User talk:StudierMalMarburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

StudierMalMarburg is busy in real life and doesn't respond swiftly to queries.


Welcome!

Hello, StudierMalMarburg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  SallesNeto BR 15:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Minor edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor when, but only when, they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one, or vice versa, is condsidered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. -Will Beback 05:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 16:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pap Singleton

The naming conventions are wrong? How are they wrong? I don't understand what you're saying. All I know is this page reads as follows:

[Use] the name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles...
Don't add qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation;
For people, this quite often leads to an article name in the following format:
<First name> <Last name> (examples: Billy Joel, Margaret Thatcher)

And this page says nothing about nicknames. Ergo, the title should not include "Pap." How does this move "muddies the title for people who may have wanted precise information?" I fixed any redirects, so anyone searching for any iteration of the name will find the same information. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

This guy here says

"That came to pass, and then as Wikipedia correctly states, "After World War II, the railroad began pulling back on its operations in Salida." But then Wikipedia tells us that "The railroad pulled up its tracks in the 1970s." The narrow-gauge line over Poncha Pass was abandoned in 1951, and over Marshall Pass in 1955. The Monarch Quarry spur line went standard-gauge in 1956 and lasted until 1984. No tracks hereabouts were pulled up in the 1970s. The old main line along the Arkansas River has been "out of service" for nearly a decade, since the Union Pacific acquired the Rio Grande system in a 1996 merger, but the tracks were still there Friday morning when I walked the dog nearby."

refering to something you wrote. WAS 4.250 10:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Benjamin Singleton

Your recent edit to Benjamin Singleton (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 12:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced Articles

Hi, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, please realize that not every article needs a reference. Some badly too. However, stubs like Sometimes the Magic Works are probably OK without them. Please don't misunderstand; I'm not criticizing that you put the tags in, just please use discretion in where they go. I hope this doesn't sound too caustic. -Patstuart 01:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I understand where you're coming from. However, coming from my experience I've found that an unreferenced article is usually plagiarized or fabricated. If someone can take the time to post information, then they can take the time to list their source material. StudierMalMarburg 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time Travelers (1964)

StudierMalMarburg, I have a couple of suggestions: 1. Rather than complain how bad something is why not contribute to make it better? 2. You were correct in that the article "Time Travelers (1964)" was not categorized and thus needed one. I categorized it properly. The article is basically a stub that needs further additions. As for the source it was written by knowlege of watching the movie. 3. If your interested in this article why not research it and contribute?? 4. Also, rather then getting into deletion wars with folks why not use the discussion pages as I am doing here to help solve any issues? Thanks for Listening. FrankWilliams 19:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me address your concerns.
First, I'm not complaining. I'm simply pointing out a deficiency that needs to be corrected. Articles lacking citations are rightly considered either plagiarized or fabricated. It is an essential rule of academics. If I were knowledgeable in the subject, I would contribute and make the citations myself. However, since I have never researched the topic, I leave that to others.
Second, a stub alone is not proper categorization. It simply indcates that the article needs expansion. Clearly you don't know much about categories and I would suggest reading up on them in the Community Portal.
Third, this is the same as your first point, and my answer is the same. This is something that others have more knowledge on than I do. Plus, if you haven't researched it enough yourself in that you are incapable of providing citations, then why worry when others point out that it needs more expert attention?
This isn't a deletion war. I haven't deleted anything in the article. I've simply added a couple of tags, which should be self-explanitory. If you want to explain your reasons for deleting them, then go ahead and post that in the discussion page, not here in my area.
Finally, you shouldn't take things like this so personally. Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, and any article posted becomes part of the public domain. If you want to claim personal ownership of the "Time Travelers (1964)" article, then you posted it in the wrong place. StudierMalMarburg 16:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok fair enough but your User Page really makes it look like your are complaining about Wikipedia. Yes, you are right you didn't delete anything; sorry. Also, wasn't really taking it personally just trying to contribute like everyone else. I see that you added a category and noted that "it was easy"; just wish you'd done that the first time. Anyway happy wikiing.FrankWilliams 22:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Pap Singleton

Hi, StudierMalMarburg. I'm just alerting you that there is a discussion at Talk:Benjamin Pap Singleton accompanying a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves in which people are talking about moving the article back to Benjamin Singleton. Since you're the one who moved the page to the current location, I thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion, which is currently leaning towards undoing your move. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moves

You wrote:

I really don't mean to follow you around and this is all I'll say on the subject. However, after our discussion on Singleton, and after I called your attention to a similar title in the King Oliver article, I noticed that you went in there and did the same thing. You unilaterally altered someone else's article title without first initiating a discussion. I understand the naming conventions, but you shouldn't make unilateral decisions on articles that people have spent a lot of time on; that is, unless you want to get people angry with you. If you want to make a significant change like altering a title, then start a discussion on the topic and build a consensus. If you can do it, then the title changes. If you can't then you should leave the title alone. I've said my peace and now I'll leave it be. StudierMalMarburg 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you notice the irony of this suggestion...? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks While I still disagree with your assessment on article naming conventions, your statments on the talk page were kind-hearted and concilliatory. Thanks for the good faith in spite of our disagreements. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about the positive?

Most of the positive things you've heard about Wikipedia are true, too, no? Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not. The positive rumors that this is a useful, informative site are offset by the ability of self-proclaimed experts with little more than an amateur's enthusiasm to shout down and override legitimate, educated scholars. I will admit that it's an enjoyable web site, but its academic usefulness is almost nil. StudierMalMarburg 15:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Puzzling though, you're trying to improve Wikipedia. Usually, people who express these types of opinions don't. I'm a bit on the fence as to what Wikipedia might become, either positive or negative, but it is enjoyable. Thanks. Catbar (Brian Rock) 03:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your recent edits

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. JoeSmack Talk 17:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mere collection of weblinks - see WP:NOT for more about this. It isn't a place to link to other wiki's - links must be encyclopedic and relevant. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM for more too. Hope this helps! JoeSmack Talk 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
If the content is encyclopedic and all that, move the info over here - end result is the link should be removed. If not, it shouldn't be linked in the first place - link is removed. JoeSmack Talk 18:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you enjoy articles where there's no reference to further, outside information, but I don't. StudierMalMarburg 15:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Captains

First, cut the hype. Of the 170+ that were tagged, only 20-25 lacked any relationship to the guidelines added. Not "2/3" (that would have been 120) Second, I did look at the cat when you first tagged Capt Triumph. The cats it's attached to imply strongly that it relates to 1) the military rank and 2) naval occupations. Third, if you feel that the ghost's role in the military qualify, not a problem. That becomes a difference of interpretation. Last, without the limiters of why the title is being applied, the category winds up with some nonsensical linkages between characters: ie: Captain Carrot (rabbit super-hero whose day job is a writer) equating to Samantha Carter equating to Han Solo. Categories do need a degree of applied common sense otherwise they can devolve into useless trivia. — J Greb 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

None of this is any skin off my nose. StudierMalMarburg 19:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colors

Hi StudierMalMarburg but the colors in the template are only for active players, like Terrell Davis shouldn't have the Broncos colors instead it should be default. Thanx --Phbasketball6 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I saw that you took the color out of John Elways infobox, please don't do this anymore. At first I only wanted active players to have the color, but I was fighting a battle that couldn't be won. Thanks--Phbasketball6 00:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the talk page about, you can send a comment
  • Did you or did you not want this done? StudierMalMarburg 10:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references

Hey. I noticed your relative frequency in tagging articles unreferenced. While certainly useful, a lot of the ones you tag are one-sentence stubs, and I question the point of tagging then when you could probably find a reference for said articles quite easily. Just a thought, though you don't have to agree.--Wizardman 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You and Agreement

You are correct that more than normal perseverance is necessary for editing Wikipedia. Still, it is a valuable (if not citeable) resource for many things - for example, your own contributions to Timeline of the African-American Civil Rights Movement. Information can be found in Wikipedia that simply can't be found otherwise with any rational amount of effort - it may need checking, but at least you have some idea of what to look for. I always advocate checking Wikipedia first. I liken Wikipedia to Robert Young Pelton's The World's Most Dangerous Places (see http://www.comebackalive.com/df/dplaces.htm), or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - both indispensible, if not completely reliable. -I like to say that for the truly cool there are blogs - for the rest of us, there's Wikipedia. Simesa 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic-group lists deletion discussions

Hi, I noticed you participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) deletion discussion. If you haven't participated in the very similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans discussion, which involves essentially the same issues, please do. There's also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination). I'll asking everyone who participated in one to participate in the others. I apologize for bothering you if you already have participated in more than one. Best wishes, Noroton 04:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Interstate 70

Regarding your project tag insertion, we at USRD have determined that there is only a need for one project tag on that article (the WP:IH tag in this case). Thus, I have removed your addition of the WikiProject Kansas tag.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I honestly do not see the harm in having two project tags inserted on a talk page, nor do I see the harm of two groups working together to make the best possible article. However, if it is your desire to be territorial about it, then so be it. StudierMalMarburg 18:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for telling me about the WikiProject Kansas! I have added myself to the list. L337p4wn 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/u/User_talk%7EStudierMalMarburg_859f.html"