User talk:Thegoodson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Tiger
Hi, please read my comments on Talk:Tiger#POV. Thanks, RexNL 11:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your reverts to the article Tiger
Stop reverting the line, "They are superpredators and the largest living cat species in the wild (liger hybrids bred in captivity are larger though)[2][3]." Yes we know ligers aren't a fertile species found in the wild, but that's not what the article is saying. It's about the physiology of the animal, which is relevant.
On a side note, refering to animals as hybrids and stating they aren't species because of this, isn't the definition of what a species is. Technically speaking, all living species are hybrids of prior organisms. Inforazer 14:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Goodson your report isn't correct. If I had limited tiger size to 485lbs you would be correct. I gave the range up to 700lbs, saying on average 395-485lbs, which is correct. I’m not vandalizing the page. I guess the reason why everybody (at least me) withdrew their complaints is because you aren’t negotiable, not because the page was protected. In fact a lot of explanation has been done throughout protection. No explanation or source was enough for you because you have created a model tiger in your head. Unfortunately we have to convince someone like you to correct the facts on the page. You don’t read other posts and play with words and reply users with off topic messages. You have done this in the past and will continue to. I hadn’t given you in, hoping that you would agree on at least the sources given from scientific websites. I was hoping for a change but now you report me for nothing. I think it’s time. I’m very very annoyed of your destructive nature. Stop vandalizing the page. BJK1903 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Calaway
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. SteveLamacq43 00:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's no need to be rude. If, as you say, you've been doing this for some time, pehaps you should talk more care when reverting as not to include useless edits, as you did on this article. Also, as I said, if you've got real proof that the Undertaker was born in 1960, by all means, show it. SteveLamacq43 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit mostly because, if you wanted to change the date I think you should've done that, and not incorporated all the other changes, which were for the worse. IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source because, like WP, anybody can edit it, and from what I've seen, NNDB takes most of it's information from other websites. However, TV.com is normally a reliable source, and so I've added a [citation needed] to his article. Cheers, SteveLamacq43 00:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I didn't realize that I was editting other parts of the article as I was editting the birthdate. Sorry about that. 1962 is his birth year, I assure you. No citation is needed. It was even on the WWE website back when they had full bios on the wrestlers. They no longer have the birthdates listed. His birth year was also mentioned in a WWF magazine back in the 1990's. User:TheGoodSon
- No problem. I see you've changed the date again. To be honest, I'm not sure where 1960 came from in the first place, but it's been that for as long as I can remember. If you don't provide a good, verifiable source (I'm not sure where tv.com stands), for the date change, another editor will just come along and change it. SteveLamacq43 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Berbick KO'd from list
Why did you erase Berbick's death from the 2006 article (in section 'deaths')? GoodDay 15:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Never mind, I see why. He's in the 2006 sports article. GoodDay 17:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edit to 2006
You went through this page unlinkifying repeated dates, even though there is, and was at the time, a comment repeated throughout the page:
- "Please make sure all dates are linked even where repeated. This is required for date format preferences to work correctly."
With the proximity of some of your edits to this comment, I fail to believe that you failed to see a single instance of it. See also User:Smjg#Linking dates on year pages. -- Smjg 13:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
