User talk:Bellagio99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Bellagio99, :

For help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Fang Aili talk 13:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: Sociological Research Association

The article was deleted under speedy criteria A7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or website that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Just being a group of 200 members does not make it notable. Basically you need to answer the question, "why does this matter?" Cheers, 13:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored it. Please add the assertion of importance. Have a great day. --Fang Aili talk 19:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Just click on the link above--it's there. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bronx Gangs

Are you still onboard? discuss with me in the talk section of the page, of who's name I had changed. Bronx gangs (mid-twentieth century)--rocketrye12 talk/contribs 05:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I am still on board, but don't have much time (as I previously said) to do more with it. Four deadlines in next two weeks. I will check the talk section of the Bronx Gangs page itself and do some lite editing Bellagio99 20:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People who have been pied Category

I aded Bill Gates to it because I saw it on TV years ago. I think it has to be only really important people who get pied. The public doesn't care about otters. Chivista 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Can you fill in more people

[edit] Your recent revert to Social network

Hi. Whilst I am in total agreement (of course) with your revert to the linkspam for 'collegeffect.com', can I point out that, over time, Social network, List of social networking websites, and several other social networking related articles within Wikipedia have been constantly reverting certain IPs which have only one aim - to place that particular link wherever they think they can get a way with it. They have no rationale in this, it is a linkspamming exercise.

As such, and to give us spamfighters a headstart, in your edit summaries, could you not add encouragement to the perpetrators with a suggestion to place their rubbish anywhere? A mere 'rv linkspam' would suffice.

Yours in the fight against those who would ruin our Wikipedia. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 17:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will follow your advice. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so make mistakes in not following the many implicit rules. I am also a leading social network analyst (by all accounts), so I do care much about this one. I also think that that there should be a prefatory note that this site is about social networks per se (sometimes I want to change title to Social Network ANALYSIS), and go to {Name} site for social network software stuff.
Do you think that is feasible, do-able?
I am away for 10 days (in UK, which I gather you're from ("whilst")), but I have been thinking about organizing a clean-up crew when I get back. Does this make sense?
Bellagio99 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the reply. Yes I'm a Brit! If you were heading south-west, you'd be going in my direction.
I'm fairly new myself, but learning fast. There's so much I'd like to do creatively here, managed a couple of new articles so far, but vandal- and linkspam-fighting seems to take up so much time it seems.
I'm not into 'teams' myself, as they can tend to get a bit heavy on single editors I've noticed - "quasi-ganging", I would call it. The only fair way to edit is 'one-on-one', opinion for opinion. That is the Wiki way also, you will find if you research the various guidelines and policies. Admins are a different thing altogether. You place your trust in them not to gang up - "Don't bite the newbies" is one buzzphrase you'll hear a lot of.
However, I applaud your obvious enthusiasm, and wish you luck when you come back from your 'Wikibreak' as they call it. Best wishes.
P.S. When you reply to a comment, it's policy to indent once more by placing : or :: and so on, at the start of each paragraph in your post - look at the edit source for this page to see what I mean. Bye. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi. No problem - I know you'd do the same for me too! Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 16:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Anna Nicole Smith

You are correct, the father being an American would also grant the child citizenship; however, in this case the father is still unknown (or at least there is still a court battle over it). The mother, on the other hand, is certainly known, and the child's citizenship therefore comes through Anna Nicole. My wording does not imply that a child must have a MOTHER who is a US citizen, but that this particular child is a US citizen because her mother was. CaveatLectorTalk 05:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

CL, OK. We're both right, altho I think I am right-er, as the legal point is that the baby was born to a U.S. citizen. I am going to change it back, and if you still care enough to revert me, I'll let it be, I think. Bellagio99 13:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Birch Society at Kent State

When you add the bit about the Kennedy Administration, that is like me adding "and they thought smoking pot was COOL" to the CSN song and photo references. If you think "conservative" is not strong enough, fine. Choose a word other than extremist and make no reference to JBS opinions on other events. --Knulclunk 17:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Knulcunk, Your point is taken, althought I don't think smoking dope is parallel.

However, my point re JFK and RFK was to specify why the JBS was "extremist". Should I have said "delusional". BTW, I heard the charges re JFK and RFK myself when I was in the audience in San Diego Summer, 1964. A leading John Bircher named Revilo P. Oliver was the speaker.

But what term should I use. To my mind, John McCain and Barry Goldwater and Don Cheney are conservative. The JBS is a lot different than them.

I don't want to get into an edit war with them, but the JBS is not a credible source. Bellagio99 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh... the article's been in there for a while, I had assumed it had been vetted. I don't care if you strip it out. Perhaps describe the JBS as "far right"?
My concern was the implied denouncement of an opinion simply because the parent organization had voiced fringe or foolish opinions. The JBS would not be the first organization to fall victim to that. At the time (1974) JBS had some public support, thus the opinions were not neccisarily as fringe as we might think today. --Knulclunk 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Knulclunk, Just to wrap this up, I was in the business of assessing political support in the 1960s and 1970s, and JBS was seen by almost all as on the far fringe: much less than 1% support. After we corresponded, I went to look at the Wikipedia article on JBS, and it does (I think) a decent NPOV summary. I would like to end our conversation here, as this is not a central interest of mine and we're both comfortable with my final edit now.

Bellagio99 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anna Nicole Smith

Hey there. I'm sure it was a mistake, but please be careful when you edit AfD discussions. You wiped out my comments when you did. --UsaSatsui 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:UsaSatsui, Apologies. It certainly wasn't intentional, and even worse, I don't know how I did it. Perhaps, I didn't edit the last version of the article. Bellagio99 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] none

Actually, "none" can be singular or plural - depending on the sentence. So if what was meant was "None of the 4 victims" it could properly take the plural "were" - where "none" is the opposite of "all". If it is used to mean "not one" as opposed to "one", then it uses the singular. Google "none singular plural grammar" and you'll find lots of references - here's one. In this case, "None were closer" - would be correct to connote the opposite of "All of them were closer" or "None was closer" meaning "Not one of them was closer". It's a subtle point. I think either one works here. Tvoz | talk 07:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tvoz. I ain't gonna get into an edit war over "none were/was". But I filed away for my book on writing for social scientists that is gestating. Bellagio99 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah,I know what you mean! Tvoz | talk 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Categorical madness

It's not madness really. I have no real interest in categories to be honest, but you should not guess at them. If you are adding a cat to an article, you need to research it thoroughly, to ensure it exists, is not a redlink and is therefore of no use as a reference link (try clicking on one - it will ask you to create the Category). You need to put the question to the Village Pump, I feel. But in the meantime, please look at the very bottom of the edit page after your first "Preview" to see which cats are going to be included, and which are 'real' cats i.e. bluelinks. Hope this helps. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Bellagio99 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social network

Hi. Thanks for the post on my talk page. I am glad you like my work on the above page. I would not go so far as to say 'informed' - I may have got it right, luckily. If you do see anything amiss, please edit further.

Firstly, I patrol social network lists and articles as a matter of course because they attract an inordinate amount of spammers and vandals, it seems. Vandal-fighting is part of my personal interests in Wikipedia, and reverting inappropriate edits in these pages quickly is necessary to maintain the integrity of the articles.

At the same time I am gradually learning more about what a social network is, and also when something isn't strictly social networking.

My other hobby is article clean-up and referencing. Mostly biographies (which also need to be 'spot-on' to be credible pieces).

Lastly, I contribute the occasional article from new - so far only in the football (soccer) refereeing field, but I expect to move away from that sphere a little when the majority of notable officials have been written about.

Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Bellagio. Can I ask if you are a member of INSNA at all? I will explain if you post a reply to my talk page. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just needed to point out, if you weren't already aware, that you have to be a little careful what you do with information in which you have a vested interest. I know you are probably very committed to INSNA, which is always commendable, and, as you say, you are a central figure. This makes it an even more sensitive matter when inserting external links to the organisation, and broader information about the organisation, into articles. It is the reason why I standardised the external link to it from its bold format, and removed the duplicated link from the references section.
Of course the link and the info are relevant to Social network. But the manner in which they are displayed needs to be subtle and measured, and I hope you agree that my edits now reflect this. That was all I had which concerned me just a little. All my best. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: INSNA and International Network for Social Network Analysis

Hi, Bellagio. What you propose is so easy to be honest. You do not need any permission to merge articles in this instance, as they are plainly two articles about one subject, side by side. We will be doing Wikipedia a service by tidying this up. I will do the necessary, and explain what I've done so you know for next time.

First off, do you actually have 800, or over 1,000, members - this appears to be the only piece of conflicting information in the two versions? When you have ansered that for me, we can get down to the "nuts and bolts" of merging the two, or rather, rightly expanding International Network for Social Network Analysis (the acronym should never have had a standalone article in the first place, if you research the Manual of Style thoroughly).

Let me know when you can - this may take a while, as I have work commitments which limit my time at the computer this week. Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 11:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. 1000 + members then. Basically, I have taken all the information which is in INSNA, but is not in International Network for Social Network Analysis, and inserted it, but with artistic licence. This diff shows how the latter has changed. With the former, to create a redirect to International Network for Social Network Analysis, you simply blank the page and replace it with "#Redirect[[article name to go to]]", as in this diff. The merge and the redirect are now done. The article could still do with expansion, if you can think of any other facets which have sources. Any other questions? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 00:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mashable

Hello, friend. Only me! Can I point out the above user, whose edit you reverted from Social network recently? From my experience already, this person is solely interested in adding an external link to his/her own website wherever he/she can. Although you are absolutely correct to remove the link (well done!), it is advisable not to encourage this user, or many such like-minded, to post spam in any other article - for that's what it is, to be differentiated from genuine notable website links. It is sufficient in an edit summary to explain what you did and possibly why, but alternative advised actions should be left out. Just a friendly nudge, hope you don't mind, and hope you are well. Best wishes. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I cannot think of anything I may have asked you to do, apart from casting your eye over the method of merging and redirecting articles, such as that done to International Network for Social Network Analysis and INSNA. Cheers. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English

The English Wikipedia standard is that spellings correspond to the most appropriate English for the article. So East York, Ontario uses Canadian English, for instance. The manual of style goes over this. WilyD 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No - there is a strong consensus that articles should always be consistent and use a single variety of English. A lot of the time it is just "guesswork" - it's really not all that important. WilyD 03:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted myself

I just reverted myself. Sorry about that. --Umalee 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Strom

Ha! I am definitely neither Bobby Strom nor Steven - but Pearl Strom was my favorite bio teacher in jr high and then at Science when she came there... I had a recollection that was the case and then got confirmation from The $64,000 Question. I wouldn't swear to it, but it feels right. If you know otherwise, by all means change it. Cheers Tvoz |talk 03:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] and [2] I think shows it, if I'm reading it correctly. As for Pearl - you know, after all these years I'm not completely sure if she was their mother - I think so, but again, I wouldn't swear to it. Bobby was a year ahead of my sister and I was a few years later. Tvoz |talk 04:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/l/User_talk%7EBellagio99_0741.html"