User talk:THB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Think Before Posting!

Please don't make posts that could be construed as harassment, personal attacks, or otherwise uncivil behavior.

Archives

---

Archive 1 to October 31, 2006

[edit] Commonwealth vs. American English

Q:When are you guys gonna learn to spell ?

A:This grievance comes from those who aren't aware that British and American spellings sometimes differ.

We've been at the centre of some rancour, but we're not going to take offence or harbour any grievances. The catalogue of complaints won't colour this organisation's programme. It's a grey area anyway. And we don't want to labour the point.

[edit] Moving Sanskar Kendra to Museum at Ahmedabad

Hello. You moved the article Sanskar Kendra to Museum at Ahmedabad. Can you tell me the reason for the move? Museum at Ahmedabad is not the same as Sanskar Kendra which is the name of the museum. Regards - Aksi_great (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The link that you gave me is a picture of the Sanskar Kendra - the museum built by Le Corbusier. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I am not sure of the English translation. "Kendra" in means center as in "center for studies". "Sankar" has different meanings [1], but I think here it means values as in "moral values". So the name Sanskar Kendra could translate to Centre for Values - but I could be wrong. I will try and get some pics for both the buildings. There are also some houses in Ahmedabad designed by Corbusier. I'll see what I can do. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category notice

Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome work

I've been on a Wikibreak and came back to find some awesome changes to several articles I was working on or watching (CSICOP, TM, and Natasha Demkina for a start!), and I see that a lot of those changes are your doing - especially in dealing with one specific vicious editor who seems to have left Wikipedia - an editor that I found particularly vexing because of his constant personal attacks, distortions and extended diatribes. I see you were quite effective in dealing with him. I just wanted to express my admiration for your work on Wikipedia! Dreadlocke ☥ 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dividend

Good work on the dividend article. Been needing love for some time now. Legis 10:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

[edit] Your input re: "front/back" for "obverse/reverse"

Thanks for your reasoned response to my Reference Desk query. I'm fortunate in that the captions are displayed by electronic means and I have "back office" access for correcting them. Now I'm trying to summon the gumption to perform a search on the source text files prior to doing the actual changes  :-/ So I appreciate having support on this! -- Deborahjay 09:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie Error

Hi THB. I am sorry for the confusion on the Transcendental Meditation page. I am completely new to Wikipedia. I went through the Editing Tutorial, and there was absolutely no mention of the necessity to collaborate on a "discussion page". After going through the tutorial, the only thing a newbie would know to do is to pitch in and start editing. When my entries started disappearing, I had no idea that I should consult a History page, I assumed there was some problem so just reposted. I finally noticed the "History" tab and upon looking at it that was my first clue that I had made some sort of mistake. Apologies for the mistakes but there really should be something in the editing tutorial about the necessity to collaborate. Tanaats 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Tanaats

[edit] Index cases

Thanks for clearing that up. StvnLunsford 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving THB! ^{This method of wishing someone a happy thanksgiving has been stolen (with permission) from Randfan (talk • contribs).} | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish you a happy Thanksgiving! I hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Turkey Day from AndonicO! Enjoy!

.

Thank you for wishing me well too. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

[edit] Opinion on the reference desk

(moved to reference desk) -THB 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I moved the discussion again to Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#keeping_the_reference_desk_factual. Moving it to the reference desk itself was inappropriate, because the reference desk is not a discussion page about the reference desk; that's the reason I talked to you on your own talk page in the first place. But if you prefer to talk on the ref desk's talk page, that is fine too. -- SCZenz 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion on Dec. 1

Hello, External link on Aphasia: I know all of the aphasia organizations in the external links. All help to navigate the isolating and confusing world of the aphasic (of which I am very familiar). Two of them have similar speech therapy programs, just like the one deleted. Many caregivers, families, friends, and aphasics (if they can) use Wikipedia and other internet sources to find treatment options of this devastating condition. If this deletion is wrong, please let me know why these other links are OK. Thank you very much, JaniceRsurvivor 17:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nursing COTM

Hi, Do you think we should change the Nursing COTM for December as November's Nursing assessment is still not that brilliant & only you & I did much on it?— Rod ^talk 08:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refs & footnotes - International Nurses Day

I don't quite understand your comment on International Nurses Day about refs & footnotes - the ones I added & cited in the text should be references not footnotes - the others which appear as references are not cited in the text & I would call external links see Wikipedia:Citing sources— Rod ^talk 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't forget to subst: templates!

Hi,

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks! :)

Hbackman 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Message on User:MartinBot

Hi - thanks for reporting that - I'll make a further report to the error listing where the problems encountered should contribute to making the bots better in future. Again, thanks Martinp23 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why the revert on the CSICOP article? There was no change of content, only alphabetizing and bringing the article inline with style guidelines. -- Fyslee 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. -- Fyslee 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment wanted on User:light current's one week block

I, and User:Gandalf61, and others, feel that the action of User:Friday in blocking User:light current for a week was unwarranted and excessive: [2]. We would appreciate your comments in this matter. Thanks. StuRat 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

(seems a bit off-topic for Wikipedia talk:Reference desk) FYI, admins cannot do sock-checking. There's a function called "checkuser" and it's a very restricted group of who can do it. In any case, alternate accounts are allowed as long as they're not abused. The only admin action I know of with respect to the RD was the block and subsequent unblock/parole of Light current. I really really hope people don't see this as "admins versus the reference desk"- that's absolutely not how it should be. I encourage any editor to use their judgment and remove posts that are particularly egregious. I encourage all editors to provide useful answers and try to nudge (not bludgeon) others into doing the same. Friday (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A modest proposal

Hi THB - thanks for keeping the conversation alive on the RD - I think I'm going to call it a day, and I think I'm going to leave things as is. I've written all there is which needed to be said I think, and it's time for me to move on. There's a lot of good nuggets there, so hopefully some Wikipedians will pick up on what I've tried to get at. In the meantime, I cannot guarantee that I will be around the RD for a sustained period, but do keep an eye out for my edits there - I have a feeling that some normalcy can come back to the project soon. Cheers, HappyCamper 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lollipop for you

Hi, THB. Just passing through, on a Wiki-break for the most part. But I checked out the RD's talk page, and from what I can see, it just keeps on cooking. I also saw your question regarding the Lollipop Guild and it made me smile. Appreciating your dry sense of humor, and your straightforward answers and remarks, I'd like to add some slurpy sweetness: Here's a lollipop! (but you have to share it with the boy in the wool hat).

Sorry, the picture is much too large, but I don't know jack about these things and couldn't reduce its size. I suppose you'll just have to gobble it up quickly. Take care and happy editing. ---Sluzzelin 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I resized it...my, what a beautiful picture! --HappyCamper 20:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nurse

I see you are a nurse. My mom was too. I'm a PT. -- Fyslee 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up

Regarding this, this kind of follow up is pretty standard procedure when dealing with problem editors. Maybe you don't do much of that kind of work here, I dunno. But, I highly encourage you to check contributions and talk page before deciding how to proceed with probably-not-serious questions. Time that we spend responding to trolls or vandals could be spent helping good-faith questioners instead. I feel that helping good-faith questioners is time better spent. Friday (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentally different approaches

Replying to this here since it's about me and my conduct more than the RD specifically. I think we have fundamentally different approaches. Say something nice? What?!? I'm not here to be anybody's friend. (Or enemy.) I'm here to work on the encyclopedia, which I'm sure is around here somewhere. But, point taken- I've realized that my approach has been ineffective. If I think people are doing things wrong, I should nudge them, not bludgeon them. Friday (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Point Taken

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I fully agree that the RefDesk was not the proper forum for the comments I directed towards Clio, and I apologize for that. I hope, though, that my enormous respect for Wikipedia generally comes through in my posts. I do my best to answer questions with as much accuracy and civility as I'm capable of. Yet, in my defense, it's not the obnoxious and condescending nature of Clio's posts that are my main concern. Yes, it can be incredibly irritating, but, and I hope you understand my sincerity in saying this, it's the quality and integrity of the RefDesk itself that is my greatest concern.

People come to the RefDesk with questions, and deserve accurate and valid responses. Unfortunately, Clio's responses, though very ably disguised as been authoritative, are far more often than not no more than utter fiction. Yes, we all, yours truly included, make our share of factual errors. But these errors are unintentional, and we all regret when we make them. Yet I've come to realize that for reasons I cannot comprehend, many of Clio's posts almost seem to display some sort of pathological intent to mislead. Worst of all, she happens to possess unusually impressive skills in writing and articulation. In my opinion, these two factors put together have the potential to do a great disservice to both the questioners, as well as the integrity of the RefDesk, and Wikipedia in general. This type of thing simply cannot be tolerated, if the RefDesk and Wikipedia are to maintain the reputation of having the highest of standards.

Once again, I apologize for my lapse in judgement and breach of RefDesk decorum. I only hope that you understand though, that in doing so, I was doing what I felt had to be done, though admittedly not in the proper forum. I'll post a copy of the preceding at the RefDesk talk page as well.

Thanks for your comments, they were well received. Loomis 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?

Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

On the contrary, I've realized that the RD has much looser standards than many other pages, so I've become willing to let lots of things slide there. BTW feedback on me personally belongs on my talk page moreso than it belongs on WT:RD. Are you disagreeing with my rhetoric, or my actions? Friday (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Both, and a condescending attitude. Nice of you to "let things slide". -THB 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Being condescending is counterproductive. Please do feel free to bring it to my attention if you see that I'm being a jerk. Friday (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I was doing??? I've done it several times. -THB 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Friday should recuse himself from all Ref Desk issues, as he is causing problems here, not solving them. StuRat 18:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat, I sincerely apologize for WP:AGF for far too long with him. Imagine that I insisted that *you* apologize to *him*! -THB 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That OK, you have to observe User:Friday to see what he's really up to, it's not obvious, at first. StuRat 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Desk talk page

Do you think your recent comments to the Reference Desk talk page are helpful? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do not stop trying to disrupt consensus you will likley be left out of the discussion process. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he isn't trying to disrupt consensus, that's what Friday and a few other Admins are doing. And User:THB will not be left out of the process. StuRat 17:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't give a flip any more. It is obvious that Friday came to the RD with an agenda, on top of being condescending and superior-acting. Let him eliminate it or do whatever the hell he wants to with it. It's useless to discuss something with some who has already decided what the outcome is to be. He also is trying to get any criticism of his actions spread around Wikipedia instead of concentrated in one place. He's setting a very poor example for an administrator with his namecalling and attitude. -18:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The law and the pedia

Replying here since it's not related to the reference desk. Copyright is one area where Wikipedia has to make strong efforts to stay legal. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Friday (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment of newbie’s

I read above about posting harassing messages on discussion pages does that extend to new users? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lpritchard (talk • contribs).

[edit] Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules

Vote here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Conduct RFC

I have filed an RFC regarding your treatment of the encyclopedia as a battleground. You can respond here. Unless another user certifies the RFC, it will not remain listed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite appears to want to misuse Wikipedia (WP:POINT) to escalate his dispute and bring "false charges" against us. I don't intend to respond unless he gets a second person to certify this crusade of his. While there are certainly aspects of his behavior which warrant an RFC, I suggest we not file one, as it might also appear to be WP:POINT. What do you think ? Also, as Hipocrite mischaracterizes every conversation about him as a personal attack, it would be good for you to enable your email option, as I have done, so we can discuss his "charges" in private. Also, I would avoid any conversation with him or about him, as he would also take these as personal attacks. StuRat 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's made that obvious. In light of his e-mails with TenOfAllTrades, I have reluctantly enabled my e-mail. I do wish all editors, and administrators particularly, would be open and direct in their communication when there are disputed issues but if they aren't, then we must protect ourselves against their attacks. -THB 14:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last

Hi. I think you lost track in the edit skirmish and actually made the last deletion yourself. You may want to undo that. --Justanother 20:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, there must have been a burp in the system. -THB 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but I'm jumping ship

THB - just to let you know that I'm am going to leave the RD guideline and RD talk page discussions. I just can't deal with Radiant and Hipcorite any more. Every time I interact with them I end up feeling disgusted and soiled. I am going to find some far corner of Wikpedia where the air is clean and the water is pure and I can leave their poison far behind. Glad to see your RfC still hasn't got a second endorser. Keep up the good work, and thank you for all your help. Gandalf61 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Note, however, that they have a rule that says: (Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I think that means you need to remove your endorsements of the other two summaries, since you've added your own. Thanks again ! StuRat 14:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I see a minor typo: "User:StuRat's efforts to do achieve it." StuRat 14:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)