User talk:Ptdecker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Ptdecker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 18:54, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Biographies

I don't think there's a standard template for biographies, but the format is very simple. Take Charles F. Hockett for example.

  • The title of the article is bolded (Charles F. Hockett).
  • His birth and death dates are included in parenthese right after his name; links are added to the month/day and year.
  • He is sorted into categories; every biography should at least have one or two categories: the birth, and death if applicable. Here's the format for the birth and death categories.
    • [[Category:1916 births|Hockett, Charles F.]]
    • [[Category:2000 deaths|Hockett, Charles F.]]
      • The red text may be replaced with any other year and name (but make sure to list the last name first).

Please let me know if you have any more questions. Regards, Sango123 16:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of AfD tags

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Dr Zak 02:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. Zak. Sorry I did harm, but just seems to me that one should explain on the discussion page of an article why the article is being nomniated for deletion if one ads AfD tags to the article.--P Todd 00:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
However much one disagrees with an AfD tag it is not a tag which may be removed until the discussion concludes. This is to prevent people frm being unaware that a discussion is taking place. The page is always marked on the articles for discusson log, and has a deletion discussion page of its own. The deletion discussion page is the only discussion page that "counts" when the closing admin comes to close the discussion, though the article's discussion page and the article itself are given correct weight. Fiddle Faddle 06:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I've learned that lesson, apologized to many people, and seen my ways. I wonder how many more editors are going to say something to me about it?--P Todd 01:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably no-one else. :) I was just explaining why it was the way it is. There's a lot to get one's head around. Wikipedia is not a gentle place. I think it even says so in the disclaimer at the foot of every page. Fiddle Faddle 08:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good edits

You're decent. Thanks for the encouragement. I needed it. --The Editrix 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub tags

They typically go at the very end of the article, not the beginning. heqs 10:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max Headroom

Thanks for updating the link on my page! A couple of points of interest, which I thought I'd mention here as you seem to be doing most of the page maintenance... I think that the original Channel 4 film was about 90 minutes long, rather than an hour: I've got it on video somewhere but I'm not really in a position to check at the moment, and by the time IMDB's talking again I'll've probably forgotten about it. There's also at least one book about Max, I have one which is a companion to the C4 film which I can provide details about if you think it'd be interesting to include in one of the articles (I'm not feeling imaginitive enough at the moment to add something myself).

I must confess to being more of a fan of the original than the TV series, but I think that it's a case of whichever one you see first just has such a big impact. Hopefully one day they'll release the lot on DVD, and hopefully before we all die of old age! Chris 19:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I hear ya' there, Chris. Thank you for the information on the book and I do have some research to do to clean up and clarify the difference between the film, made-for-TV British version of the Blipverts episode and the first U.S. episode. I'm not feeling comfortable that I have it all straight in my mind at this time to make an authoritative entry on it. The next step for me is to try and craft good a good synopsis for each of the episodes (I have them on a bootleg DVD), expand some related entries and set up "Lists of Characters" and perhaps other index lists as needed. It is my goal to weave pointers back to real technologies that were reflected or mentioned in the shows as well as tie-backs to cyberpunk book themes, etc., but it might take me years. But, that's the great thing about Wiki for others might jump in and contribute too! --P Todd 20:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locks

Hi remember this is an encyclopedia so please write at least one sentence saying is a lock or dam at .... on the Mississippi River. It is located in .... state Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but I can only work so fast.--P Todd 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Flowers

The article states:

Jeff Moss, Founder of Defcon, has publicly stated Mottl made a mistake in her reporting and Flowers only won Capture The Flag one year, as part of a team, not as an individual.

But Mottl is unknown to the reader then, and the point that Moss is refuting is undefined.

But

What?--P Todd 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guide to layout

The lead section should not be explicitly entitled == Introduction == or any equivalent header (this is a general guideline: Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Lead section and Wikipedia:Lead section#Sections and table of contents). I have changed this accordingly. Please reply on my talk page if you do not agree (your talk page is not on my watchlist) or if I missed something somewhere, thanks. --Edcolins 19:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you really want an introduction section, fine, but after a non-empty leading section. It is rather significant to have a common layout for all articles. By the way, thanks for your contribution, especially Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts. This is a nice one. --Edcolins 19:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Tokens

No problem at all, and thanks for the note!!! --Jason Richards 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tarot edit

Hey there. Just so there's no confusion, I didn't mean to revert your additions just now. I intended to revert the anonymous user's edits but I didn't realize you had made an edit just before I had saved mine. Sorry about that. Sam 15:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just trying to clean up some things and resolve the concerns of Smiloid if possible.--P Todd 16:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
On a slightly different subject, please don't post messages for users (even anonymous ones) on talk pages, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Comments about behavior of users should be posted to their talk pages. I realize it's frustrating to try to communicate with anonymous IP editors who don't seem to have the best of intentions, but otherwise the talk page gets filled with discussions of user behavior and not - as it is supposed to be - solely interaction between editors who are proposing specific changes to the article. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the clarification. I debated doing just that (the right thing); however, I also debated that the fellow (gal?) would just come in under a different IP and not see my talk posting on the others. But, your right, I'll shift my thinking.--P Todd 00:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome; I appreciate the response. I think I do understand your reasoning - it's one reason I don't bother to post to anon talk pages if the account has done just one edit in its lifetime (what I think of as a hit-and-run edit). Still, those who have bad intentions rarely read article talk pages anyway, and if they do, tend to ignore comments directed at them. John Broughton | Talk 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assault on Precinct 13/John Carpenter

I have reverted your edit to the John Carpenter article. There was really no reason to cut two substantial paragraphs from the AOP 13 section of the Carpenter page. As I argued on the Carpenter talk page, other films discussed in the article also have similar production information. Furthermore, one of the paragraphs you pasted into the AOP 13 article was nearly identical to a section of the "critical reception and reassessment" paragraph (I know because I wrote both sections).

Sullenspice 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In my opinion it cleaned it up, but I can tell you have more passion engaged in leaving it as is.--P Todd 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lock and Dam No. 23

I was working on a List of locks and dams of the Upper Mississippi River and I wasn't able to find Lock and Dam No. 23 on the Mississippi River. I was wondering if it is a historical facility that was demolished or planned for future construction. If not, please place a {{db-author}} tag on the article so that it can be deleted. I can't find anything about it and the Upper Mississippi River article says it doesn't exist. Thanks. --Dual Freq 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a good question that I don't have the knowledge neccessary to say. I could find no reference to it.--P Todd 19:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So is it cool if I delete it, then? Kafziel Talk 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm good with that and would defer to Dual Freq for final confirmation. He has spent some wonderful time fleshing out the set of articles, so should probably give his input too.--P Todd 19:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
He originally marked it for deletion, but I asked him to check with you first since you were the original author. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and do it. Thanks! Kafziel Talk 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Got it--my apology for being slow. Thank you for taking care of it.--P Todd 20:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tarot cards

Parsa and myself have been have been placing the NPOV tags on the cards. See the talk page at Talk:The World (Tarot card) Since tarot cards were not designed for the occult, the placement of "occult" stub tags does constitute POV and ignores tarot's gaming heritage. These individual card pages offer nothing more than occult speculations and perhaps should be deletedSmiloid 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. Do we have to have two versions of every card too... one for the game and one for the divination purposes for you to be satisfied??--P Todd 04:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated all those articles on individual "minor arcana" cards for deletion as some Wikipedians think it absurd and would never be encyclopeadic nor anything more than a stub. You are doing work. I will copy your balancing efforts for the "major" articles which perhaps should be kept.Smiloid 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Censorship"

Not so much censorship as a common vandalism tatic to include "fuck" in an article somewhere at random. The problem is the regex to prevent the auto revert... well... isn't as clearcut right now. It's all automated.... feel free to fix it (the bot shouldn't revert you) :) -- Tawker 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for the clarification on how the bot works.--P Todd 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/t/d/User_talk%7EPtdecker_7cce.html"