User talk:The Rambling Man/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Re: Ipswich serial killer page

Hi, I understand your point, but considering the fact that all news stations and broadcasters worldwide are calling it the "Ipswich" murders, I think a discussion concerning it would be unnecessary. --SilvaStorm

?The UK media is calling the killer the "Suffolk Strangler". --Dweller 08:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It is common practice to discuss moving pages before just doing it, it is polite and considerate to other editors. If you read the talk page then you'll see that a lot of discussion had already taken place about the naming. It was decided that until more information became available we wouldn't change the name again. And I need to re-iterate, if you do move a page, ensure that you fix all the double redirects. Finally, none of the bodies were found in Ipswich, they were found in Suffolk, so please be careful before making such changes. Cheers! Budgiekiller 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume that was aimed at SilvaStorm, rather than me... btw hello! --Dweller 08:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! yo! Budgiekiller 08:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User:141.161.8.73

i wasn't vandalizing the article on countervailing duties, i am international economics student studying for a test and where it now reads imports it should read exports, the definition in incorrect but leave it however you please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.8.73 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for letting me know! Budgiekiller 18:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User:Sharlene Thompson

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, --Sharlene Thompson 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, glad to be of help. Budgiekiller 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User:12.111.160.77

Ralph the Ocicat uses the toilet he does not need a "sandbox"!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.111.160.77 (talk • contribs).

Fine by me..! Budgiekiller 22:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Suffolk serial killer page

Good job with the redirects, and about my template, I do have the 'subst:' beforehand. From what I've heard all over the news, the bodies were found in Ipswich's vicinity. --SilvaStorm

Yes, indeed, but that means they were found in Suffolk, not Ipswich. Anyway, it is usual to discuss moving pages before just doing it, and definitely usual to correct the double redirects. Finally, your signature is most definitely not using the 'subst:' - just editing this section should show you that! Cheers! Budgiekiller 07:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ipswich killings

I've corrected the double redirects, as I should have done immediately after the move. I apologize about the lack of discussion before making the change. Though I realize multiple murders occurred, I believe the term "murder investigation" is used regardless of the number of murders actually committed. "2006 Ipswich murders investigation" sounds a bit off, but I wouldn't be opposed to something like "Investigation of 2006 Ipswich murders". My primary concern was that the article was jumping to conclusions in describing the murderer as a serial killer. Owen 09:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I guess that Wikipedia should be more cautious than the general press, just about every single news source is referring to it as a serial killing and I had thought that this would be the way people would find their way to the article. However, I can also understand that until the case progresses, or indeed is "solved" we won't know for sure. Thanks for the message. Cheers! Budgiekiller 10:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User:170.115.251.13

Is this what you really want to be doing with your life budgiekiller? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.115.251.13 (talk • contribs).

Dave, all I want to do is keep Wikipedia encyclopaedic. Your entry wasn't, but well done on your achievements. Cheers! Budgiekiller 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Budgiekiller, I am a genuine wikimaniac. I love everything wiki. Unfortunately, I am not so encyclopaedically inclined. How can I make my achievement known in a more encyclopaedic manner? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.115.251.13 (talk • contribs).

I'm afraid that unless you meet WP:N then you won't be able to use Wikipedia to promote your success. However, the additional information you provided about the grading scheme could be considered useful to the article. Your call Dave, be bold and edit it as you see it... Cheers! Budgiekiller 18:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Budgiekiller, do you know what it feels like to get an A+? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.115.251.13 (talk • contribs).

I got one once for an English essay, it was a great story. But I didn't think it was worthy of being added to Wikipedia. But as I said, well done... Budgiekiller 19:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Budgiekiller, I can tell that you and I alike spend the majority of our lives navigating the sea of knowledge that has become Wikipedia, and in that sense we are alike. But I believe this is where we differ. I, as a man of morals and God, believe that good stories are worth sharing, like the one about how you got an A+ on your English essay, for instance. People like you, Budgiekiller, find pleasure in destruction and removal of good stories from Wikipedia. I think we can reach a compromise where I'll rewrite my update and include a short mention of your achievement as well. If you will tell me a little bit about your story I'll be glad to cooperate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.115.251.13 (talk • contribs).

Dave, I'm not too bothered about my essay. If you wish to edit Wikipedia to reflect your achievements then feel free to do so but be advised that it won't be just me who will remove anything that is either non-encyclopaedic or non-notable. But I do appreciate this discussion, very much. Cheers! Budgiekiller 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Budgiekiller, all I ask is for you to resubmit my update and place a lock on it so no one can modify it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.115.251.13 (talk • contribs).

In the words of HAL, I can't do that, Dave... You're free to re-submit any edit you've made, just be aware that it's likely that it'll be reverted in the same fashion that I reverted your original edit. I also cannot lock (or protect/semi-protect) a page on Wikipedia, as I'm not an administrator. Once again, I appreciate your comments and encourage you to continue to edit Wikipedia in a factual and notable manner! Cheers! Budgiekiller 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Paris Revision

You left a message regarding my change to the Paris article because I removed content. Yes, I removed content, because it was a duplication of the Nineteenth Century section. I don't know why it was in there twice to begin with, and furthermore, I don't know why you would change it back without looking at what I removed. I even put "removed duplication" in the edit summary. The duplicated content that I removed before has now been removed again. Tpetross 17:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem...I figured it was some sort of automatic program that detected. No offenses taken... Tpetross 18:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Automated program, poor operator behaviour! Cheers again... Budgiekiller 18:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 51 18 December 2006 About the Signpost
From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss" News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User:130.15.33.66

Why did you remove my entery bitch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.15.33.66 (talk • contribs).

Because your edit wasn't encyclopaedic and constituted an attack. Thanks for your comment. Cheers! Budgiekiller 13:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your being a bit hard

So your anti vandal, great. So your not going to do anthing where it say's the Kilwinning Ranger have won the champions leauge and Uefa cup. You are a bit of a dick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.104.27 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Perhaps you could make constructive edits such as removing nonsense instead of adding it which you clearly did in your edit. But thanks for your comment, I value all feedback. Cheers! Budgiekiller 17:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Pat Munday

Munday wrote "the" book about Montana's Big Hole river. Munday ought to be linked tothe Big Hole River page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ButteGuy (talk • contribs).

RVV

I RVV on your user page. Why don't you ask for it to be protected? Marry christmas!--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 13:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Game

That text box was informative and generally indicative of what the article was about. When someone enters the article, they are informed that 'they just lost the game' because honestly, they just lost the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.170.1.252 (talk • contribs).

Hey, don't I just know it. In fact, reverting your edit made me lose the game. And smile too. But (1) it's not a constructive edit and (2) it's simply not fair. I hadn't lost the game for weeks. Thanks. Thanks a bunch! Cheers! Budgiekiller 17:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

9/11 CT Template

The template which you keep reinserting is incomplete and biased -- i.e., it includes a UFO website as a "9/11 Researcher," and a film which has long since been rejected by virtually all 9/11 websites for it's bogus material, among other absurdities. This is a blatant attempt to discredit the work of the other serious efforts by mixing it with bogus. Please do not repost it. Others have asked for the template to be edited but are ignored. Those insisting it be posted with no changes EVER allowed are the same people trying to make anyone questioning the official version of 9/11 be painted as "nutty" over and over on all the "conspiracy theorist" pages. 75.117.177.96 18:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page with some suggestions. Hope they make sense. Cheers! Budgiekiller 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but are you going to continue to reinsert the template? If I were to make a template of something you were interested in and include a UFO website that happened to include some articles on that area and described that UFO person as a "researcher," would you not wish to remove it? I and others have tried to discuss, but to no avail. So now I just delete whenever I see it. 75.117.177.96 18:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey. You may note that I only removed the template once, based on comments in edit summaries from other, logged-in users. I won't try to re-add the template again if you put it back, but you can assume that the other editors who have removed it before will do so again. I would strongly recommend that you commence a discussion on the article's talk page and when removing the template, add a summary that directs fellow editors toward it. Hope that makes sense and helps. Thanks for your comments. Cheers! Budgiekiller 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

what?

its true, thats my friend and he does! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.183.233.122 (talk • contribs).

Sure. Thanks for your comment. Budgiekiller 20:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Karo edit

Hello, I appreciate you contacting me about my edit of Aaron Karo. I understand that my format may not have been the best, I think that my criticism is valid and should remain on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.162.117 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for your message. Let me tell you why I was alerted to your edit as potential vandalism. (1) It was from an anon IP. Not a problem, but since accounts on Wikipedia are free and simple to set up, it's easy to avoid this. (2) There was no edit summary. When hunting vandalism, blank edit summaries are an indicator of vandalism. It's always a good idea to add an edit summary to explain to other editors what you've edited and why you edited it. (3) Adding your perspective, or indeed any perspective without citation is generally frowned upon. All 'facts' should be backed up by verifiable sources. Hope this explains why I reverted your edit. Feel free to get back to me on this, or any other matter. Cheers, and happy Christmas! Budgiekiller 22:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sig templates

My sig is not actually a template, all I have done is created an autosig page which contains my signature, and put that into the signature space on my preferences. Otherwise it will have '''<font face="Comic Sans MS"> [[User:SilvaStorm|<span style="color:#808080;font-size:120%">Silva</span>]][[User_talk:SilvaStorm|<span style="color:Blue;font-size:120%">Storm</span>]] </font face="Comic Sans MS">''' on every page I sign. --SilvaStorm

Then why when you edit this section of this talk page that, at the bottom of the page, below the markup section, there is a list of templates used, does it clearly say :
Templates used in this section:
  • User:SilvaStorm/sig
if it's not a template? What you've suggested is what is supposed to be left after 'subst'ing your template. Budgiekiller 07:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So what do you suggest I do if it's bothering you so much? --SilvaStorm
Hey, it's not bothering me, it's just bad for Wikipedia - as suggested by User:Ned Scott, you should read WP:SIG#Transclusion/template where it suggests not using templates in your signature and under Preferences where it also advises against the use of templates. Use the raw wiki markup in your preferences. That should do the trick. Cheers! Budgiekiller 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

When fighting vandalism do you use a revert button?--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 11:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

  • I can't use VP because I have a Mac but I do use WikiGuard. Since I have had wikiguard and a revert button I have been more productive. God bless.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 14:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User: St. Louis Children's Hospital

Again, they were not inappropriate, as they were entirely informational. If you are going to take those links down, I would hope that you will also be moderating the other links, some of which were in the exact same format and relevance as my own. Just as I thought my link was appropriate, I left theirs in the list, too. At least be equal opportunity moderators. And, as I said, are you really going to withhold information for patients and families? Make a list of such hospitals, by all means. But don't withhold information from those who need it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by St. Louis Children's Hospital (talk • contribs).

Okay, let's do a deal. If you add St. Louis Children's Hospital to every medical procedure performed there, please link every other hospital that performs such a procedure as well. If St. Louis Children's Hospital is particularly notable for certain procedures, then by all means link it in with appropriate citations, but in the mean time, you should expect all your current style of editing to be reverted by the reasonable number of editors who are trying to explain to you why your edits are inappropriate. Feel free to get in touch if you need further explanation. Cheers! Budgiekiller 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications

Unfortunately I do need more clarification. If I were to truly link to every procedure, I'd be here forever. I only updated those articles with appropriate and relevant links if we have a genuine and "unusual" relevance to procedures/treatment. You'll note that almost all of the links are to Centers, some of which are internationally known, such as the ones in cerebral palsy and spasticity. I shouldn't have to take the time to argue with you about facts about the institution that you nor any other editor has a clue about. Now, if a citation would help, I can do that. Please tell me what you would deem as an appropriate citation for such centers and procedures, and I'll do it. Those links, like I said, are relevant, and patients and families should be given the appropriate and accurate information contained within the links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by St. Louis Children's Hospital (talk • contribs).

Okay, well put it this way. Wikipedia (the English version) will be in constant use over the English speaking world. That includes locations outside St Louis. So anyone looking up a particular medical issue throughout the English speaking world will end up with lots of good Wikipedia information, and a link to your hospital in St Louis. Do you see why your link here isn't very useful to 99.99999% of readers? The reason your links are considered spam is that they are located in inappropriate places. If there was an article such as "Health care in St Louis" then your link would doubtless be useful and encouraged. However, there are tens of thousands of hopsitals world-wide that have treatment centres for epilepsy, cystic fibrosis and asthma. I cannot understand why you believe that linking to your hospital alone in articles such as this is reasonable. However, I most certainly believe in WP:AGF and that's why you've been given a lot of good advice instead of being provided with vandal warnings, which would culminate in your account being blocked. Again, if I can be of any further service, don't hesitate to get in touch. Budgiekiller 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

So it's not OK for me to provide a link because I am in St. Louis (despite being internationally well known), but it's OK to have a link go to New York? http://www.columbiasurgery.org/programs/tx_lung/guide_surgery.html Exact same relevance. cystic fibrosis

Again, the problem here is that we are a hospital that is connected to and hosts centers along with Washington University School of Medicine. This is no different than calling it an "organization," "network," or "association," but by its real name of a center. These centers are generally internationally recognized and offer international patient support.

Grossly inappropriate comparison. The Columbia link is to a guide about the procedure containing a great deal of medical information. Your link ([1]), on the other hand, had no medical information at all, just a promotion for your center. Fan-1967 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict, but determined...!) No, I think you're missing the point here. The article to which you refer doesn't suggest you "go to New York". The article provides information about the transplant itself. Your link didn't add anything to the information already provided (which itself was a good citation) and you added a link to your own St Louis hospital which, as I've explained, is irrelevant to the article itself. Please continue to edit Wikipedia constuctively and take advice from other experienced editors in the manner in which it is intended. Cheers! Budgiekiller 19:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikitainment

Would you be interested in joining wikitainment? You could write sport articles there. Think about it.--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 20:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

copyright issue

hi budgiekiller, i want to ask your opinion on this matter. a locator map which is used in this article Dolores, Abra was used by a broadcasting network in the Philippines (ABS-CBN) in it's website here without the permission from the creator. this issue was raised in the talk page of Wikiproject:Tambayan Philippines here. however, my concern is, a user uploaded a screenwebshot of the news article and pasted it on the wiki news article of the network which appears here in an inappropriate manner which disrupts the article's contents. i believe in my opinion, that this user's action, IMO, constitutes vandalism or at the very least, disrupting wikipedia to make a point. please educate me on this matter. thanks a lot and more power! --RebSkii 21:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, typical course of action is to discuss this edit with the editor who placed the image on the page in the first place. If you don't reach an agreement with him/her then you can start a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining why you're not happy with the inclusion of the image. You need to explain why you believe it constitutes vandalism and/or disruption to the article. Let me know how you get on or if you need more assitance. Cheers! Budgiekiller 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from User:69.140.68.72

Why are any edits I attempt to supposedly controversial issues (e.g., bigfoot) presently blown away? Is there a problem with being a scientist who, like a growing and notable cadre, analyzes an issue with respect? Or are only those who defecate all over whatever they don't understand allowed to voice their opinions? Wikipedia is a disgrace, and I would set fire to it if such a thing were possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.68.72 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Could you be more specific about the edits you're particularly upset about? Please don't set fire to Wikipedia, think of the children...! Budgiekiller 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the information I added to the Beckjord article is factual, not nonsensical. Perhaps if some information were verified before being slapped up on Wikipedia, the project might smack of some respectability.

Do you spend your life following on my heels to undo my edits--or did you (congratulations!) write a few lines of meta-code to notify you when I've edited something? You must really enjoy being a teen-ager! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.68.72 (talk • contribs).

Hello again. I still need to understand what it is you particularly dislike about the reversions that you've experienced. Your most recent edit included the following text:
...he is considered a fringe theorist because he is unable to communicate like an adult, tending to send one-line, upper-case-only rants much as one's thirteen-year-old nephew might...
I'm not sure why you think this might be considered encyclopaedic. But I'd be glad to hear your opinion! Cheers! Budgiekiller 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
(By the way, it's not my excellent code that detects these edits, it's called VandalProof. All the best! Budgiekiller 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC))
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7EThe_Rambling_Man_Archive_6_2825.html"