User talk:Doco
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Concerned about spam? Look at yourself.
Please refrain from deleting perfectly good external links, labeling them as spam in article histories, and then branding the contributors as spammers by pasting boilerplate undeletable spam messages on their Talk pages. This amounts to reverse spam. If you read Wikipedia's guidelines on external links carefully, you'll discover that there are exceptions to the rules. If you aspire to be a good editor, it would behoove you to learn how to discriminate such exceptions, rather than to dismiss valuable contributions with robotic messages that cynically welcome contributors while accusing them of spamming.
You might also examine what motivates you to police articles to which you have contributed, and why you relish applying accusatory labels. Understanding, for example, that such behavior often stems from feelings of powerlessness could be helpful with reining in a need to control others. 69.182.5.12 17:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lidl Image change
I noticed yo recently made a change to the Lidl article changing a picture, i appreciate your edits to the article, though are you sure that the new picture is of greater quality than the one it replaced?
Edit id: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lidl&diff=96845281&oldid=94484826
Images:
The image is good, but the old image had slightly more of the store front in frame, is not intruded on by a large close-to-camera car, nor a lampost. It seems to me that the original picture should be reinstated, or that both images are used in the article. What is your opinion on the matter, and should we hold a public consensus on this? I'd greatly appreciate if you could reply, either to here or my talk page. Thanks in advance Benbread 11:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject
Just fiddled with the template and NA now works. Agathoclea 23:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hanover and Nuremberg
Please answer either of the questions I asked; further discussion depends on your answer to those questions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Start-class ratings
Could you please help me and tell me (perhaps at the comments subpage) what is wrong with my articles Philipp Jenninger and Andreas Joseph Hofmann? You rated them as "weak in many areas". Thank you, Kusma (討論) 10:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kryill and stuff
Hey sorry about my tone on WikiProject talk, I guess I got a bit carried away emotionally (the storm did have some close effects to me). I am an experienced editor in WikiProject Tropical cyclones so I know a lot about how naming of tropical cyclones work and the difference in how the European names operate. To give you a reasonable explanation here goes:
- Names assigned to tropical cyclones are from a predetermined list, agreed upon by the relevant WMO members. The designated RSMC for the region (NOAA for Atlantic hurricanes) names the storms and this name is used by all countries for official forecasts and documents (eg Mexico on Hurricane Gordon [1]). The press invariably refers to the storms by these names, irrespective of where the organisation or the storm is.
- The European storm names are selected by FU Berlin without consultation with any other organisation. These names are used for every high/low pressure area in the European area for German forecasts, and some other nations too, but other nations do not use them. As a result, German media extensively uses these names, but the press elsewhere don't as a rule (the exceptions come from seeing how the Germans are reporting it). Furthermore, other weather services can and do select names for themselves such as happened with the Norwegians and Per.
Hopefully that makes clearer the significant differences between how the two schemes work for you. Whilst I personally dislike (seems in poor taste to me) the highest-bidder thing I agree it doesn't really matter as to how the name is generated, its more how these names are approved (the weather services of many nations vs one German academic institution).--Nilfanion (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ireland links in Kyrill (storm)
Just wondering, why did you revert my corrections of the links to Ireland in the above article [2]? They were completely valid as all the other links are to states, while Ireland on its own links to the geographical term which includes Northern Ireland, even though that's already included in United Kingdom. - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 13:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I thought that might've been it (just didn't want to make assumptions). - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 17:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] „hirnlos“
Bitte verzichte zukünftig auf derartige Beleidigungen. Es ist nicht meine Aufgabe, irgendwelche falschen Links zu fixen, die Suchfunktion ist bekanntlich auch nicht die beste. --Polarlys 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gallery
Trees dont generally fall across roads and crush cars, but they did in this case. I would agree with you that pictures of fallen trees are redundant, but there are plenty of others on commons to use, say this one, this one (or 06.JPG), this one and maybe this one, but there must be a better image of a car/railway line/road blocked with a tree. Good job on keeping the article up to date. RHB Talk - Edits 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your work
Hi, wanted to thank you for your work on the article about this winter storm in Europe. Surely, those who got stuck in the mess probably won't get to read it soon as they have much bigger fish to fry at the moment, but those who are stuck at the distance with their worry (or plain panicking like myself :) might find such central point of up-to-date and balanced info especially useful. Best wishes and regards - Introvert • ~ 08:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tool for Education or American propaganda
Is Wikipedia a resource for education and carrying FACTS or a tool for American propaganda? I have edited out reticules claims by Americans in the Land speed record for railed vehicles and Empire State Express only to have arrogant Americans delete them and accuse me of pov can we have a neutral observer look at these sections Oxyman 02:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I'm an arrogant German as you may have figured out had you ever looked at my user page, not an arrogant American as you have written in your multi-page hate spree. And as such, I am off to bed to steal your beach towel tomorrow. Meanwhile, have a look at WP:CITE, WP:NPOV and especially meta:Don't be a dick. Goodnight. --doco (☏) 02:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Yo acused Insulting Americans for putting oficially recorded FACTS on pages I sugest you view the pages you talk ofOxyman 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Did you know?
 |
On 4 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berlin Stadtbahn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
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. MakeChooChooGoNow 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MakeChooChooGoNow 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prod Copmanthorpe rail crash
Regarding your proposal that the article Copmanthorpe rail crash be deleted. I do not agree with this proposal and as such have removed the template as per the instructions and explained my objection on the talk page and seek clarification of your reasons. Thanks. Adambro 13:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
