page for that topic, which has satisfactory reference. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your crusade

Please cease, and desist, your crusade against my royal titles boxes. This is not at all constructive. - DBD^R 13:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

pardon me? -- tasc ^words_deeds 13:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your manner is rather abrasive, so I shall make my reply simple and to the point. I have created these navigational templates to aid navigation between these categories of royal title. I formatted them similarly, coloured and all. It is extremely rude to undo my hard work without providing good reason beforehand. Please control yourself in future, or I will be forced to bring in a mediator. Cheers - DBD^R 13:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion requests

Hi - I've noticed a couple of deletion requests you've placed on template ({{--}} and {{bullet}}). I've declined both, as they don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD) - please could you review these? Also, you put the tags in the main template area, meaning that any (and all) places which transcluded or substed them got the message. In future, please place it between <noinclude></noinclude> tags. Thanks Martinp23 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You probably didn't read my reason for speedy deletion: template is not used. Meaning that there was no such 'places' in a whole wp. I know about noinclude tag. Thanks. -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect - of course I read your reason, and what I'm saying is that it is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion of templates. Can I implore you to review them before tagging any more pages? The only way that you can get sch templates deleted is by listing them for deletion. Martinp23 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Explain your revert

[2] Reverting without reason or discussion is highly discourteous, especially when I created that template! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope you remember WP:OWN well. The reason why I've rewrite the template is not hiding, but rather standardizing templates across WP. The whole series of soft celebrities templates now looks similar. -- tasc ^words_deeds 16:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely did not expect you to be showing me your WP:OWN as the first thing. That comes later in the relationship. Gross. Standardisation is inappropriate as I've explained, and you've failed to respond. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to achieve by avoiding discussion. Are you hoping that I will magically disappear and stop reverting your edits? How about we ask Reason for an answer? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I"m not avoiding communication. I just cannot spent all my life on wp. I don't understand what are you trying to achieve by reverting my edits w/o discussion. -- tasc ^words_deeds 14:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Because what you're doing does not make sense for these particular templates. Offering users a UI element that they would not possibly ever want to use is nonsense. Please change {{Navigation}} so it allows more control over the look of the template. Until you do so, I will revert you as a matter of course. Fortunately, I do spend all of my life on Wikipedia... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pitying you. -- tasc ^words_deeds 15:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! Martinp23 15:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a blank it was an addition of {{RFMF|Case Page Name|23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)}} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by wood345 (talk • contribs).

Is this the right location for this?

Look, I'm not entirely sure of where to put this comment. This system is still very new to me. Apparently, you have taken issue to my recent edits to the Palestine page. I dont understand. I am putting a request for moderation listing at the top of talk:palestine. This whole process is difficult for me.

From the tone of your message, you seem unhappy that Ive blanked something. I dont understand what I've blanked. Is this a wikipedia term that I'm unfamiliar with?Wood345 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments belong to talk pages only. I've provided a link on your talk page. click on it and you'll see what you've done. Blank = wipe out. You deleted all comments from talk page, which is considered very inappropriate behaviour on wikipedia. Hope it answers all your question. -- tasc ^words_deeds 23:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, it doesnt answer any questions for me. I did not attempt to do anything else but add the required text string at the top of the page. I have no idea why that would blank a page. Also, is this the "talk page?"Wood345 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I happened to pass by this discussion, and I don't quite understand your point. Quote [3]: You've recently blanked page Talk:Palestine. - this diff that you provide only shows that Wood345 added a template to the talk page; nothing resembling page blanking. Unless I really miss some point, I think an apology to Wood345 would be appropriate. See also WP:BITE. I'd also like to mention that this is just as much a talk page as User Talk:Wood345, so I don't understand why you insist that Wood345 does not leave any more comments on this talk page. [4] Han-Kwang 20:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As it can be concluded from his talk page, I'm not the only one who saw blanking. I do realise what blanking is when I see one. I'm not responsible for wp's errors. Yeah, but it's my talk page and that was wood's problem, not mine. This is why I've asked him not to discuss/ask questions simultaneously on two talk pages. Got it? good night -- tasc ^words_deeds 20:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the offending edit was around the same time as this one where the whole page was replaced by some random other page after doing a section save. When I just looked back, the mysterious diff had disappeared. Most likely not Wood345's fault. Han-Kwang 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Black Sea

Regarding your edit to the Black Sea article. First off I'd like to say your edit summary:

"References and further reading - are you out of your senses? what does it mean missing citation, there is good dozen of them!"

Is a good way to antogonise someone, sticking to the facts would probably be better.

Anyway, a few points:

You see from here that before I got to the page, there were no inline references, so I added some. However I didn't want to remove the references thatw ere already there - hoping that whoever entered them may still be around and willing to match the references to the places in the article where they are relevant. If you had checked that templates talk page that I left there you would see that this is exactly the point of that template:

...it applies to cases where Unreferenced is misleading. For example, in Stalag Luft III, a general list of references is supplied, but the article is missing explicit footnotes that identify the sources for various statements in the article. This distinction is a useful one (and one reason cited for not deleting this template in the deletion vote mentioned above...

Also as a vital article I'd love to see this become either a Good Article or a Featured Article. Even with the amount of references I added, there still would be not enough for the critia of either GA or FA.

Lastly, since you removed the template and the hidden comments on how to use the <ref> notation you are not exactly helping someone unfamiliar with this on where to get more info. I will be putting the hidden comment back on the page, but don't really care if the citation tag is there or not. If the article does ever get peer reviewed or go for GA or FA status the inline reference work will just have to get done at that time.

Regards. SeanMack 02:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: removal of advice within reference section

In reply to your edit summary of:

References and further reading - it's not needed - especially here

If it's not needed why would someone go to the effort of suggesting this?

Rather than simply adding <references/> in the "References" or "Notes" section, consider adding the following: <!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref> and </ref> tags and the tag below --> <references/>

In fact the Footnotes template has this text automatically included.

If you think it is worthless advice for newcomers then maybe you should take it up on the templates' discussion pages? SeanMack 12:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why it is nonsense?! Lech tizdayen 18:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:LGBT

Explain your revert on the template's talk page, please. — coelacan talk — 18:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay please discuss on the talk page. You changed my edit four times already. Lech tizdayen 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. — coelacan talk — 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to explain what is actually wrong with the tempate as it previously stood? — coelacan talk — 20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:LGBT

If you continue reverting {{LGBT}} without explaining on the talk page why the revision you are reverting to is better and waiting for consensus, you will be blocked for disruption. _JD^talk 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Remain civil

Remain civil. You won't be warned again. J Di ^talk 18:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

find yourself a better job, than putting those terrible colours on my talk page. -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You've been blocked for a week. J Di ^talk 18:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

go fuck yourself, idiot. -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Your block has been extended to two weeks. J Di ^talk 18:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

what part of fuck off don't you understand? -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked for making threats. J Di ^talk 18:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

bitch, you'll be sorry for touching my user page. -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)