User talk:Bart Versieck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Goeiedag/Hello Bart Versieck, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, and happy editing.

[edit] Woops...

...my bad on William Evan Allan's centennarian category. Forgot to take my dyslexia medicine. Sorry about that... wknight94 15:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That's no problem, Mister Knight. Bart Versieck 22:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Bart, why do you insist on de-capitalizing titles, such as "Veterans by Country." Surely a newspaper capitalizes titles! Also, please stop deleting links to "Longevity Claims." Look, the purpose of "Longevity Claims" is to list claimed ages, so we can see that while one person might claim to be 115, another claims to be 118. Also, I prefer to consider Pawel Parniak a longevity claim, not a longevity myth. To me, a "myth" is not true (but may have some allegorical or storytelling value). Clearly, claims to 160, 150, 140 are clearly myths. However, age "115" is possible (if not very likely). Thus, we cannot say for sure that Pawel Parniak is a myth unless evidence is found to support that contention. In the meantime, let's list gray-area cases in longevity claims. As noted, the rules for inclusion:

1. Must be less than 130 years old (mainly 113-129). '

2. Must have a claim in the news, including a birthdate.

3. The claim has not been validated or invalidated.

If a claim is invalidated, we can move them to "longevity myth."

Sincerely Robert Young → R Young {yakłtalk} 22:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert, first of all, "country" is written without a capital letter "c", and, secondly, longevity claims is a redirect to longevity myths. Bart Versieck 23:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I just noticed longevity Claims should be changed into longevity claims, which is currently a redirect to longevity myths, so I asked the administrators to delete it in order for me to be ably to change its title. Bart Versieck 23:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] María Capovilla

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, as it is considered vandalism. The article is being kept, but please leave the AfD notice until the discussion is closed. Thank you. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but it was a silly request, done by someone not knowing the facts. Bart Versieck 21:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ding Junhui

Hi. Can I ask where you got 4 March 1987 for Ding's birthdate? worldsnooker.com says 1 April, as does most of the sources I've seen. -- Arwel (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.ibsf.org/profiles/dingjunhui.php

[edit] Proposed table for WWI Survivors

Hi Bart, can you give feedback on the table that I have proposed in Talk:Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I - Rye1967 00:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I can in a moment. Bart Versieck 22:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of personnel in WWI

I've added a sentence on the number of military casualties of WWI to Surviving veterans of World War I to illustrate the significance of the number of survivors. It would be better if the article had the total number of participants but I can't find that on Wikipedia. My interest in the list is related to the age of the surviors, I have no knowlege of the war. Can you help find the figure for the article or direct me to someone who might have more expertise? - Rye1967 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no clue, but you could always ask this at http://www.victoriacross.net/forum_topic.asp?tid=677, dear Rye. Bartje 22:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you removed Kosa from the list of surviving veterans? Did he die? If so, you need to change the world totals at the end of the article. Thanks. Czolgolz 12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, looks like I caught you mid-edit. Good work.

Thanks, and forgiven, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schlieffen-Plan links, edit-summary, and peacefulness

Hello there, Bart,
Ahh! now I see your point. In fact, at first I didn't understand because you unlinked only one Schlieffen-Plan where there were many others after it, which you at first did not unlinked as well. It was for that reason that I relinked it. Especially that I see no trouble at all in linking one item many times or whenever it occurres in the one article. On the contrary, I think it is quite very useful, especially if the linked item is so strongly related to the article: Sometimes the reader at first is not really interested in that linked item, but then, as He or She goes on reading and find that item appearing again and again, they start becoming interested in it. At this moment, if the item is linked only once when it was first mentioned, the reader will have to interupt his reading in order to find it, which itself might take sometime especially if He or She is of the kind that does not make use of the search capabilities of their web-browsers (and how many those are! :-)), this applies too much to the Schlieffen-Plan. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be any harm in linking things afterall, especially if they were so closely related to the main topic (again such with the S. Plan!) apart from that the text will appear all in blue each time! But most of Wikipedia pages are already full of such blue text, of course, including the WWI page, so it doesn't really matter, nor that the reader will really notice it (unless He or She wants to notice it!).
But I noticed in your response, in your "edit summary", that your were upset at my rv: "For your information, I unlinked it again, because there is already a link to it in a previous alinea"_ that was what you siad, and I know that this sort of response might have been caused by an assumption of yours that I was being unappreciative of your contribution, which is indeed, I assure you, the last thing I would want to do! Nothing really makes me more happy than when someone makes a constructive and useful edit - that's what the whole thing is really about, in the most practical and abstract senses of the thing that is Wikipedia. But the truth is that my rv came in misunderstanding, or in fact, no understanding at all of your edit, as I tried to explain above: That you unlinked only one item where there were still many others later-on. Here, in the first place, I must ask you to try to describe or indicate in the "edit summary" box what your edit is about as briefly as you may - it is always better than nothing. Because sometimes when you do this, a potential misunderstanding of your edit may be avoided. You see here now, after you wrote an explanation in your second edit, I got ya!! But generally, I noticed that also in your other contributions, you generally seldom write anything in the "edit summary" box. Of course, it is in the end always up to you, as well as what should happen with all those unlinked Schlieffen-Plan ex-links(!), but this is just an advice - it is only fortunate that in this great project, no one really has an authority over another! writing in the edit-summary box also is useful as to indicate whether the edit is made by a vandal or not; sometimes I just don't compare versions if the newer revision is being supplied with good and comprehensive edit-summary note.
Sorry for the long note, but still one more thing to be mentioned here: As you have seen it was all this misunderstanding that derived me to rv your edit, and nothing else. Misunderstanding is something that is very likely to occur in our activity here and in most other online interaction among the people. This I personally believe is because the online interaction is more difficult and more demanding than the other forms of interaction which indeed always depend on more than just mere language all the time. So, please, I must ask you to try to cool down, and do not so promptly assume that whomever interferes with you in the editing of whatever detail is someone who's doing it in bad faith. The ideal is that editors and contributors WANT to build a good article, that's the aim, and nothing really that pertains to them personally and directly. In this regard I have read a number of articles on that matter, which were really helpful for me, not only in determining how my ACTION would be, in Wikipedia, but more significantly, how my REaction should be. I found so many responses so far, and I am always contented that non of them can ever upset my own relationship with what I'm doing here, because I really must by enjoying it if I am to continue doing it! Here are those articles: Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Criticism is Feedback , Forgive & Forget , Principle of Constant Respect, Along with the links provided earlier, these might be of great help as to the, yes, BEST kind of social behavior in such a great project. the last 3 links are particularly intersting and I am convinced that eventually, most users of Wikipedia, and similar projects, will most inevitably become so accustomed to it.
I wish you an ever-increasing enjoyment, editing and transforming that great project, Maysara 09:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks, and likewise then. Bartje 10:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nederlandse Wikipedia

Hoi Bart, met [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_gebruiker:Nicklaarakkers]. Ik kan je niet via de Nederlandstalige wiki meer bereiken want ze hebben mij geblokkeerd. Ik begrijp alleen niet waarom, waarschijnlijk omdat ik deze [[1]] afbeelding hebt gemaakt in reactie op het steeds maar op de verwijderlijst zetten van mijn afbeeldingen, terwijl ik die toch altijd duidelijk laat vergezellen met een logo. Kan jij misschien verhaal halen bij [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Siebrand] waar deze onzin op slaat? Groeten Nicklaarakkers 19:21, 14 May 2006

Ja, dat wil ik wel doen, maar ik ben daar al wel sinds enkele maanden niet meer op actief d.t.v. die herrieschopper uit Thailand (zijn "naam" ben ik ondertussen zelfs ook al vergeten, zo "belangrijk" vind ik hem). Extremely sexy 18:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REDLINKS

Bart, sometimes red links are good for FUTURE adds. If someone clicks on the link and there's no one there, maybe they can start an article. → R Young {yakłtalk}

Okay then, Robert. Extremely sexy 23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is your problem with headlines?

Bart, I'm extremely irritated that you are going around destroying headlines. Last I checked, the main words in headlines are capitalized. Thus, for you to change "Problems with Documentation Process" to "Problems with documentation process" is a violation of grammar use. → R Young {yakłtalk} 07:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert, for your information, someone already did that and I only reverted another change: just look at this previous edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longevity_claims&diff=56051069&oldid=56044549, and write to that very person, please. Extremely sexy 14:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REGARDING FRAUDULENT AMERICAN WORLD WAR I VETERANS

Counting three "World War I ERA" veterans as actual World War I veterans is shamefully dishonest. This list is not an accounting of "World War I ERA" veterans -- it is a list of Wolrd War I veterans, period. A World War I veteran is someone who serve in the armed forces during World War I, a conflict which ended with an armistice on November 11, 1918. A man who enlisted in 1919 did not serve in World War I. What's more, since he enlisted after the war was over, he did not even enlist with the intention of serving in the war. "World War I ERA" veterans do not receive a World War I pension from the Department of Veterans Affairs; no one, except a few cranks on this board, considers them to be the equivalent of World War I veterans. No other nation on this list includes "World War I ERA veterans" on their rolls; why should they be included on the U.S. list? It comes across as an embarrassing attempt to pad our numbers. If the purpose of this page is to keep an ACCURATE census of living World War I veterans worldwide -- and that's what I thought it was, anyway -- then these three men should be removed from the list permanently. If not, then heck, let's put Merlyn Krueger back up there, too. Hey, he SAID he was a World War I veteran, didn't he? 68.175.88.20 04:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely do see your point, but "fraudulent" and "cranks" is a bit harsh, is it not, and you should have pointed this out at the talk page of that particular article instead of continuously reverting all our work without any justification at all, plus ask Robert too. Extremely sexy 07:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johanna Booyson

I've reverted your nomination of this article for speedy deletion. There are a number of problems:

  • You don't give any reason for speedy deleting it. Please don't use the {{delete}} tag as it gives admins no information abut why you believe the article should be deleted.
  • You replaced the content of the article with the tag. This is not the proper procedure. You should add the tag to the top of the article, leaving the content in place. Again this makes it possible for admins to see whether the article should be deleted or not.
  • Most importantly, I see nothing wrong with this redirect. Since you offer no explanation of why it should be deleted, I have reverted it back to its former state.

Thanks, Gwernol 17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that you've done this to a whole sequence of articles claiming in edit summaries that "it's not a redirect at all". I don't understand that comment since these very clearly are redirects. That is also not a criteria for speedy deletion even if it were true. I must ask you to stop doing this. Thanks, Gwernol 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, so then I will reinstate that particular tag for all 7 articles involved right now and explain exactly why they should be removed, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the reasons you cite are not valid criteria for speedy deletion. The fact that an article may be written in the future isn't a good reason to delete the redirects now. The people are mentioned on the article redirected to, so until someone writes enough to justify a separate article, its perfectly valid to keep these redirects in place. I'm reverting your tags back, please don't replace them again. Thanks, Gwernol 18:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But so then you can redirect anything to anything you want, which is really ridiculous. Extremely sexy 18:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. These are legitimate redirects: Johanna Booyson is mentioned in the longevity article so redirecting from Johanna Booyson to that article makes perfect sense. Someone searching for "Johanna Booyson" gets redirected to the article that at least has some information about that person. When someone is ready to write a full article about Booyson they can do so simply by editing the article and replacing the Redirect (hopefully adding at least a "See also" link to the longevity article). What's wrong with that? Gwernol 18:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point, but I would prefer to create an article about those 7 persons involved before referring to other articles mentioning them by using or via redirects, moreover, then they would definitely be superfluous and replaced by a link under "see also", as you pointed out correctly, hence. Extremely sexy 18:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of [[ ]] around date on Henry Allingham

I wikified the date so that a signed in user can view the date in their preferred format, be it 6 June or June 6, etc. Please do not dewikify it again. TheEnlightened 15:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But, as I explained for my removal, it's already wikified at the beginning of the article. Extremely sexy 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You appeared to of missed the point, the date may of been wikified before hand but this particular instance it was not, thus not in a readers perferred format. Also is does not hurt to have something wikified twice in an article incase the reader doesn't notice the first instance and i cannot really see the downside to that, other than the pages file size may be 0.009 kb larger. TheEnlightened 18:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant in fact, so no double wikifications in the same article. Extremely sexy 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You didn't clearly state what you also meant but if it was about the file size being bigger then you may want to know that i was being sarcastic, the actual increase in file size from the additions of two open and close square brackets would be so small that it is probably impossible to measure without out great effort.
I feel that your comments also make me believe that you didn't understand that i didn't wikify the date so people could go to the date's article but so that the reader could view the date in their preferred format and so stops any possible edit wars between people who prefer one format over another.
On another angle if you do not want the date wikified as your are worried about Wikipedia's bandwidth and hosting I can assure you that the addition of the brackets then you are being over sensitive (and taking the wrong course of action) as wikipedia has plently of bandwidth and activily encourages users too add to articles and create new ones. Or if you are worried about user's with dial up connections then you are again taking the wrong course of action. TheEnlightened 23:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's just about the links to the same article featuring in it, hence, my dear friend, and, by the way, there is just one format (being June 6 in this particular case), because the other one is in fact a redirect (c.q. 6 June). Extremely sexy 10:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no problem with double wikilinks in an article as i have stated many times before. You also appeared to misunderstand what i said about the wikipedia software. If a user states a date in an article, say for instance the 6th day of June and writes it like June 6 in square brackets the wikipedia software will make it appear in the format which a signed in user prefers. It knows which format the user prefers as it is set in "Date and Time" of tab their "My Preferences" page. You can experiment and try this yourself. TheEnlightened 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for telling me, Enlightened One. Extremely sexy 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with English

Bart, it is extremely irritating that you presume to know English well, when you don't. To say that Elizabeth Bolden lives in a nursing home 'over there' is completely ridiculous. Also, your penchant for adding unnecessary 'and's' is irritating as well. I scored a perfect score on the GRE writing test. I know English, and your English needs work. Thus, if another editor deletes your bad grammar, you should accept it as such. 65.81.27.208 06:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are an anonymous user, so why should I listen to you at all? Extremely sexy 10:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous users can't make valid arguments? Where is the logic in that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mama's Silk Purse (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC).
That's not what I wrote, and, moreover, his or hers argument is invalid anyway, so why bother in the first place? Extremely sexy 00:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joanna DeRoover

Hello Bart, might you be able to help provide some references for the Joanna DeRoover article? Everything I come across appears to be a Wikipedia derivative, and the original author was an anonymous editor. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay then: I will take a look at it right now, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeanne Calment

Whoops. You're right. The external link does refer to the same book in the References section, but the References section doesn't refer to the website. Somehow my brain muddled that up. Sorry. Twisted86 06:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You are forgiven, my dear twisted friend. Extremely sexy 07:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
La! Then all is well in the world! Twisted86 07:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, apart from myself that is

. Extremely sexy 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edna Parker AFD

Hi Bart. Please do not in any way alter, rephrase or otherwise edit the decisions of closing administrators in deletion debates. Thanks in advance for your absolute cooperation on this point. Deizio talk 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay: sorry then. Extremely sexy 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice one, same goes for below :) Deizio talk 19:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Kiss for you

. Extremely sexy 22:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on linking

Please ensure that when making minor edits to create bluelinks you don't redirect to disambiguation pages or mislink. Your recent edit to Neil Robertson (snooker player) created a link to Joe Perry, which is a disambiguation page. The correct form is Joe Perry, markup: [[Joe Perry (snooker player)|Joe Perry]]. Deizio talk 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well: I in fact wanted to check this after having supper. Extremely sexy 18:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Sinédia-Cazour

May I ask why you deleted the prod on Julia Sinédia-Cazour? They are legitimate claims for deletion. You deleted it without a comment and without any discussion. I am reverting it. If you do not agree with the prod, state why.--Thomas.macmillan 16:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • My apologies, as I just found your comments on the talk page. --Thomas.macmillan 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies accepted, but she really is notable. Extremely sexy 18:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of vandalism

I am a long-standing editor of the article Richard Nixon. Please refrain from making allegations of vandalism when they are, in fact, simply edits you do not particularly like. Thanks. Cripipper 11:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's simply not true at all that I don't like them, but you linked someone again who had already been linked, hence. Extremely sexy 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] November 12th, 2006

Hello, Bart. I did some calculating on Ford & Reagan's ages (#of days). Ford's 34,089th day won't be 'till November 12th, 2006. I've edited part of the first paragraph of the Gerald Ford article (removing the mentioning of Ford having become the longest-lived President), to reflect your correct calculations. I'm sorry for ever doubting you, I'm glad you stuck to your guns. What a sharp eye. PS: Here's hoping, for good health to Jerry as he's on the eve of breaking Reagan's record. GoodDay 23:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, my dear friend, and likewise, so "good day" to you and to him, but, by the way, what's your first name? Extremely sexy 10:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
My first name is 'Good' GoodDay 17:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it really (no joking)? Extremely sexy 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by PMA. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

{{unblock|I didn't know you were an administrator, but blocking me for reverting something is a bit harsh}}

Wait a moment, I've approached the blocking admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of speediness, I'm provisionally unblocking you, since at least one other admin and myself also found the block exaggerated. However, please be aware that this is subject to further consultation with PMA, who I couldn't reach just now. And do please take this as a warning to be more careful with talking of "vandalism" when reverting other users, okay? -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, and I obviously will. Extremely sexy 09:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Please don't de-wikify dates. The wikified version is important to support the various date formats used around the world (even when it's redundant). I noticed you did this in the JFK article you just edited, so I thought I'd mention it. Rklawton 23:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I do understand what you mean, but I did this because his exact date of death is already wikified at the very beginning of the article, hence. Extremely sexy 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikifying dates has nothing to do with redundancy and everything to do with displaying the date properly for folks used to reading dates with a different format. The wikified date will display according to the preferences expressed by each user. For example, many Europeans would type today's date as 28 November 2006. By wikifying each and every instance of a date in an article, we ensure that users, no matter where they are from, read the date in a format friendly for them. As a result, I must ask you to not de-wikify any dates. It's disruptive. Rklawton 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, but as a result his exact date of date could be mentioned and wikified 5 times in the article: strange. Extremely sexy 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That is correct, and that is fine. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for details. Rklawton 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If that's the policy, so be it. Extremely sexy 01:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missorting

As of tomorrow, it will be one year since you claimed to understand how the indexing sort keys work. So why are you messing around with missorting again now?[2] Gene Nygaard 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So you mean in fact this applies for first names as well then, huh? Extremely sexy 17:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep. All the characters get indexed. Spaces, too, or asterisks, hyphens, whatever (that's why we use one of them for the main article in a category, to get it at the top of the listing, before the alphabetical entries. And strip other punctuation especially at the beginning before the first letter, which isn't that common but sometimes happens, as with an inverted ¿ at be beginning of the title of some Spanish song or other works of art. Gene Nygaard 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, Gene. Extremely sexy 12:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Somebody nominated that article for deletion. Gene Nygaard 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, and he really is stupid. Extremely sexy 19:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretty strange that you haven't added a Keep comment in that case. Gene Nygaard 09:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I will right now, and will you too, but I had also been waiting for Robert, who hasn't even responded yet. Extremely sexy 14:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing & history

Please, learn to use the "Show Preview" button. It is absolutely rediculous for you to edit an article over fifty times in one day (as you did to Lyndon B. Johnson's). /Blaxthos 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it, but you are exaggerating, since at the time "Wikipedia" was having problems showing the new versions, and someone else was editing at the same time, so it was showing incorrect versions as well, even from a couple of hours before, stating it was the latest version, hence. Extremely sexy 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of deleted categories

You added a category that had just been depopulated by Alphachimpbot to Jack Palance. Please do not repopulate legitimately removed categories. Thanks. alphachimp 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no intention at all of doing this, but I edited the previous version of the article with that category. Extremely sexy 15:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited controversy

Hi Bart, sorry for being a stickler for proper sourcing, but it's part of my genetic makeup I suspect ;^) If you are aware of a source for this controversy, please add it to the wikilinked article, then we can toss the fact template here. Thanks for understanding, Crum375 14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I do understand, and I definitely will. Extremely sexy 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Ford article

I'm sorry for my mistake and two reverts. However, please consider providing edit summaries on your edits and don't mark all of them as minor. Other editors will understand you better this way. Thank you.--Pethr 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and I will in the future. Extremely sexy 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion

Hi Bart, I reverted what appeared to be typographical errors: excessive space before the 'See also' and using a lower case for the egg link. If you have any question about any of these changes let me know. Thanks, Crum375 13:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be lower case, and this excessive space is necessary, since the picture should be with the correct text. Extremely sexy 13:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In general, a wikilink which is overriden by a link text such as this one should reflect the exact spelling of the entry. In this case the spelling in the entry is 'Egg (biology)', as all WP entries must have a capitalized first letter. The overriding link text is 'egg' which is of course lower case, as is grammatically required by the sentence. Regarding the excess space, I am not sure what you mean; when I look at the article, there appears to be excessive (and ugly) amount of space before the 'See also' section - why do you want that? Crum375 14:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
However, I noticed that all Wikipedia links referred too in articles are in lower case (apart from names, of course, which always are capitalized), unless they are at the very beginning of a sentence, and in this particular article itself the "See also" section should be written exactly under that very picture belonging to the previous section, hence. Extremely sexy 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Bart, please sign your messages, as providing just the date is confusing. Also, we use lower case if there is no text override needed (e.g. if 'egg' was a single unique article we would use it in lower case), but once an override is needed or used, we use the exact spelling (including capitalization) of the entry (copy-paste) for the actual link, and the grammatically required spelling for the overriding hyperlink text. Hence in this case we need to use 'Egg (biology)' in the hidden link as it matches the actual spelling of the entry, and 'egg' as the overriding hypertext link. Regarding the excessive spaces, you keep saying 'sexy', I am sorry but I don't see what leaving all this empty space in an article has to do with 'sex'. To me it's just ugly and unnecessary. Crum375 14:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just gave you the reason, and I always do sign my posts, since that's my nickname: got it now, huh? Extremely sexy 14:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Bart, I am assuming that you are doing this in good faith and not trying to disrupt, but the overall effect is still disruptive. You have now reverted 2 editors 5 times, violating the WP:3RR rule. This can lead to a block. Please revert yourself. Thanks, Crum375 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
But this time I did not revert though. Extremely sexy 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signing your comments

Hi, I saw some comments on the JFK talk page that you signed as "Extremely sexy" (specifically here and here), I'm not sure if signing comments that way violates any policies, but it seems pretty sketchy. --Matthew 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's automatically, since it's my personal nickname. Extremely sexy 22:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, Bart, I would like to refer you to WP:SIG and WP:UN which explain in more detail the usefulness of signatures and the recommendation that they are associated with your user name. Perhaps if you really like the present text of your signature you could make that text a link to your user page or talk page by changing your preferences signature to [[User:Bart Versieck|Extremely Sexy]] or [[User talk:Bart Versieck|Extremely Sexy]]. Thanks for your time. --Matthew 22:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will do the very thing. Extremely sexy 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, being able to get to other users talk pages more easily is greatly appreciated. --Matthew 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed something at my personal preferences' page. Extremely sexy 22:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Witness Lee, Local Churches

Bart, some 'Christian apologists' (i.e. people that believe its their job to tell other people what to believe) continue to hack the Witness Lee and Local Churches articles. I'd like it if you could:

A. Help me against them

B. Notify a higher-up sysop to protect these articles. They should be objective, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for proselytyzing.

Sincerely, Robert Young → R Young {yakłtalk} 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will notify someone else of this vandalism. Extremely sexy 17:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Emiliano Mercado del Toro

Just curious as to why you reverted my edit to this page. Thanks, -- Pinball22 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply because Puerto Rico definitely is a country. Extremely sexy 09:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
How are you defining country? I changed it because to me country implies sovereign state, which Puerto Rico, as a territory of the United States, certainly isn't. Pinball22 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, but it also belongs to the category of Spanish-speaking countries over here at "Wikipedia", dear friend. Extremely sexy 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter, I suppose. I just wanted to clarify, for the purpose of this article, that what was meant was just Puerto Rico and not the entire US. Pinball22 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but thanks anyway for your input. Extremely sexy 14:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defaultsort

What is your problem with the defaultsort template? - Kittybrewster 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing at all, but is it your intention to use it for all articles? Extremely sexy 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have no objection, why did you remove it? Yes; it saves space and typing. - Kittybrewster 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea at all whether it was part of the new policy, and, moreover, then you have got your work cut out too. Extremely sexy 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is "us" rather than "me". I am sure you will join the growing numbers of those who use the template. - Kittybrewster 00:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Deal, but for all existing articles? Extremely sexy 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It may take a few weeks. :) - Kittybrewster 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Good luck to you => I will help. Extremely sexy 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graeme Dott Image

Hi,

I can't find the source of that image but, from memory, it's on the BBC website somewhere. Sorry I can't be more helpful bigpad 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So you didn't save it onto your own computer at all? Extremely sexy 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Gerald Ford

Hi Bart, why have you reverted my edit? The ref is unnecesary since the first one does the job very well, is improperly formatted and links to page requiring registration. I'd appreciate at least edit summary in such case... Thank you.--Pethr 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, but you didn't give an edit summary yourself either, so I didn't know about your own reason for deletion. Extremely sexy 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"rm unnecessary ref" seems like pretty good edit summary to me. Why did you think it isn't?--Pethr 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
But I really had no clue or whatsoever why you described it as being unnecessary, so you should have written the same as you did over here, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 23:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon pic

Where'd it go? Cripipper 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it, because apparently it doesn't exist anymore (red), so maybe someone erased it for reason of copywrite? Extremely sexy 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Father Nicholas Kao Se Tseien

Hellow Bart, thanks for the useful link you provided. I've added that as a reference, and created a redirect (since the spelling of the name used in the Vatican Radio article is different from that used in the local newspaper). Hope it's ok. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, and thanks as well. Extremely sexy 11:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Local churches

Bart, someone inserted a libelous attack message on the local churches talk page which includes some kind of illegal insertion to prevent further editing. When I tried to respond, the SPAM FILTER blocked me...but only for this section. Clearly, whoever planted this 'bomb' knew what they were doing. How can labeling a church as 'organized crime' be a fair discussion? How can not allowing an alternative viewpoint be fair (the sheer hypocrisy of which is astounding...the charge made below is not allowing alternative viewpoints, yet the user inserted a Trojan spam to prevent alternative viewpoints). Please forward this to a higher editor. Clearly, an attack like this is no different than someone labeling Martin Luther King Jr a "Communist", attacking gays, etc.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 11:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Writer beware

Like entries on similar organizations, such as Scientology and the Jehovah's Witnesses, no fair discussion can take place on this topic. If anyone dare edit this article, it will be swiftly and aggressively reverted to reflect only the official point of view of the Local Church and its headquarters, the Living Stream Ministry. Try it.

What darkness fears most is the bright light of day.

[edit] Don't even bother to note it is "controversial"

I will now notify arguably the best moderator. Extremely sexy 14:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra succession boxes

Bart, with the 'world's oldest person' and 'world's oldest woman' being the same most of the time, I don't think we need extra succession boxes except when the titles split.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 13:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I do understand, dear Robert. Extremely sexy 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supercentenarians

Hello Bart, I noticed that you tend to the articles concerning supercentenarians. I am a German interpreter: if you should notice any such articles which could benefit from the German Wikipedia, let me know and I will help. - Gilliam 10:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will do so, buddy. Extremely sexy 13:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your signature

Please, change your signature so that people know right away it's you. I also suggest you don't have "Extremely sexy" in your signature either. Thank you. Kamope · talk · contributions 23:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I already changed it into a link though. Extremely sexy 23:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant, change "Extremely sexy" to something else, like "Bart Versieck" or even "Bart". Kamope · talk · contributions 23:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
But that's just a nickname, dear friend. Extremely sexy 22:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Peters disambiguation page

Please, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The essence of the disambiguation page is to help people find information about the one thing or person (among many similar) that they are looking for, and to keep the references as clean and simple as possible--so, one wikilink per reference. Removing the link from the title of Tom Peters' book helps keep the page simpler without preventing someone interested in that Tom Peters from finding the relevant article; removing the link from the cartoon title just makes it more difficult for someone interested in that particular Tom Peters to get to the most useful page. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought no links were allowed, hence. Extremely sexy 23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Kerry article

I deleted two trivia pieces in the John Kerry article, because they can already be found in the Personal Life section and it seems silly to put them in trivia when they are already in the main body of the article. I am fairly sure that it is Wikipedia policy to cut down on Trivia sections as much as possible and to work it into the actual article, so I am very unsure as to why you reverted it. Mullibok 13:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first I checked this, but could not find a reference at all to his height apart from the one in that particular section, and the other statement, i.e. the one about his fondness for icehockey, isn't explained that clearly at all. Extremely sexy 17:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So how many times does his height need to be mentioned for it to be taken out of the trivia section? How many times does it need to be mentioned that he likes ice hockey? Is he an avid ice hockey fan, but not an avid windsurfing fan? Is there any evidence for that? If not, why repeat ice hockey? I think it looks very bad and disjointed for an article to repeat itself this way, and I cannot imagine a print encyclopedia doing the same. Pick one place such information belongs, and remove repetition. Mullibok 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, but I wrote (read it again, please) that I can't find his height mentioned somewhere else in the article, and, concerning his love for ice hockey, that's not really stated that obviously in my honest opinion, hence revert. Extremely sexy 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I did read it, and I still don't see why you think his height needs to keep being mentioned. It's in personal life; how many other sections should it be in before it can be un-trivialized? And Personal Life also states he enjoy ice hockey, so how is it unclear that he is a fan? I've seen you say it, but I don't really see an explanation. Here's what I would like to see: 1) why his height needs to be mentioned multiple times 2) how does stating that he enjoys ice hockey not clearly indicate he is a fan?Mullibok 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
See reaction on talkpage. Extremely sexy 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longest marriages

Hello Bart! I saw you're from the Netherlands and you are working on the Durch Wiki as well. So I have a question: some of the information on List of people with the longest marriages is from the Dutch Wiki:
1. Can you look if I've translated all things right? 2. Do you know some of the makers of the Dutch article, so we can have the sources to confirm?
Bye Statistician 08.02.2007 13:34 (CET)

Well, I'm from Flanders in fact (the Dutch speaking part of Belgium), and I will ask them, but finding a source won't be easy. Extremely sexy 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eisenhower article consistency

Why did you undo my wikification of Hawaii, especially while leaving Alaska wikified right above it, in the Eisenhower article? I think the article deserves consistency in that regard. --Adavidb 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because it has already been wikified before. Extremely sexy 14:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest people

Bart, can you ask a sysop to protect oldest people from editing by unregistered users? The amount of silly vandalism is heavy and a waste of time for everyone.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will do so immediately then. Extremely sexy 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signed comments on talk pages

Unless you are refactoring a talk page or archiving a talk page per the respective procedures for refactoring and archiving, please, do not edit comments on talk pages, rather post new comments ONLY. Please, see the talk page guidelines for more information. Thanks. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I was told, however, that it is allowed at this "Wikipedia" though. Extremely sexy 23:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
While guidelines may not have quite the force of policy, this is one that's taken pretty seriously, as it's really the only exception to collective ownership of pages here - a signed comment on a talk page is "owned" by the person who made it, in any case, such edits have no practical purpose other than to increase contention - talk pages are not held to article standards, and there is no reason for them to be kept fit for publishing, so the only thing editing comments there accomplishes is to annoy others. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
(also... for what it's worth, it's usually better to reply to talk page comments on the poster's talk page, as they may not be watching your talk page, and posting to their page brings up the "you have new messages" box, whereas replying on your own does not.) - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC))
That's right, my dear and beloved friend. Extremely sexy 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defiance

I strongly encourage you to re-think your selected course of action. As several experienced editors have pointed out, it is bad form to correct others' errors in talk comments. Unlike articles, in which editors are encouraged to make corrections, talkpages are signed and owned by the poster, and are not subject to publication or correction. Continued defiance and reverting after experienced editors have expressed disapproval only serves to show your willingness to disregard our norms and is generally disruptive. Even if it's not against policy, it is considered generally unacceptable; re-instituting the same changes twice after being asked to stop by multiple editors doesn't accomplish anything. /Blaxthos 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, so I honestly won't anymore. Extremely sexy 02:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to John Kerry

Hello. Just noticed you undid my removal of the semiprotected tag to John Kerry. The reason that I removed the tag is because the page isn't semi-protected: I assumed that tagging it would protect it, but of course it doesn't (try logging out and editing the page). The page needs to be protected by an administrator and then tagged as such. In the meanwhile though, the tag does seem to deter vandals! Thanks matt.smart talk/contribs 11:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hence, but it's my pleasure, and I hope it will continue to do so. Extremely sexy 11:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Biel

I would greatly appreciate if you explained why exactly you are reverting my edits, especially since in the other photo its obviously non-professional and she's not even looking at the camera. Since both are released under the GFDL license, there's no reason to remove it.--CyberGhostface 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That one is much better, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Biel&diff=108174562&oldid=108171739. Extremely sexy 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not much better...she's not even looking at the camera, and it's obviously done by a non-professional with a camera. And since you're bringing up its deletion...if you checked out its log, you would have realized that it was restored by another admin after authorization was received!--CyberGhostface 17:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, I stand corrected, but this picture of yours was already deleted before as well, and I don't know why. Extremely sexy 18:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing references

Why did you remove the reference in the Ted Kennedy article this afternoon? /Blaxthos 00:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not, but we edited simultaneously (I and an anonymous user: you?), hence. Extremely sexy 00:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldschläger?

Can you source the "gold fever" statement? I have only heard of gold fever referring to a gold rush. All the articles I have seen just refer to it as "gold allergy" or "reaction to gold". Thanks! CKnapp 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the original edit wasn't mine though. Extremely sexy 01:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. CKnapp 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem at all though, man, but I sent the poster a message (it's problematic though, since it's a shared IP from a Massachusetts school I noticed). Extremely sexy 11:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion on Emiliano Mercado del Toro

You recently reverted my change "age 115" to "aged 115". Correct English syntax is age 115, which describes a person's age. Aged is a verb form, and aged 115 doesn't make sense. — ERcheck (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: I first looked it up to make absolutely sure, and I'm sorry to have to say that you are wrong, plus other users agree with me apparently, since they wrote likewise. Extremely sexy 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, indicate where you looked it up. — ERcheck (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In "Van Dale Handwoordenboek Engels-Nederlands" (Dutch) => aged ten = tien jaar oud (Dutch for ten years old). Extremely sexy 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have an English reference? As a native English speaker, I find "aged" very awkward. — ERcheck (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have indeed: "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary" (in fact, it says over one million copies sold). Extremely sexy 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I believe both constructions are incorrect. I would have said "When he died at the age of 115 years and five months, ...". The verb form "died" in this case must be followed by a preposition, with the noun "age" being the object of the preposition. —Gintar77 16:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You could be right: I will check. Extremely sexy 16:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
But that's correct for the sentence in the article I think, while we were in fact discussing the "aged" in the template on the right (which would apply for all people). Extremely sexy 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. My apologies. In that case, I've seen it both ways, so, I won't argue there. By the way, the comma is not required after the word "died" in the article sentence. (i.e. "when he died at the age of ...", not "when he died, at the age of ...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gintar77 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Okay then, but is it wrong to put it there? Extremely sexy 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it's "wrong" per se. My writing handbook states that "although commas should be used with distinctly parenthetical expressions, do not use them to set off elements that are only mildly parenthetical." In my opinion, the age is only mildly parenthetical and the first comma disrupts the flow of the sentence. But I'm not going to argue extensively over this. —Gintar77 16:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
But you would still leave a comma? Extremely sexy 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to go to work for a while. Yes, the second comma (after "months") is required, because you're setting off an adverbial phrase at the beginning of a sentence (note that a comma is not required if it comes at the end. Ex.: When I was learning to ride bike, I fell off a lot. Compared to: But I fell off my bike a lot when I was learning to ride it.) —Gintar77 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed: I agree. ~~

[edit] Your reverts at Hryhoriy Nestor

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --TAG 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: the link you provide is exactly the same one as mine, but I just decapitalized it, hence, dear Sir. Extremely sexy 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
But your decapitalized version was NOT working as intended, and I've made you clearly aware of this in my edit comments - but you still reverted my edits --TAG 13:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That's definitely not true at all, since many claims in the past = many claims in the past, so, please, check this again right now: okay? Extremely sexy 13:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just happened to see this and try it myself -- the uncapitalized one does not work -- it just goes to the article and not the targeted section. Pinball22 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It does work for me, honestly, so maybe both of you should change your preferences somewhere, yeah. Extremely sexy 13:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply leave it as uppercase? Since it's something that's only visible when editing the page, I would think that making the link work for everyone would be much better than having it only work for some (1/3, going by this conversation) because of some invisible-to-readers stylistic concern. Is there something I'm missing here about why you want it to be the other way? Pinball22 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for leaving out the capitals, but I'm waiting for some administrator to clarify why you can't see it without them: strange. Extremely sexy 14:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just tried it in Internet Explorer, and that seems to be the difference -- usually I use Firefox, and it doesn't work there, but in IE it does. So it seems to me that it should be left as uppercase so that it works with both browsers. Pinball22 14:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
But which browser is being used mostly? Extremely sexy 15:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you add an underscore, ex. [[Longevity_myths#Current_status]] the link should be compatible with all browsers. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, dear Clown: a solution finally. Extremely sexy 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the link in the article still doesn't work for me in Firefox -- since I proved that simply capitalizing it works in both browsers, isn't that the best choice? Your question of which browser is used more is irrelevant, I think, if there is a solution that works correctly in every browser, which I assume you agree with, since you implemented the underscore suggestion. Pinball22 15:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That's true, but I am curious as to whether it now works for the other guy, and why it still doesn't work for you, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Lower case #сurrent_status does not work in Firefox 2.0.0.3 (and probably others) ! But Microsoft IE (in it's 6.0 version on my PC) is highly tolerant to errors and will accept any. If you will look in HTML for target page - you will see anchor with name="Current_status" used. Whitespaces will be replaced to _ automatically by Wiki software. But capitalization will not be changed. So it's clear for me that uppercase C must be used and Bart_Versieck has violated 3RR by reverting without finishing discussion. --TAG 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No way: I followed the Clown's instructions. Extremely sexy 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, answer which one works in your browser and your browser version:

1. Longevity myths#Current status 2. Longevity_myths#Current_status 3. longevity myths#current status 4. longevity_myths#current_status Firefox 2.0.0.3 (1. OK 2. OK 3. Nope 4. Nope) Internet Explorer 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.061219-0316 (1. OK 2. OK 3. OK 4. OK) So, it's clear for me one must be used - with C capitalized --TAG 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All four of them actually, but I see your point: just wait until the Clown replies next time. Extremely sexy 16:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have Firefox 1.5.0.11, and I get the same results as TAG did with Firefox 2 -- only the first two work. I don't think you actually do see TAG's point, or mine... it's not "wait for an admin to reply and do as he or she says" (which isn't even the answer, in this case -- Clown's suggestion doesn't actually work without the capitals.) The point is to not keep reverting an edit without discussing with the other editor why you're having a conflict and coming to a resolution. In this case, I'm still unclear on exactly why you kept reverting it, since we all were agreed, even at the beginning of this process, that the link with the capital letters worked -- is there any reason at all to do it the other way? Pinball22 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Only to avoid capitals, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
But why is there any need to avoid capitals in links? Since they're not visible in the actual page, why would it matter to you whether they're there or not? Pinball22 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I guessed this was standard Wikipedia policy though. Extremely sexy 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
So will you now revert you own edit in such a way that the URL will become valid for both IE and Firefox? Thanks in advance. --TAG 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I will. Extremely sexy 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Please, take my apology for not explaining clearly what browser I was using during testing of that link. While it was specified in my user profile on Wikipedia, I should have noted it in comments in order to avoid this edit war. Once more sorry. --TAG 23:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and apologies accepted, Odessa. Extremely sexy 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning my edits

Please, understand that revising comments on another editor's talk page like you did here is unaccceptable. The message I left was between me and User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. You were not involved in this communication in any way. Sure there were typos, but that is my problem and not yours to fix. Postoak 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I only wanted to help, dear friend. Extremely sexy 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't change my edits. Postoak 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
But it should in fact be "eliminating" instead of "eliminate", hence. Extremely sexy 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I disagree. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that you are changing another user's edits. The reason why you shouldn't do this was recently discussed here on your talk page. Postoak 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, ask the Clown: "prior to" is expected to be followed by a verb form ending with "-ing". Extremely sexy 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the grammar or spelling is incorrect. You do not have the right or authority to change another user's comments on a talk page that is not your own. Postoak 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Not even if I have the "all clear" from the talk page owner himself (c.q. the Clown), and, by the way, look here for an example of a correct use of "prior to": are you convinced now? Extremely sexy 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the talk page owner would quickly agree that you are not following the talk page guidelines in this situation. Postoak 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
So will you correct your own spelling error then by you reverting your latest edit, please, Sir? Extremely sexy 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise I will do this again right now. Extremely sexy 22:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You're again missing the point, Bart. Even if what Postoak wrote was incorrectly spelled or ungrammatical, you should not edit his comment. Read the talk page guidelines again, please, especially the section on editing comments. Notice the two statements "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc." and "Editing others' comments is generally not allowed." Therefore, it is both unnecessary and inappropriate to change other users' posts on talk pages for spelling or grammar errors. Also, in this particular case, you were actually changing the meaning of Postoak's statement: your version of the sentence, "I noticed that I should have reverted several versions prior to eliminating the vandalism", while perfectly grammatical, is not what Postoak was trying to say with his original statement. He did make two typos, but his intended statement was "I noticed that I should have reverted several versions prior to eliminate the vandalism." That would be ungrammatical if he were using the phrase "prior to"; however, in this case, those two words just happen to be next to each other. The intended meaning is the same as "I should have reverted to a version that was several versions before the current version in order to eliminate the vandalism." Does this make sense to you? And do you understand all three of the reasons that you should not change other user's comments? Looking back at your edit history, I see several places where you've done this. As I said before, it's always inappropriate, and more than once you have (inadvertently, I hope) not just violated policy but also changed the meaning of the comment in the process. You do some very good work here at the English Wikipedia, especially in keeping up with all the pages on supercentenarians, and I want to help you continue that by making sure you're clear on policy. Looking at your talk page (which you might want to archive some time, as it's getting rather long), I see that you've gotten into several arguments that appear to have arisen from misunderstandings, either of other users' meaning or of policy. I suspect this is largely a language thing -- your English is good, but it looks like sometimes you're not quite clear on some things. If you're ever not completely sure of the meaning of something, please be careful about editing it -- just ask on the article's talk page before making the change, or check with another user. Personally, I'm always happy to help, and I'm sure most other users would be as well. Sorry for the length of this comment, but I wanted to make sure I got my point across, and also to be clear that I mean this as constructive criticism to assist you in becoming an even better editor, which I'm sure you can be. Pinball22 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Right: now it is clear, and thank you for your very constructive criticism indeed. Extremely sexy 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
After we had this conversation yesterday I was happy, because I was sure you understood. Apparently, though, I was wrong, as you've done the same thing again at least three times since you made the above post: [3],[4], [5]. Do not edit other users' comments on talk pages. Not for grammar, not for spelling, not for any reason other than one of the few exceptions listed in WP:TALK. Please, read WP:TALK again, carefully, and make sure you understand why this is important. Pinball22 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected tag

Bart, are you going to apologize for the DUMBEST comment you've made all year? =>

(I left the semiprotect tag, but it isn't semiprotected since I am not an administrator: Robert, you still don't get it, do you, and, please, discuss the merger on the talk page before reinstalling all)

Read it again: the tag says it protects the article from editing by unregistered and newly-registered (less than 100-edit) users, NOT that you have to be an admin. to edit the article. The tag seems to be working fine, and I have no problem accessing the article.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not, but you are dumb yourself, man => everyone can put such a tag there, but exactly as with Ted Kennedy's article, it isn't really protected from editing in a way that any anonymous user can still edit it if he wants too, resulting in this f.e. Extremely sexy 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting the 115+ list

Bart, I'm disappointed you deleted the 115+ list from the "oldest people" page. Even if someone makes a long list elsewhere, the 115+ list belongs on this page.

What is your problem? Why do you insist on un-capitalizing everything? You are wrong most of the time; most people simply don't want to bother with you so they let you have your way. Well, I'm telling you right now, back off, or there will be consequences.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a threat? => well, for your information, you are not an moderator (luckily, God is still around), and I did not delete it (please, do check your facts first), plus decapitalization is the policy over here, so, please, stop making such ridiculous accusations, and if you don't like it, just quit editing (for the better of "Wikipedia" as well). Extremely sexy 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you did not delete it, then why do you keep reverting to the deleted version? Second, I live in the USA and 'decapitalization' is NOT the policy in America. Third, I 'threaten' only in terms of what is legal to do. You don't give me credit when I find Jennie Newhouse's death date or Earnest MacPherson, 108, but you choose to criticize all the time. I can withhold information that you want, if you want to play dirty. Also, I only play 'hardball' when others throw things at me. Your hands are not clean as you think they are.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That isn't necessary at all since you are already giving yourself credit all the time, and, by the way you have just been warned at your own talk page (all too rightly) for your series of uncivilized manners towards a lot of fellow editors (next time you will be blocked again), several users at the yahoo group about supercentenarians and the oldest people (like Jeff Knight f.e.) are having exactly the same problems with you as I'm having right now and right here, etc., so, I'm quite sure you get the picture, and I did revert it since the discussion about it is still going on. Extremely sexy 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For example: "you are dumb yourself, man". Name-calling, as usual, but you turn right around and pretend to have clean hands.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I only repeat your very own actions (not the other way round): I did not start this pathetic war of yours, man. Extremely sexy 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment on capitalization: the two of you have had several arguments about capitalization, and I think all the problems can be worked out by reading the capitalization section of the manual of style. Ryoung, you're of course right that the standard style for headlines in English is to capitalize all significant words. Reading the guidelines, though, Bart is right about article titles and section headings on the Wikipedia: they should have only the first letter capitalized unless they would have other words capitalized within a normal sentence (as with the title of a book, for example.) However, Bart, this does not mean that words in wikilinks need to be decapitalized -- as we discussed earlier, links need to exactly match the title capitalization of the article (including capitalization of a target section if the link includes one) to be sure that they work correctly. Also, since the guidelines for talk pages state that they do not need to be brought up to publishing standards, there's no need to alter section titles to match the standard capitalization style, and since (as I discussed with you before) editing other users' comments is discouraged, edits such as this one [6] are therefore unnecessary and inappropriate. I hope this clarifies things for both of you -- please, when discussing a style or policy matter, try to reference the appropriate page that you're using as the basis for your edits; generalizations such as "decapitalization is the policy over here", without a link to the policy in question, serve only to confuse and frustrate others. Pinball22 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is (and apparently remains, regrettably so) in fact that Robert Young is stubborn and won't listen to any reason at all: if you can turn the tide, so to speak, I would be very greatful indeed, but up to now he is only accusing many editors with good intentions of God knows what, as he is doing with me (I wish you good luck anyway). Extremely sexy 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing talk pages

I'm making a new section here to be sure you see this. Over a month ago you said, in response to complaints by users Triona and Blaxthos about your editing of other users' comments on talk pages: "Point taken, so I honestly won't anymore." However, you continued to do so, eventually causing user Postoak to complain here. You did not appear to be understanding his point, so I tried, two days ago, to make it clear, and after the discussion we had, you said, "Right: now it is clear, and thank you for your very constructive criticism indeed." I assumed from this that you understood that you should not edit comments made by other people on talk pages, but then you did exactly that three times in the next day, as shown in these diffs: [7], [8], [9]. I left you another message yesterday explaining again, as clearly as I know how, that WP:TALK prohibits this, but since then you've edited the comments of others four more times: [10], [11], [12], [13].

Your repeated assurances that you won't violate the talk page guidelines again, followed almost immediately by multiple violations of those guidelines each time, lead me to two possible conclusions: either your understanding of English is much worse than I thought and you do not understand the rules listed at WP:TALK or my (and other users') explanations of them, or you are simply telling users who complain about your behavior that you understand and will follow the rules, and then deliberately break those rules. I hope that it's the former, but the number of times this has happened, not just with the guidelines for talk page editing, but also with other Wikipedia policies, is beginning to make me think that it's the latter. I'm not giving up hope yet, though, and so I'm going to state this again, as clearly as possible:

WP:TALK, which lists the guidelines for use of talk pages on the Wikipedia, makes the following important points:

  • Editing others' comments is generally not allowed.
  • Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.
  • It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc.
  • There are exceptions, but only in the cases of removal of prohibited material, formatting errors, addition of the unsigned tag, and placing brief comments within a long post instead of at the end if necessary to more clearly respond.
  • You may edit another user's comments if you have permission of the user who left the comment.

To clarify a few of the points made by the guideline, please note:

  • "Formatting errors" refers to spacing and markup issues only, not grammar, spelling, or punctuation; even spacing and markup changes should only be made when absolutely necessary for readability.
  • Permission means permission of the commenter, not permission of the user whose talk page the comment appears on.
  • The fact that it says it is not necessary to correct spelling and grammar errors in comments is not meant to imply that it is allowed, just to clarify that such cases are not exceptions to the general rule that editing others' comments is not allowed.

To sum up: I'm concerned that you may be deliberately refusing to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially those described at WP:TALK. The general rule that you should follow is never edit a comment left by another user for any reason. If there is something about this, or any other policy, that you do not understand, please ask me or someone else to explain it to you. I'd like to see a reply from you that indicates that you completely understand what I've written here and will not edit other users' comments again. I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible, since I know many of your edits are constructive, and I realize there may be a language barrier involved, but if you continue to ignore policies, guidelines, and the concerns of your fellow Wikipedians, someone will eventually move to stop your disruptive behavior. Please help me help you become a better editor before it comes to that. Pinball22 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I did obey though by not reverting once more that comment made about the merger (I suppose you know what I mean), but it's very difficult indeed for me not to correct spelling mistakes, or other errors for that matter, made by others in talk pages, so I understand completely what you are complaining about to me and I honestly didn't do it deliberately: it's an obsession of some sort, and I was really convinced that it was allowed, since several other users told me, hence, plus it is my humble opinion that "it is not necessary" doesn't actually mean "it's forbidden", or does it? Extremely sexy 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If you actually have obsessive-compulsive disorder, I understand how something like this could be very difficult, as I have it too. Unfortunately, saying that that's why you do it doesn't make it any less likely that some user is going to get angry with your repeated violations of the guidelines and attempt to have you banned. No, "it is not necessary" is not equivalent to "it's forbidden", in general. In this particular case, though, I think the intent really is to clarify that you shouldn't use that as an exception to the rule, especially since grammar and spelling corrections are not in the list of exceptions following the line "Editing others' comments is generally not allowed." While some users may have told you it's OK, obviously many feel it isn't, and so you need to go by the more restrictive interpretation to be sure to avoid conflict -- as it says in the sentence following the 'is not necessary' one, and as you've no doubt observed from the repeated complaints from other editors, "It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." In addition, the next line says, "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning." Since (as you saw in the discussion about your edit to Postoak's comment) it's very easy to inadvertently change the meaning of someone's words when you only intend to fix their grammar, this is another reason to avoid making even minor changes to other users' posts. Finally, beyond any argument about the exact intent of/guideline status of WP:TALK, edit wars based on this are likely to result in you violating the three revert rule, which is official policy and generally taken very seriously -- as it says, "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." As I said, I can see why this might be hard, but it's really important that you stop -- if you keep doing it, at some point a less-patient editor will come along and report you for violating guidelines, and your history of continuing to do so despite repeated warnings is likely to look like willful disobedience to an admin considering a block. I hope this helps you understand how important this is, and if you seriously have OCD, a psychiatrist or behavior modification therapist can really help. I also highly recommend this book [14] -- the method described in it is very helpful in learning to deal with compulsions. Pinball22 15:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Extremely sexy 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/User_talk%7EBart_Versieck_5ad9.html"