User talk:82.35.34.11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Trimming blue links

Thanks for helping to clear out some of the blue links in the Encarta list. I have been meaning to do it for a while, but have been busy with other things. I also want to make sure that you are checking against Encarta to see if the same article that they are referring is in Wikipedia. This is extremely important to achieve total coverage because sometime the Encarta article and wikipedia article cover completely different topics. This usually occurs with biographies but has been known to happen elsewhere, for example we don't have an article on the Pearl river. but double checking the two is the only way to know. This is very time-consuming piece but remember the goal is total coverage not culling blue links from the list.

Reflex Reaction 20:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm checking where it's not obvious.

[edit] Redirects

Thanks for creating all these useful redirects! However, please realize that as an anon user, your edits are subject to some scrutiny by RC Patrol. Therefore, can you try to include an indication in your edit summaries that you are creating redirects? Thanks! --malathion talk 08:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I'll be making less edits if they are going to be more hassle. 82.35.34.11 08:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Thanks for categorizing two of my articles, Rule of Faith and Romola. However I do suggest that if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia this much, you should register as a user. I am sometimes suspicious of anonymous users. Keep up the good work! — Wackymacs 12:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please consider registering a user name, all your good work on encarta lists goes uncredited! Martin - The non-blue non-moose 10:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about that. 82.35.34.11 10:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I usually do. If you revert any of my changes without checking them, you will be the vandal. 82.35.34.11 16:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Cesare Colombo

Sorry about that, I'm not sure what happened. When I went to delete it was a blanked redirect, and the deletion log bears this out. Normally an edit after a deletion creates a new article, but in this case the stub was deleted. I assure you that I would never have deleted a valid stub, such as the one you created. - SimonP 01:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay.

[edit] Law Clerk

Thanks for the heads up pon the Law Clerk page. No need to get upset though. I can see by your edits that you seem to have a problem with the U.S. (GWB talk page) or maybe just Bush or conservatives or Republicans I don't know, but that does not mean every edit is Ameri-centric. Assume good faith, kay? No hard feelings though! See yah.Gator1 22:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a British secular conservative (not an oxymoron outside the U.S), so I don't know whether I have less in common with American liberals, or American religious conservatives. I have a problem with the way the America is letting itself and the rest of us down due to its deep ignorance about the world, which has become impossible to overlook. I have been instinctively pro-American all my life, and I am shattered that America has destroyed my faith it in. As for the article, it's nothing to do with assuming good faith, it's about ignorance of the rest of the world. The main and worst form of U.S. centrism is that which involves talking about America as if it is the same thing as the whole world, which is what the article did. If you can't see what was wrong with it, that's an illustration of why America has become a failed global leader. 82.35.34.11 22:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson. I guess I had you pegged completely wrong. My apologies.Gator1 23:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks/question

Thanks for your meaningful contributions to Wikipedia, and the world, indirectly.
Incidentally, a question: should Category:Korean writers include Korean-American (or, presumably, Korean-British, Korean-French, etc) writers? Thanks! --Dpr 06:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't suppose it would do any harm. 82.35.34.11 09:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it's not always realistic to be optimistic on Wikipedia ;) I suspect you can imagine what I mean, in regards to people's predilection/feelings, etc. But I'll use the category as noted above and see what happens. --Dpr 15:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Turns out I had jumped the gun. There does exist Category:Korean American writers. Annyeonghigeseyo --Dpr 15:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/2/2E/User_talk%7E82.35.34.11.html"