User talk:Violetriga/archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Talk page of Violet / Riga

Looking for article inspiration again...

My talk page policy...
  1. I will usually reply here, not on your talk page
  2. Comments will not be edited except to reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy
  3. Obvious spam will be deleted

Most recent archive

Contents

Archive 9 – Posts from April to end of November 2006

[edit] Twin

Are you away?

Someone was asking for the source of one of your old additions to twin. See the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I was. I may still be. I'll take a look, thanks. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thylacine review

You recently reviewd the Thylacine article. I have just posted a large list of proposed changes on the talk page which you might be interested in. I welcome feedback. youcantryreachingme 02:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)youcantryreachingme (Chris).

Nice work - I'll see if I can add anything constructive. violet/riga (t) 18:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

By what authority did you remove the merge tag from Exploding snake ? SirIsaacBrock 09:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the merge was disputed on the talk page and no longer receiving supporting discussions. violet/riga (t) 10:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have the authority to remove a merge tag ? SirIsaacBrock 02:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone does. violet/riga (t) 17:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Indefinite Article Controversy

Please see Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Thanks.--Pharos 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military History of France

Hi.

While I'm in favour of Views of the French military being added, I don't think there should be edit warring over it. Thanks, Andjam 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never added that link before, so it's not really an edit war. violet/riga (t) 12:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe it's "not really" an edit war, but it "kind of" is one. Thanks, Andjam 12:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Military of France, you have also violated the Revert rule. However, I will not report it.UberCryxic 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I reverted three times, thus not violating it. violet/riga (t) 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I was counting another edit, but it wasn't important.UberCryxic 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your desired changes have been implemented. I admire your tenacity. Your remind me of French soldiers at Casteldelfino.UberCryxic 18:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A joke in the face of this disagreement? Nice to see. Not sure why you've seemingly changed your mind, but I hope it will stop any further disagreements. Please be aware that I have no personal grudge against the French military - just know that many people do and think it is worthy of inclusion. violet/riga (t) 18:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There is someone in Military history of France making a weird descriptive edit to the Views link. Could you please deal with it? I reverted once but I don't really want multiple violations of 3-R. Thanks.UberCryxic 19:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a question, or a suggestion rather. The views of French military article generally covers views about French military history, not about the present French military. I don't really think it's appropriate to link it to the Military of France. I wanted to check this with you first. What do you think?UberCryxic 04:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it covers (or, at the very list will cover) the topic of present views, and should be linked. violet/riga (t) 09:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jokes about the French military in the United States haven't really focused on the modern French military, just on (or mostly on) history. The picture in the Views article is supposed to highlight a historical culture of surrender, not just poke fun at current French soldiers, but beyond sporadic pictures like that-probably fooled around with because they're the easiest to find-there are no real jokes about the current French military. The famous "Complete Military History of France" list was, as the name suggests, about history. I haven't really seen anything equivalent, if anything at all (that I remember at least), on the current French armed forces. The Views article highlights the problem: the Negative section begins in the following way, "French military history is perceived particularly in the United States...." Even if jokes about the current French military exist, they are not prominent at all. The Views article was inspired by the military history article anyway; I don't think another article should have to suffer because of that.UberCryxic 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Military of France article isn't limited to right now - it contains history. It's a relevant link as it deals with views of the Military of France. violet/riga (t) 22:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If we let imagination fiddle around with the meaning of "right now," then it is limited. Either way, saying it contains history does not mean that it is about history. It would be a relevant link if the Views article actually contained views about the current French military. As of now, all it has is references to a culture of cowardice and, with the exception of the Sun incident, views about the military history.UberCryxic 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really can't see how you can even suggest that an article about the views of the French Military is not supposed to be linked from the French Military article! violet/riga (t) 08:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That raises another problem then: the title. I am more in favor of "Views of French military history" or "Views about French military and French military history" unless something relevant is put in about the current French military. A sensible thing to do would be to change the title, meaning it would have to be de-linked from either Military of France or Military history of France. As of now, it should be de-linked from Military history of France, but the information it contains relates to the military history of France, though not to the military of France (damn this is confusing), even though that's what it's named.UberCryxic 17:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The title is fine and it should be linked from both articles. violet/riga (t) 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Great reasoning. I forgot I was dealing with one of the great logicians of the century. I'll stop my efforts because they would probably only lead to bad blood between us. Thanks for your time.UberCryxic 18:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for intervening. I was running out of jokes.UberCryxic 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

I'm pretty new here and wanted to know how to upload pictures in order to use them for a page. I had plans of starting a new article and wanted to utilize a picture. Thank you for the help! --WillMak050389 04:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I've been wanting to know for a while. --WillMak050389 13:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libellous vandalism from 217.33.74.20

Your school network has been an ongoing source of vandalism which could be legally actionable due to its often libellous and defamatory remarks. Have you considered having your network administrator investigate the root cause of this problem? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Impossible, sadly, as it's not a school thing - the IP is used by the Worcestershire County Council and thus most schools and libraries go through it. violet/riga (t) 14:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If it is brought to their attention, they should be able to deal with this rather swiftly, as they can determine which school or library is responsible, and trace it down to the originating terminal. If this were just simple vandalism I wouldn't mind it so much, but a good majority of it is vicious and rather mean spirited. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I keep track of any that do it at my school, and it is dealt with there. However, we are talking about dozens and dozens of schools and libraries and I know that it isn't just one that is causing the problems. The devs need to have a ban option that disallows anon editing from an IP and the creation of new accounts from that IP but allows existing users to edit. violet/riga (t) 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Your network administrator should be able to locate the source(s) of every edit by comparing outgoing proxy traffic with the time stamps of the Wikipedia diffs. It would be nice if WP:BPP or a similar solution were in effect, but at the same time these other schools and libraries have a right to know how their network is being used in the event they are ever held accountable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
They really aren't that good at monitoring traffic, and are generally unwilling to do so. There are lots of schools & libraries that know that this is happening but are unwilling/unable to do anything about it other than blocking Wikipedia entirely. The point is though that no shared IP should be blocked for any long duration. violet/riga (t) 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need admin help

I checked my messages today, and recieved the following message:

You are a crazy god lover! Burn in Hell!!! Thefreakshow 21:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I please ask of your help to confront this user. I have left a message on his talk page, but I would like an administrator to talk with him also. --WillMak050389 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your spelling reverts

Listen, I'm trying to contribute. I'm honestly just trying to improve Wikipedia. There are oodles of reasons why spelling guidelines should be followed strictly, in my view. You reverted my changes without (it would appear) even looking at the history of the article, which I looked at very, very closely before making my changes. Why did you revert me? It just creates bad blood. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 18:50 (UTC)


[edit] Mohonk

Hi Violet,

I just visited Mohonk. Great stuff.

Query: is there any reason to (or not to) mention that atop Skytop, which I suspect is the tallest part of Mohonk mountain, there is a clear, unobstructed view of six states? That would be NY, NJ, PA, VT, MA, and CT. It was foggy when I was up there, so I failed to see anything other than part of NY, but it's still an interesting fact for those who purposefully travel to such geographical oddities.Eh Nonymous 14:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be a very good fact to add - I'm sure that there aren't too many places where you can see six states at once. violet/riga (t) 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answered

--Yurik 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prison break redirect

Hello. You changed Prison break to redirect to Prison escape instead of Prison Break with no explanation. I'm simply curious why you think that prison escape is a more suitable article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 11:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that - rolled back rather than doing it the proper way
I think that the concept of a prison break is far more appropriate than a television show, and makes for a more relevant redirect. violet/riga (t) 12:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have is that Prison Break and Prison break are very similar names; only one uncapitalized letter differentiates them. It is very likely that when someone is searching for the show they will accidentally not capitalize the B. Most Wikipedia articles with alternate capitalization redirect to the correctly capitalized page. For example, Grey's anatomy redirects to Grey's Anatomy. I think the redirect you setup is confusing. Jtrost (T | C | #) 13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that more people would type in "prison break" looking for the act of breaking out of a prison and not for the show. It is a common primary disambig technique, with Prison escape having a header notice directing people to the series if that is what they are looking for. I think that an encyclopedia really should put a serious meaning of a term before a television series. violet/riga (t) 14:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Who's to judge that prison escape is a more serious or more important article than Prison Break? I'm not sure the two can be compared in that way. Saying that more people are going to search for "Prison break" looking for "Prison escape" is a matter of opinion that none of us would be able to back up with proof, so let's try to keep with objective statements. My point is that it is confusing to have alternate capitalization of the same term to lead to different pages. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a common practice (Pulp fiction, Double indemnity...). It is the most sensible option - capitalisation makes it a proper noun and thus a different thing. violet/riga (t) 08:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we compromise: We redirect alternate capitalizations of Prison Break to the TV show and alternate capitalizations of Prison escape to the other article, then at the top of each article put a link to the other. Right now there is not a link to Prison escape from Prison Break. Jtrost (T | C | #) 12:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't really see that as a compromise. Prison Escape is not a valid article title as such capitalisation is only used for the title of a piece of work. The alternative would be to have Prison break as a disambiguation page pointing to both. violet/riga (t) 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be fine with having Prison break being a disambig page. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article, Fast food advertising, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On July 1, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fast food advertising, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Note, I changed the hook to "trying to" as since the link isn't proven, the government actions can't be said to definitively be fixing the problem, just are trying to fix it. That addresses the concern I had and still keeps the hook saying generally the same thing. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:BE/AmE

Something about "neighbouring" restaurants in Kentucky isn't quite right. In reference to American locations, although it's not policy, it makes sense to use American spellings. In contrast, how would it be if an article on the Pennines spoke about the "fall" "colors" of the region, and how they divide Northern England down the "center"? It'd seem a little askew, wouldn't it? And that's what I was trying to remedy. But that doesn't matter, because why should you assume good faith? R'son-W 21:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article, Space advertising, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On July 2, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Space advertising, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your DYK nomination for Bingo (Scrabble) was successful

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Bingo (Scrabble), which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for revising this nom to get it selected... ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your article, Concealing something in a book, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On July 4, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Concealing something in a book, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: 230

In regards to your message, I had no idea that was the case. I once had a math teacher who was a stickler for and, so it was drilled into my head to take the "and" out. Thanks for letting me know that that's not the case everywhere! - Tapir Terrific 22:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FIFA World Cup

Thanks for clearing up things, don't know what I was thinking. Don't edit when it's past your bedtime, I guess. Well, bronze finals are meaningless, anyways. But really, thanks. --Denvesletigeren 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:In the news

I'm puzzled by your apparent belief that the World Cup is too important for our ITN criteria to apply...but not important enough to actually write about in encyclopedic fashion.

Instead of transforming our main page into a news ticker, perhaps you could contribute a decent account of the game to the encyclopedia (which might actually qualify the entry for inclusion in the section). —David Levy 16:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the game needs something writing about it in order to have the item included in ITN. violet/riga (t) 16:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. As I noted above, you believe that the World Cup should be exempt from our rules. —David Levy 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it's just that you don't interpret the rules the same as some others. violet/riga (t) 18:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you interpret the rules? You stated above that a subject with nothing written about it in the encyclopedia can be eligible for inclusion, and I would appreciate an explanation of how this is so. —David Levy 20:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The articles linked have been updated, and I think that those updates are sufficient to meet ITN criteria. I disagree that a full match report is required as the articles are very comprehensive and include details of the goal scorers, times, cards conceded and other match details. violet/riga (t) 20:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That isn't what you wrote above. You indicated that you "don't think that the game needs something writing [sic] about it in order to have the item included in ITN." Do you wish to retract this statement? —David Levy 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am referring to the information presented in a table/diagram, not a verbose way. violet/riga (t) 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
An event of such importance (which I've never disputed) should receive an encyclopedic write-up (à la what was written about Super Bowl XL before and during its ITN listing). Numerous users have demanded that the World Cup matches receive equal treatment, but none of them have bothered to write anything approaching the quality of the aforementioned article. And yet, they complain about the "North American bias." If "bias" means "willingness to actually contribute to the encyclopedia," okay. I'd like very much to see a comparable "Germany vs. Italy" article featured in ITN, but no one has written one. —David Levy 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there will be for the final, I couldn't say. My point still stands though - I don't think that that level of detail is necessary and feel that we do have enough of an update to cover the ITN guidelines. violet/riga (t) 21:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you're allowing your judgement to be clouded by your impartiality on this matter. Conversely, I care as much about the World Cup as I do about any athletic competition that's popular in the United States (id est, not at all). If anything, I'd rather read about the World Cup than about the American sports from which I'm unable to escape. —David Levy 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps in an ideal world we would have write-ups about the games, but I don't think that it would be a strength of Wikipedia (Wikinews, yes). I am a fan of the sport, but I think that the quality of our articles coupled with the worldwide interest is sufficient to allow such an entry. violet/riga (t) 21:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of ITN is not to highlight quality articles; it's to highlight quality article updates that reflect recent/current events. I don't believe that some table entries and two-sentence summaries qualify, and I doubt that you ordinarily would adopt such lax standards. —David Levy 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point, but I think that the update is sufficient. violet/riga (t) 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Likewise, I understand that. This discussion has become rather circular, so I think that it's best if we simply agree to disagree. —David Levy 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
If I might but in here. WikiNews DOES have match reports. e.g.. Yesterdays game - Italy scores twice late in overtime, bumps Germany out of World Cup - but I have no doubt that if this article were put up on Wikipedia it would immediately be removed by the deletionist crowd for all sorts of reasons. The Match is IN THE NEWS and is covered by the main World Cup article and by the Knockout stage article which contains images created especially for each game showing the team line-ups. Both pages carry as much detail as possible without treading on the toes of WikiNews or entering into POV problems. Jooler 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK item

  • ...that there is a long history of animals in sport ranging from hunting to team events? violet/riga (t) 00:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Sounds a bit boring to me. Can you spice it up by including something unusual or a record? Otherwise, I think using cow fighting instead is probably a better option. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Not really, tbh. I know it's a bit weak, but then I haven't gone into to much research for the animals in sport article and thus don't have any particularly interesting facts yet! violet/riga (t) 12:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On July 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Animals in sport, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|(talk) 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] supernumerary body parts

I'd love to put this article on DYK, but it requires references. Can you drop some in? - Mgm|(talk) 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cow Fighting

Mindhaving alook at Talk:Cow fighting? Circeus 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cow fighting on DYK

Updated DYK query On July 10, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cowfighting, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernumerary body parts on DYK

Updated DYK query On 11 July 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Supernumerary body parts, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: s

Sorry about that. I didn't look at the history beforehand. --Fang Aili talk 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concordia University disambiguation

I'm hoping you might offer some advice on an old issue revolving around disambiguation and Concordia University in Montreal. You may recall that in March 2005 you determined: "It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved." The matter seemed to have laid dormant until last week when a Uac1530 took it upon him or herself to make the change unilaterally. I have expressed my opposition on the Talk:Concordia University (Montreal) page (the resulting discussion is featured in numbers 16 through 18 nof the table of contents. My question is twofold: Should I request arbitration - or is this even necessary as the matter has already been discussed and a decision rendered. I might add that while I have no objection to a reopening of the debate, I disagree with the unilateral nature of the change. Admitting that I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia, I wonder whether this move follows policy.--Victoriagirl 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work. I'm pleased to see that this matter has now been reopened and is being discussed appropriately. --Victoriagirl 19:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POTD

Hi, I notice you updating captions for the pictures of the day. Please keep in mind that if you do so, then please copy the changes to the text and column versions too. You can get links to them from Wikipedia:Picture of the day/July 2006. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally forgot about that - thanks for the reminder. violet/riga (t) 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I moved Concordia University.

And you moved it back because I acted unilaterally. Fine.

I think it makes much more sense, what I did. How do I go about getting it changed? What are the proper channels? I read the policies connected to it and I thought I was following the rules.

[edit] Italy beats France

Hi Violetriga,

Someone's added an s to the ITN snippet about the World Cup again, but I think it was done without consulting the debate, so is probably just a mistake. Please could you correct it. Cheers — SteveRwanda 08:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your response.

--Uac1530 09:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Good article!

I thought you might be interested to know the article we worked on, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should," has been promoted to good article status after just one day. Thanks for contributing to a job well done! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

[1]. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Darwinek is not removing "warnings for vandalism", and thus that does not apply. Wikipedia:Removing warnings is also only a proposal and thus not enforcable. Sorry, but you should not continue the revert war. Your comments should also be removed under the WP:NPA policy. violet/riga (t) 21:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Violet/riga, you seem to be saying nothing about what Darwinek has done wrong. Is this because you think he has done no wrong? Isn't telling me to "fuck off" wrong? Isn't failing to discuss a complicated question of policy wrong? Do you care? Or do you just want to take one side in order to pursue your own agenda? --WikiFair1 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Echo what WikiFair said, you are simply defending Darwinek blindly, and in this case, against the consensus of most. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC).
I'm not saying that, and clearly stated that I have made comments about some of the RfC accusations that I think are wrong. Note that I have not even attempted to defend his actions against the other problems you have raised, which are valid. Yes, saying "fuck off" is indeed incivil, but so is "fucking grow up" and edit warring on a persons own talk page. I am merely pointing out that some things he has done are justifiable, while others are not. violet/riga (t) 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
PS, by your own accounts, you yourself are in danger of being blocked under WP:3RR. And no, no personal attacks were involved either, so I wouldn't be blocked under that either. Please read the rules carefully. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 21:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC).
"Fucking grow up"? You ask me to read the rules? I think I know them pretty well, thankyouverymuch. violet/riga (t) 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe the use of the word "fucking" was wrong, but "grow up" still stands. Why is he (and you for that matter) so desperate to hide these comments anyway? Is he embarrassed? -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC).
I have no idea, but it's his prerogative. violet/riga (t) 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Violet/riga: You have a habit of resorting to claims about "common sense" when defending your own violations of guidelines, but sticking to the rules, not common sense, when attacking others' actions. In other words, you seem a bit too "ethically flexible." Listen, it's "common sense" that the warnings about the violative nature of Darwinek's mass renaming of articles not be removed!! Other wikipedia users need to know about this. Wouldn't you agree? The warnings really should stay there. It's common sense. Darwinek, who says "Peace" at the top of his page, obviously wants to remove any traces of his bad behavior. Talk Pages aren't suppose to be "I'm so beautiful" pages. It's common sense, right? --WikiFair1 08:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If I wanted to I could blank this page because it is mine. It is very poor wikiquette to revert war on someone else's talk page. You should've seen that he wasn't wanting those messages there and tried a different tactic. violet/riga (t) 09:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transport in... moves

You say "needs to be discussed." Yet you reverted, without (much) discussion. Why? --WikiFair1 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to discuss which is correct (transport/ation) as I don't care, but your mass reversion of an edit from months ago by someone other than you are claiming to be the problem-causer is inappropriate. I feel that reverting the moves was the best way to move towards consensus, as per WP:1RR. violet/riga (t) 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It was a mass reversion of an earlier guideline-violating mass renaming! You should have left it alone. I was restoring what never should have been changed. (But leaving it alone would have meant leaving American usage in place. Perhaps that was what motivated you? Please try to think beyond your biases.) --WikiFair1 08:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't show bias, it shows what I see as the more sensible decision given the scenario. As I've stated already I couldn't care less which it is as I use both 'transport' and 'transportation'. violet/riga (t) 09:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

what does transcluding mean? let me guess first.. is it the practice of substituting it with the {{subst tag? if so, well i actually did it in courtesy because the source code for my sig was too long, so that i dont add a whole bunch of code to every page i sign. if the latter is actually better etiquette, i think ill change back to the old way of lumping the whole text in there.

an added advantage of substituting it is that if i change the signature, its updated on all the pages i've signed. adam the atomTEC 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing items from the DYK template

If you remove an item (I do not think it's a good practice), please put it back in the list of nominees so it can be selected again, not really fair to an item to be there for only 45 min or whatever.. Maybe you did in this case and I missed it, just thought i'd mention it. thanks! ++Lar: t/c 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

(I prefer to stay threaded, refactored)

I think that six and a half hours is fine for it to be featured, really, and putting it back in the list would simply mean that it gets a massively extended time. violet/riga (t) 13:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, the times are a bit confusing, because I think the reset clock wasn't reset right. It looked to me from the history that it was only 1 hour but I agree, 6.5 hours is fine. You can reply here. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ta, and thanks for your work at DYK. violet/riga (t) 13:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalker

How do you report a stalker? User:JackLumber seems to pop up on votes to do with AmE vs. Be just after I turn up. Jooler 14:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tough really, as it's a problem that can be difficult to deal with. Best to start an RfC, assuming that the "friendly chat" method hasn't worked. violet/riga (t) 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
"Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking). - The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful."
Ladies and gentlemen, I ain't disrupting anybody. Contrib logs are public. I have a right to take part in those polls. If Jooler's anti-American English systematic bias infects the use of the English language on Wikipedia, that would be disrupting indeed. And would lead to "...violations of Wikipedia policy." Get it? JackLumber. 22:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok guys, you don't like me, that's for sure. I try my best to be friend with everyone, but that just ain't possible. JackLumber. 22:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC) RfC... the very idea. I may regard this as a personal attack.
So you admit that you are following me around and popping up on such votes intentionally? Jooler 07:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Please, let's be careful here. I recently had the feeling that Violetriga was stalking me. Someone else publicly accused her of this, and her response seemed reasonable enough: that we share many watched pages. But even if that was only part of the truth, say, even if she also periodically checks my contributions, there isn't necessarily anything so evil at work (whether it would violate some guideline or policy I couldn't say). She may even believe me that I'm working for the good of Wikipedia, but simply feel that my efforts are misguided in some way, and she wants to "keep an eye on me." Fine by me! I might even learn something from her. (Indeed, I already have.)
JackLumber may simply be doing the exact same thing with Jooler. Or he may have seen my Committee for WP Orthographic (and Dialectical) Justice subpage! (Tongue-in-cheek name, please note! :) ).
Another thing one should point out here: JackLumber has a beautifully open, reasonable view of dialect differences. Somewhere (can't find it right now) he wrote something to the effect of ~"British English, American English, whatever: I love the entirety of the English language." Hard to imagine Jooler saying that. (And hard to imagine me saying that!)
When it comes to JackLumber, assuming good faith could not be more apposite. I think his motivation is mostly just what he says: he is concerned that Jooler might exercise a negative influence on WP via the consistently orthographically anti-American positions he stakes out. Whether that is a just assessment of Jooler is a different question. Either way, it's JL's way of working for the good of Wikipedia, just like Violetriga's "keeping an eye on" me (if that's even what she's doing) is her way of doing the same. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-21 14:14 (UTC)
"Hard to imagine Jooler saying that." Try re-reading User_talk:JackLumber/Archive1#Thanks Jooler

[edit] That doggone RfC...

Sorry to hear you got caught up in an edit war while trying to help. If you're interested, here's my "personal rules" I mentioned over there. Cheers! -- SB Johnny 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page

I'm not familiar with that guideline. Where is it at? Bignole

In the parts where it reads, do not delete sections of Talk Pages unless they contain personal attacks or vandalism. Bignole
But you weren't reverting vandalism. It was some anon's POV, yes, but it wasn't vandalism. Because it wasn't vandalism, you were making a legitimate edit, instead of reverting vandalism. So, because you were making a big change, and chose to acknowledge such on the TALK PAGE you were informing others of the change you made and why. When you removed that, you removed the explaination of why you altered the section as such. Just because you made it and 3 mins later fixed the problem yourself doesn't mean you should delete the section in the Talk Page. People should still know that there was a problem and it was corrected. Bignole 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
No, you don't. I didn't say you did. But you chose to, and when you did you created a section explaining your actions to the other editors. Then you chose to delete it. Why would you delete it anyway? You didn't make a mistake. You wouldn't make a comment about another change (in a section that was already created) and then delete your comment once you made the correction yourself. Once you and I are done discussing you won't go on my talk page and delete everything you have said. The principle isn't behind whether or not there is a guideline stating so, it's behind if you should. If that was the case all talk pages would be empty cause they would be deleted after everything was resolved. Bignole 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because no one responded in 3 minutes doesn't mean anything. It isn't common practice to remove information from Talk Pages, no matter how long it's been there. It isn't your talk page. Bignole 21:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll say what you said to me: show me where it says that it is ok to do that? You said that it doesn't say that you can't, but it also doesn't say that you can. There are plenty of areas where it says not to remove sections of a Talk Page. Bignole 21:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said. It is, but it holds a principle that is isn't common practice to remove sections just because you made the correct in 3 minutes. No matter how stupid it may seem. Bignole

[edit] Vue Page

Hi,

You seem to keep re-posting the same Vue Cinemas article with a major part of the article ommitted and a factual error.

Firstly, you have deleted the reference to the Vista ticketing system, which is probably one of the biggest changes to cinema operation in the last 10 years.

Secondly, Harrow was the first purpose built Vue, NOT Blackburn.

Please comment??

The Vista paragraph is written too much like an advert. Do you have a source to show that Harrow was the first one? violet/riga (t) 22:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it was neutral and drew notice too the fact that it was controversial i.e. many customers complain about it. May I suggest that the link to the Vista corporate website be removed and not that part of the article? As I said, it's probably one of the biggest changes to cinema operations in the last 10 years.

I don't have a source though I may be able to find one. It opened last year I believe and was the first site to use the Vista system, you can tell this from visiting the cinema itself in that it doesn;t actually have a spearate box office. The easiest source I can think of would be internal communications (I work for Vue) though these are obviously confidential.

I will take another look and see if I can rewrite some parts of it to quash my objections. For the moment it might be best to have neither cinema listed as the first purpose-built one. I wouldn't even claim to have any idea, but another user thinks that it was Blackburn. violet/riga (t) 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into confirmation now, we may have a press release somewhere. Blackburn is very incorrect. Before they open theres still Cleveleys opening in about 3 weeks.

That's great, thanks. I've rewritten some of the paragraph now - I hope it conveys your original meaning without taking anything away. violet/riga (t) 22:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You're both right about Harrow. It was owned by Vue as it was originally a Warner Village site. It was then the first to be re-furbished to Vue's latest design ideas, mainly to incorporate a smaller box office as they would be using the Vista system to sell tickets from the concession stand. Blackburn is the first site they have built from scratch.

[edit] Footprint

Updated DYK query On 29 July 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Footprint, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Greatly enjoyed the new article. You come up with the most interesting DYK's (I remember the one with the polydactyly x-ray). Thanks for the contribs -- Samir धर्म 11:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've enjoyed making them. violet/riga (t) 11:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many of you are tempted to click on this and find out what on earth it is?!

At least one. (And I liked Footprint too.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 :) violet/riga (t) 19:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theater archive

The -re spellers lost (in the sense of making it unavailable in the conventional way) the Talk archive. You might be able to make some useful suggestions there on what to do about this. It may (or may not) be little tricky since the most recent version of the archive was a version made after Dramatic's attempt to archive There are some details about how this came about at the current Talk page. W.C. 19:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the archiving help, Violet! W.C. 19:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. violet/riga (t) 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fighting game

On the fighting game page, you reverted my revert regarding the inclusion of the information about Perfects. I'm not sure you realized that this page is more to discuss the difference between beat 'em ups and versus fighting games (see the talk page to see the confusion and why this page was necessary over a standard DAB). If you feel that Perfect needs to be in the Wikipedia but not on its own article (as combo (computer and video games), finishing move and shoryuken are), I believe this information should be moved to the versus fighting game page or to the Wiktionary appendix. What do you think? --SevereTireDamage 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should be covered by Wikipedia (not just put in to Wiktionary) and would agree with you that it fits in better at versus fighting game. violet/riga (t) 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Overacting

Updated DYK query On 31 July 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article overacting, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Peta 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK aug 1

Updated DYK query On 1 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Conger cuddling, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Syrthiss 13:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I see you're the one who wrote a lot of the Birth weight article. Can you please respond on Talk:Birth weight? - anon 22:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Passage

Hi Violetriga, Thanks for your note about Secret Passages and Book Safes. I just wanted you to know that there are a few more historical examples of secret passages now.NatMor 14:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi, All the info is from the internet. I will start going back and adding the references (good suggestion)NatMor 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mail delivery by animal on DYK

Updated DYK query On 3 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mail delivery by animal, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Scott eiπ 23:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dampervan

Where dose it belong then he blinking built it it is his creation.--Lucy-marie 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not blanket revert due to your opinion not liking something please initate a discussion about hthe topic and see the merge proposal discussion.--Lucy-marie 08:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Richard_Hammond#Move_away_from_Top_Gear

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Lorz, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Another brilliant one. Great little story and tag line. -- Samir धर्म 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I have been editing a page for Baltimore Lutheran School, and the page has been getting a lot of vandalism, I think from the same source. The current vandalism was by user Uber trampoline. I am pretty sure he is the same as Pastor Satan and is a student (or students) at the school. They are putting up comments about students and teachers.

Is there anything that can be done about this/ blocking them, freezing the page, etc.? User:Uac1530 04:11, 8 August 2006

Those accounts have now been blocked. I'll keep an eye on the article and sort out any other problem users if they come along. Thanks for undoing their vandalism. violet/riga (t) 07:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 8 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article unfinished work, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 9 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Largest body part, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Updated DYK query On 9 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert Bigelow Paine, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Unfinished building

Hi, thanks for your edit on unfinshed buildings mentioned at the arch wikiproject. I think it's got potential. Unfortunately I've had to revert your edit on Enric Miralles because although it wasn't finished at his death - his passing did not stop construction and it's now open - so doesn't really fit the description you've given of an unfinished building (unfinished and not likely to be finished). Hope this is ok. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 23:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine - thanks for fixing my mistake! violet/riga (t) 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer of '42

I have addressed your concerns on the Summer of '42 FAC debate in re: citations and footnoting. I respectfully request that you reconsider your object vote now that the problem has been fixed.Mistergrind 20:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You've done a good job with the references. I'll take a detailed look soon. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breastfeeding

Ah, okay. I just always thought it was 'labeled' because someone used 'labelled' in the Model Minority article and it was edited out. Plus, when you look it up on dictionary.com, 'labelled' doesn't exist. Why sigh, cutie pie? 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished buildings

You have Sagrada Familia already - the only other buildings I can think of are churches that just took a long time to finish: Washington National Cathedral took 83 years, the Cologne Cathedral took over 600. Chicago has had a LOT of proposed skyscrapers that were never built, like Frank Lloyd Wright's mile-high tower The Illinois, and a 2,000 foot tall broadcast tower proposal [2]. And doing a quick check, it would appear that at least two of Ludwig II of Bavaria's castles were left incompleted, including Neuschwanstein, probably the most famous. Oh, and I just found a page of unfinished buildings for the Dallas, Texas area: [3].

FLW's Mile high tower is a good example. Most of the work of the Russian Constructivists wasn't built, but was extremely influential to the Bauhaus and Deconstructivism. See also the work of the the Glass Chain and the Utopian German Expressionists, Hermann Finsterlin never had anything built. The work of most of the Deconstructivists was unbuilt until the late 1980's - see ChoraL Works, Libeskind's "Micromegas", Hadid's numerous projects, Rem Koolhaus's tabla rasa city planning exploits - put me in mind of various Corbusier projects such as Ville Radieuse, Ville Contemporaine, the Cartesian skyscraper.--Mcginnly | Natter 08:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I look into these later today. violet/riga (t) 08:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Also see - Tatlin's Tower, Lord Foster has been trying to find a client and site for his Millenium Tower and Japan for years.--Mcginnly | Natter 08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London 2012 Olympic Bid

Hi - We met on this site an hour ago. I just became an editor on Wikipedia so please accept my apologies if I do not yet fully understand all the procedures and rules. The reason I became an editor is that I was looking up something on the 2012 Olympics and I thought the articles were both very disorganised and you can almost feel a real battle running through every section. I never seen anything like it on Wikipedia. I am neither French or British, so I try to be neutral.

My understanding is that there is one single major thread, called the "2012 Summer Olympics". This has a number of sub-sections, eg London 2012 Olympic Bid, 2012 Summer Olympic Development, 2012 Summer Olympic Venues, etc...

Now, there are a number of problems with all of them, but let me start with "London 2012 Olympic Bid", where I have two main issues:

- Most of the section is written in the past tense, eg: "The 2012 Olympics were planned to use a mixture of newly built venues, existing facilities, and temporary facilities, some of them in well known locations such as Hyde Park and Horse Guards Parade. In the wake of the problems that plagued the Millennium Dome, the intention was that there would be no white elephants after the games." The past tense indicates that this was the bid and that current plans may be different, as a result of events since the bid was formally accepted by the IOC (6 JUly 2005). Until here I have no issue because for that reason there is the section called "2012 Summer Olympic Development". Where I do have an issue is that it does go on discussing a selective number of events following the acceptance of the bid by the IOC, but only negative ones. If one wanted to be consistent, one would have to expand on many more aspects of the bid. For instance, regarding the comment about the avoidance of white elephants above, one could expand and explain the changes that have been made to that aim and the positive reception by the IOC of these changes. Alternatively, one could limit this whole section to be a factual past tense description of the bid itself (up to the acceptance by the IOC), without divulging in any posterior events. These can be part of the other section "2012 Summer Olympic Development"

- The summary overview on the top right of the page has a section called "Decision". What does the 2004 IOC score (as part of the INITIAL IOC evaluation) have to do with this? Same goes for the comment below it. This is all output from the INITIAL evaluation (in which London fared badly) and not of the FINAL evaluation, which was much more positive on London. Anyway, the way it is posted here, will be read by anybody who is not fully familiar with the selection procedure as: "London won from Paris despite having a much worse IOC score and more precisely scoring poorly in the categories of transport, government support, legal issues and public opinion." If the point is to prove the IOC is an illogical or corrupt organization, then it certainly achives its goal but I hope you agree the facts are presented in a very mislaeading way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JGG (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 August 2006, please sign your posts.

Thanks for you interest in these articles - it's good to have somebody else come along and help. You are correct about the development article in that it needs more content - I have been busy with other projects and not able to update it recently (something I hope to fix soon). It should contain every major development, and I'm sorry if it comes across as being negative - that must just be what the announcements contained.
The bids articles need to be maintained as exactly that - an article about the bid. The 2004 report (note that it is highlighted as such) ought to be included because that was an important part of the bidding process. If there are further scores available (ie. during the final selection process) then they should be added to the template. I strongly believe that the articles should be a good historical account of the bids. The development article should contain any changes to that bid, and the venues article should always be correct.
If there is any further information you have about the bids, development, or anything like that then it would be great to add them to the article. I went through the official London bid documentation but found it far too excessive and only brought the key points into the articles.
I hope that answers your questions. violet/riga (t) 20:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


---> Before I spend any time on it and waste anybody else's time on reverting it, I'ld like to explain in more detail how I would improve it.

1. Delete the pargraph starting with "The celebrations were somewhat silenced the following day (7 July 2005) when the city suffered from a terrorist attack." Instead we should have a complete section on these terrorist attacks and the subsequent terrorist attempst in the "2012 Summer Olympic Development" article. There is more to say to these attacks than that they spoilt the fun of a celebration. They have an impact on the financials, the venues, some of the side-events, etc. In any case this paragraph has nothing to do with the subject of this article which is about the bid. It has a lot of relevancy for London 2012, but bringing it up in the article about the details of the bid is only possible if every other subsequent event that is relevant for London 2012 is mentioned here(and we alternate between past and present tense when describing the details of the bid), and for that reason I guess these is the "2012 Summer Olympic Development" article.

2. I would also move the following paragraph to the same article. I already tried to improve it a bit but it remains in the wrong section here.

3. The evaluation reports. Right now there is a reference to the initial evaluation report in the top right box (where it really does not below) and there is a summary of the final evaluation report at the end of the article. Firstly it is strange to have them in two different locations in the same article, secondly the average reader will not know that there are two reports and will be confused noticing the conflictual content (or worse, mislead if he does not read the full artcile), thirdly I think they belong in the article about the 2012 Summer Olympics bid process. Here you do have a section "bid evaluations", but which is still very much incomplete.

I think the problem in general is that there are quite a few articles about the different aspects of the 2012 Olympics and that they still overlap. Not necessarily a problem, if it weren't that a lot of it is conflictual. Also, the articles do not cross reference to each other is a systematic way. On the 2012 Summer Olympic Development article there is a good cross-link box in the right hand top, but nowhere else.JGG 12:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 22 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article unfinished building, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Another great idea for an article. Enjoyed the read. I wonder if Montreal's Olympic Stadium is an unfinished building? It's Canada's national architectural disaster: had a tower that was supposed to support a retractable roof, but the tower took > 10 years to build and the roof was never functionally installed. Will try to find out more. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine

Not that I don't trust you, but I've always heard everyone say "the Ukraine", and reading it without the "the" sounds a bit odd. I just wanna know why it's more correct without "the" ? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Name of Ukraine article fully covers it, but I know it touches on it. I've heard from some sources that Ukrainians can be offended by use of the definite article. Our Ukraine article doesn't use "the" so I think it's best to avoid it. violet/riga (t) 22:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I see... didn't know Ukrainians found it offensive... learn something new every day! Thanks! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs

[edit] Re: Pastoral care

Thanks for the correction. --Merovingian - Talk 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished work reverts

Hi. I contributed the Science and philosophy section to your excellent Unfinished work article. I noticed you made some modifications, which I pseudo-reverted, and which you then reverted again as mere "style changes." Presumably you don't like American spellings. I can deal with that; it's your article. But while I understand the spirit in which a different change is intended--that of maintaining an encyclopedic tone--I think to modify the part about the architecture described in the First Draft as influencing all modern computer systems to remove the word "all" misses the point being made. All modern computer systems use a heirarchy of memories; all modern computer systems store instructions as they do data. No computer was ever again built like the ENIAC. Every computer uses the architecture described in the First Draft. This is precisely what makes it the most influential document in computer science (another deserved superlative, which you wisely chose to retain). All the best, Robert K S 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comments about the article. The reason I changed from your US English spellings is that the article is written using British English, and our Manual of Style states that we maintain the same style throughout. As for the removal of "all", there have been several claims by various designers that they have created an architecture that is not based on Von Neumann. Indeed, out article on John von Neumann "used in almost all computers". I can't think of any specific examples, but I think it is safer to omit "all" and it doesn't take too much away from the strength of the sentence. violet/riga (t) 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. I disagree with the above (any hardware-based, completely non-von Neumann machines are curiosities or experiments, not computers used by people daily, though I cannot think of examples even of these), but the point may be moot. I've come to think that the First Draft doesn't qualify as an unfinished work, since it was largely completed as On the principles of large scale computing machines (1945) and Preliminary discussion of the logical design of an electronic computing instrument (1946). The First Draft was only unfinished as much as Kill Bill was unfinished. All the best, Robert K S 10:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I know what you're saying - I was perhaps being overcautious. It may well be worthy if inclusion even still, as it was unfinished when it made an impact. violet/riga (t) 12:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of British children's television

Hi and thanks for your comments on my drawing board suggestion. I start a user subpage to get down the basics before submitting it to the main article space. I would very much appreciate it, if you could make a small contribution to the article. I've listed a few ideas on the related talk page on what to include. If you have any more,please add to the list. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • He Man and Thundercats are American programs, while the article was intend to focus primarily on British programs (with a section on how much programs they import from elsewhere. Can you think of other example programs to use in that educational section. - Mgm|(talk) 20:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point. I'll have a think. violet/riga (t) 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Metamagician3000

Thanks, not that it really means much, considering he's sorta a little annoying bug always in the wrong. It's been a long time since I've seen you around...hope things have been going well since last we spoke (like 18 months ago). —ExplorerCDT 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolas de Gunzburg and User:D C McJonathan

Would you consider hopping in on this...I've referred it to RfC. —ExplorerCDT 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • RFC is here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/D C McJonathan —ExplorerCDT 16:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished work

Hi Violetriga, I just want you to know that I appreciate your comment on my talk page. I hope to work more on "Unfinished work" in the future. --Alex S 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fetus in Fetu

Hello.

I believe on the 17th of September, you added a description of "Fetus in Fetu" to the Parasitic twin page:

"Fetus in fetu describes an extremely rare abnormality that involves a fetus getting trapped inside of its twin. It continues to survive as a parasite even past birth until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene. Invariably the parasitic fetus is anencephalic (without a brain) and lacks internal organs, and as such is unable to survive on its own."

And from an ABC News article:

"A Mutated Body Within a Body

At first glance, it may look as if Bhagat had given birth. Actually, Mehta had removed the mutated body of Bhagat's twin brother from his stomach. Bhagat, they discovered, had one of the world's most bizarre medical conditions — fetus in fetu. It is an extremely rare abnormality that occurs when a fetus gets trapped inside its twin. The trapped fetus can survive as a parasite even past birth by forming an umbilical cordlike structure that leaches its twin's blood supply until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene."

The umbilical note was added here.

I thought this was all pretty interesting.

Cheers, --AquaRichy 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed very interesting - thanks for the pointer. violet/riga (t) 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been noted here [4]. As you can see, I mistakenly thought that others had written this paragraph (because of restorations from blanking), but another commentator on that blog correctly identified you as the author who was not attributed. --Douglas Jardine 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children's TV

I've slaved away and added to the controversy section again by discussing Grange Hill. I think we can discuss different types of programmes albeit briefly before we have to think about splitting stuff out. (I've started that with the controversy bit, I'd say!). I think we should cover Newsround too as it's an important part of children's tv, before they launched Sportsround and Newsround Extra, I don't remember any other programme covering news for kids in the UK. Can you?

Also, if we are gonna cover educational programmes for young kids: Bob the Builder, Teletubbies and such, is there any programme I didn't think of you'd like to see covered in such a section? - Mgm|(talk) 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the controversies - there are many more (Blue Peter [5], The Sooty Show#Controversy) but we don't want to swamp the article with that, so a future split may be worthwhile.
On the talk page (Dates section) there is Children's Newsreel that started in 1950, but I've never heard of that and we don't yet have an article.
There must be hundreds of kids educational programmes in the UK. Something Special, Dora the Explorer not a British prog, those by Johnny Ball... We could combine "educational" with "informative", thus include The Really Wild Show and the news programmes. violet/riga (t) 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional ideas. I will just continue and see whether we need to split when I'm done. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've struck out "oldest programme" from the to do list. For the Children is the oldest UK children's TV programme, because BBC had a monopoly at the time before ITV came onto the scene as covered in the 1950s source I used. No other channels could have qualified for an older programme and I remember this being called the oldest in Blue Peter too. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right - forgot to do that, sorry. violet/riga (t) 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin rollback

Hi, this was an innapropriate use of admin rollback. The other editor gave their reasoning in the edit summary and it was a good faith edit. Using rollback to revert that is abuse of the tool which is meant of vandalism only. Patience is the key, if it's supposed to be added back it will be. If not, improve it further and try again later. - Taxman Talk 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It was an inappropriate revert by him/her and highly rude. I understand that using the rollback function is also inappropriate, but I was in a rush and wanted to get it done. Not really an excuse, but I was rather annoyed by his/her actions. violet/riga (t) 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Having calmed now, I must apologise for the rollback, done in the heat of the moment quite inappropriately. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

A bit bulky, but otherwise great. I had a go with that before on another article and failed miserably in learning the syntax. I've seen it used on a JFK assasination article and I think it was nicely small-ified. If you can drop its size a few notches, it will definitely be a welcome addition. Also, the site I have listed under unused BBC sources has some nice timelines... - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Editor Review

Hi, Thanks for your comments. My reply can be found here WP:ER#User:Deon555. Thanks. --Deon555talkReview 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Unusual articles

Hi again violetriga,

...perhaps a more descriptive name for [this] page might help...?
No! That's like deciding to rename Buckingham Palace! It's a Wiki tradition.

Yikes!  Here's hoping the above is tongue-in-cheek, as my impression is that if Wikipedia has any unchanging traditions, it's that anything may be reconsidered in the light of experience, new information, fresh observation, etc... I'd say the cut and thrust over what appears on and what's removed from "Unusual articles" indicates that some folk find some articles' topics unusual, others quirky, others amusing, etc. Best wishes, David Kernow 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile phone throwing

This is gold!! Nice article! -- Samir धर्म 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's quite amusing, and actually becoming quite popular! violet/riga (t) 22:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 29 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mobile phone throwing, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Well, I guess, I just had to put it on the main page also. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 08:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian stereotypes

I would have preferred a little less boldness and more discussion before renaming. --Arktos talk 10:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion can continue, it's just that the title was plain wrong. violet/riga (t) 12:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 29 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article structure relocation, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|(talk) 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Here's a smile for your work on the History of British children's television (especially that timeline which I know I'd struggle with). Keep up the good work.

Mgm|(talk) 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. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Mgm|(talk) 07:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oo thanks! violet/riga (t) 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialect

I apologize; I recalled the Style Guide incorrectly. Out of curiousity, though, how would the article be considered a British topic? The majority of the examples are of Americans.--Daveswagon 17:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied. violet/riga (t) 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microphone gaffe

Great article from start, doesn't need stubs or references. I tinkered with categories. Electrawn 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! violet/riga (t) 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 1 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microphone gaffe, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Great article, enjoyed the read! -- Samir धर्म 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hahaha!

The Oddball Barnstar
I award Violetriga this barnstar for documenting microphone gaffes, mobile phone throwings and unfinished buildings! --Gurubrahma 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, the articles were a rollicking read!! You may be interested in having a look at Siamese twins (English language), titsup.com or Arbit Choudhury. --Gurubrahma 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it's great to get such a reward! I love it. violet/riga (t) 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bin bug

Updated DYK query On 4 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article bin bug, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Quite interesting. It's come up in municipal discussions in Canada also. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob de Gheyn III (painting)

Updated DYK query On 4 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacob de Gheyn III (painting), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the contribution -- Samir धर्म 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I just thought it'd be polite of me to drop by and say a word of thanks after helping myself to bits of your colour scheme and page layout without asking! Hope you don't mind; if it's too severe a case of plagiarism then I'll make some changes. Yeah, I know, I should spend more time reading articles instead of browsing user pages, but they're often just so interesting... :)
—Chris (blather • contribs) 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem at all - use as much of it as you want. Nice of you to let me know. violet/riga (t) 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK award

The DYK Medal
I, MacGyverMagic, hereby award you a DYK Medal for providing the "Did you know section" with so many excellent facts from odd-ball articles. Mgm|(talk) 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
MGM that's so nice! Thanks! DYK and WP:UA are certainly amongst my favourite places! violet/riga (t) 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When can we detect intrauterine pregnacey???

Can I ask why you don't believe you can tell a pregnancy at 5mm to be so??? As an obstetrical sonographer for 25 years I'm always surprised by the "knowledge" of the lay folks in medicine.

Anecdotally, I was able to tell that my wife was pregnant before she missed her first period !!! The generally accepted criteria for pregnancy is the documentation of embryonic cardiac activity and by TVS (transvaginal sonography) that is usually when the embryo is 11mm in length. I have seen 5-8mm echos that have turned out to be a baby and I've seen echoes that have turned out to be monozygotic twins, I've seen coexhistant intrauterine and ectopic pregnancies and I've seen 5mm echoes that were just the byproducts of conception. While the establisment of the intrauterine fluid sac alone may suggest pregnancy, and some echoes may turn out to be a baby, other diagnostic possibilities exhist, close examination by a reputable investagator is advisable IMHO. oh yeah... and I agree the bit about 5mmm is off the central point and I'd leave it out too.

Mark Lawson, RDMS Lubbock Texas Lawson2k@sbcglobal.net

[edit] unfinished work(s)

I'm sorry if you're offended, but I don't step back from my opinion about it. Please don't take it personally. Tony 11:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD notice on News by month categories

This is a courtesy notice that some categories that you have created have been placed up for deletion here. If you still have an interest in these categories, please come and give input, pro or con, to the discussion. - TexasAndroid 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Hi, Violetriga. I've asked a question on Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo that you may be able to answer. Hoping to solve the mystery! - Nunh-huh 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a real shame the sentence itself isn't factual, so the DYK blurb could have just been Did You Know...

Now that would have been the best thing ever. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That would've been brilliant, yeah! violet/riga (t) 15:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the above, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" isn't a complete, grammatically valid sentence until there is some form of punctuation (not sure which though...I'm buffaloed). Is there a policy against punctuation in the title of an article? Also, the first sentence of the article might need to be have the Buffalo line in quotations, and rearrange the sentence...because until there's a punctuation that first sentence of the article is more akin logically to the old warhorse: "This statement is false." —ExplorerCDT 16:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 17 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Is this a Buffalo buffalo?
Is this a Buffalo buffalo?
A water buffalo family
A water buffalo family

Have some buffalo for such a fabulous article! -- Samir धर्म 10:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think I've ever seen an article on DYK get so much attention/edits/expansion! But I don't want any cruel buffaloing here!  ;) violet/riga (t) 14:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Haha. Cheers on such a nice article. Enjoyed reading it. :) -- thunderboltz(Deepu) 15:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk about striking a nerve! Any article that gets AfD'd and GA'd in the same day must have something to it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My god! You unleashed a monster upon Wikipedia! My Peter and Jane was almost completely ignored! But at least someone saw fit to create Janet and John to keep it company. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

well...maybe not a monster, but you did unleash 8 buffalos atleast :) nice article. --hydkat 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable redirect

I'd like to know your reasons for thinking why, if someone typed in "animated feature", they'd be looking for a general article on what animation is rather than an article which explains what an animated feature is AND gives a list of them. Esn 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If animated film redirects to animation then animated feature should also. I think there should actually be a new article about animated films, which could easily be started off as a stub. violet/riga (t) 07:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
But "animated film" and "animated feature" are NOT the same thing! To quote WP:R, "We follow the "principle of least astonishment" — after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place." The point of a redirect should be so that the reader finds the information that he is looking for as quickly as possible. If a reader enters in "animated film", the animation page is the page that will answer his questions the quickest. If he enters in "animated feature", he is obviously looking for information on animated feature films, not just any animated films, and probably a list of them too. In that case, the List of animated feature films is much more appropriate. The "animation" page doesn't even describe what an animated feature film IS, and the only thing someone who is looking for that information could do is click on the "list of animated feature films" link at the bottom of the article. Isn't this terribly inefficient? Esn 21:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Advertising

PLoS Medicine has published several papers dealing with this topic. Here's one to start: What Are the Public Health Effects of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising? http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030145

You can also search for "advertising" and you will get a whole list of relevant articles.

Cheers.

Thanks for that! violet/riga (t) 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 21 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article stereotypes of animals, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Query

Hi. I noticed you unblocked User:217.33.74.20 the other day after my 3 hour block, with the comment "shared ip: block too long". I am fairly new to this and am sorry if I got it wrong. Given that this school IP has a long track record of vandalism (I have jsut given them another final warning for continued vandalism, which was how I saw your unblock), I wonder what length of block you would regard as appropriate, assuming another one needs to be done. Thanks. --Guinnog 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly we still don't have a system whereby established users can edit while people on that IP are blocked. That shared IP is Worcestershire-wide, used by several schools and libraries. Usually a block of about an hour is enough to stop most people (they quickly get disinterested) but others will keep coming back again and again. violet/riga (t) 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'll bear it in mind. Isn't that what the "anon users only" button does, or am I confused? --Guinnog 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It's supposed to, but doesn't seem to work too well. violet/riga (t) 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks a lot for the advice, and I may ask you for more in the future as I get the hang of this, if that's all right. --Guinnog 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Any time! violet/riga (t) 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished building

Hi, thanks for your edit on unfinshed buildings mentioned at the arch wikiproject. I think it's got potential. Unfortunately I've had to revert your edit on Enric Miralles because although it wasn't finished at his death - his passing did not stop construction and it's now open - so doesn't really fit the description you've given of an unfinished building (unfinished and not likely to be finished). Hope this is ok. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 23:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine - thanks for fixing my mistake! violet/riga (t) 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer of '42

I have addressed your concerns on the Summer of '42 FAC debate in re: citations and footnoting. I respectfully request that you reconsider your object vote now that the problem has been fixed.Mistergrind 20:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You've done a good job with the references. I'll take a detailed look soon. violet/riga (t) 20:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breastfeeding

Ah, okay. I just always thought it was 'labeled' because someone used 'labelled' in the Model Minority article and it was edited out. Plus, when you look it up on dictionary.com, 'labelled' doesn't exist. Why sigh, cutie pie? 21:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished buildings

You have Sagrada Familia already - the only other buildings I can think of are churches that just took a long time to finish: Washington National Cathedral took 83 years, the Cologne Cathedral took over 600. Chicago has had a LOT of proposed skyscrapers that were never built, like Frank Lloyd Wright's mile-high tower The Illinois, and a 2,000 foot tall broadcast tower proposal [6]. And doing a quick check, it would appear that at least two of Ludwig II of Bavaria's castles were left incompleted, including Neuschwanstein, probably the most famous. Oh, and I just found a page of unfinished buildings for the Dallas, Texas area: [7].

FLW's Mile high tower is a good example. Most of the work of the Russian Constructivists wasn't built, but was extremely influential to the Bauhaus and Deconstructivism. See also the work of the the Glass Chain and the Utopian German Expressionists, Hermann Finsterlin never had anything built. The work of most of the Deconstructivists was unbuilt until the late 1980's - see ChoraL Works, Libeskind's "Micromegas", Hadid's numerous projects, Rem Koolhaus's tabla rasa city planning exploits - put me in mind of various Corbusier projects such as Ville Radieuse, Ville Contemporaine, the Cartesian skyscraper.--Mcginnly | Natter 08:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I look into these later today. violet/riga (t) 08:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Also see - Tatlin's Tower, Lord Foster has been trying to find a client and site for his Millenium Tower and Japan for years.--Mcginnly | Natter 08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London 2012 Olympic Bid

Hi - We met on this site an hour ago. I just became an editor on Wikipedia so please accept my apologies if I do not yet fully understand all the procedures and rules. The reason I became an editor is that I was looking up something on the 2012 Olympics and I thought the articles were both very disorganised and you can almost feel a real battle running through every section. I never seen anything like it on Wikipedia. I am neither French or British, so I try to be neutral.

My understanding is that there is one single major thread, called the "2012 Summer Olympics". This has a number of sub-sections, eg London 2012 Olympic Bid, 2012 Summer Olympic Development, 2012 Summer Olympic Venues, etc...

Now, there are a number of problems with all of them, but let me start with "London 2012 Olympic Bid", where I have two main issues:

- Most of the section is written in the past tense, eg: "The 2012 Olympics were planned to use a mixture of newly built venues, existing facilities, and temporary facilities, some of them in well known locations such as Hyde Park and Horse Guards Parade. In the wake of the problems that plagued the Millennium Dome, the intention was that there would be no white elephants after the games." The past tense indicates that this was the bid and that current plans may be different, as a result of events since the bid was formally accepted by the IOC (6 JUly 2005). Until here I have no issue because for that reason there is the section called "2012 Summer Olympic Development". Where I do have an issue is that it does go on discussing a selective number of events following the acceptance of the bid by the IOC, but only negative ones. If one wanted to be consistent, one would have to expand on many more aspects of the bid. For instance, regarding the comment about the avoidance of white elephants above, one could expand and explain the changes that have been made to that aim and the positive reception by the IOC of these changes. Alternatively, one could limit this whole section to be a factual past tense description of the bid itself (up to the acceptance by the IOC), without divulging in any posterior events. These can be part of the other section "2012 Summer Olympic Development"

- The summary overview on the top right of the page has a section called "Decision". What does the 2004 IOC score (as part of the INITIAL IOC evaluation) have to do with this? Same goes for the comment below it. This is all output from the INITIAL evaluation (in which London fared badly) and not of the FINAL evaluation, which was much more positive on London. Anyway, the way it is posted here, will be read by anybody who is not fully familiar with the selection procedure as: "London won from Paris despite having a much worse IOC score and more precisely scoring poorly in the categories of transport, government support, legal issues and public opinion." If the point is to prove the IOC is an illogical or corrupt organization, then it certainly achives its goal but I hope you agree the facts are presented in a very mislaeading way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JGG (talk • contribs) 20:43, 22 August 2006, please sign your posts.

Thanks for you interest in these articles - it's good to have somebody else come along and help. You are correct about the development article in that it needs more content - I have been busy with other projects and not able to update it recently (something I hope to fix soon). It should contain every major development, and I'm sorry if it comes across as being negative - that must just be what the announcements contained.
The bids articles need to be maintained as exactly that - an article about the bid. The 2004 report (note that it is highlighted as such) ought to be included because that was an important part of the bidding process. If there are further scores available (ie. during the final selection process) then they should be added to the template. I strongly believe that the articles should be a good historical account of the bids. The development article should contain any changes to that bid, and the venues article should always be correct.
If there is any further information you have about the bids, development, or anything like that then it would be great to add them to the article. I went through the official London bid documentation but found it far too excessive and only brought the key points into the articles.
I hope that answers your questions. violet/riga (t) 20:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


---> Before I spend any time on it and waste anybody else's time on reverting it, I'ld like to explain in more detail how I would improve it.

1. Delete the pargraph starting with "The celebrations were somewhat silenced the following day (7 July 2005) when the city suffered from a terrorist attack." Instead we should have a complete section on these terrorist attacks and the subsequent terrorist attempst in the "2012 Summer Olympic Development" article. There is more to say to these attacks than that they spoilt the fun of a celebration. They have an impact on the financials, the venues, some of the side-events, etc. In any case this paragraph has nothing to do with the subject of this article which is about the bid. It has a lot of relevancy for London 2012, but bringing it up in the article about the details of the bid is only possible if every other subsequent event that is relevant for London 2012 is mentioned here(and we alternate between past and present tense when describing the details of the bid), and for that reason I guess these is the "2012 Summer Olympic Development" article.

2. I would also move the following paragraph to the same article. I already tried to improve it a bit but it remains in the wrong section here.

3. The evaluation reports. Right now there is a reference to the initial evaluation report in the top right box (where it really does not below) and there is a summary of the final evaluation report at the end of the article. Firstly it is strange to have them in two different locations in the same article, secondly the average reader will not know that there are two reports and will be confused noticing the conflictual content (or worse, mislead if he does not read the full artcile), thirdly I think they belong in the article about the 2012 Summer Olympics bid process. Here you do have a section "bid evaluations", but which is still very much incomplete.

I think the problem in general is that there are quite a few articles about the different aspects of the 2012 Olympics and that they still overlap. Not necessarily a problem, if it weren't that a lot of it is conflictual. Also, the articles do not cross reference to each other is a systematic way. On the 2012 Summer Olympic Development article there is a good cross-link box in the right hand top, but nowhere else.JGG 12:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 22 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article unfinished building, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Another great idea for an article. Enjoyed the read. I wonder if Montreal's Olympic Stadium is an unfinished building? It's Canada's national architectural disaster: had a tower that was supposed to support a retractable roof, but the tower took > 10 years to build and the roof was never functionally installed. Will try to find out more. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 22:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine

Not that I don't trust you, but I've always heard everyone say "the Ukraine", and reading it without the "the" sounds a bit odd. I just wanna know why it's more correct without "the" ? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Name of Ukraine article fully covers it, but I know it touches on it. I've heard from some sources that Ukrainians can be offended by use of the definite article. Our Ukraine article doesn't use "the" so I think it's best to avoid it. violet/riga (t) 22:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I see... didn't know Ukrainians found it offensive... learn something new every day! Thanks! -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs

[edit] Re: Pastoral care

Thanks for the correction. --Merovingian - Talk 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished work reverts

Hi. I contributed the Science and philosophy section to your excellent Unfinished work article. I noticed you made some modifications, which I pseudo-reverted, and which you then reverted again as mere "style changes." Presumably you don't like American spellings. I can deal with that; it's your article. But while I understand the spirit in which a different change is intended--that of maintaining an encyclopedic tone--I think to modify the part about the architecture described in the First Draft as influencing all modern computer systems to remove the word "all" misses the point being made. All modern computer systems use a heirarchy of memories; all modern computer systems store instructions as they do data. No computer was ever again built like the ENIAC. Every computer uses the architecture described in the First Draft. This is precisely what makes it the most influential document in computer science (another deserved superlative, which you wisely chose to retain). All the best, Robert K S 09:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive comments about the article. The reason I changed from your US English spellings is that the article is written using British English, and our Manual of Style states that we maintain the same style throughout. As for the removal of "all", there have been several claims by various designers that they have created an architecture that is not based on Von Neumann. Indeed, out article on John von Neumann "used in almost all computers". I can't think of any specific examples, but I think it is safer to omit "all" and it doesn't take too much away from the strength of the sentence. violet/riga (t) 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. I disagree with the above (any hardware-based, completely non-von Neumann machines are curiosities or experiments, not computers used by people daily, though I cannot think of examples even of these), but the point may be moot. I've come to think that the First Draft doesn't qualify as an unfinished work, since it was largely completed as On the principles of large scale computing machines (1945) and Preliminary discussion of the logical design of an electronic computing instrument (1946). The First Draft was only unfinished as much as Kill Bill was unfinished. All the best, Robert K S 10:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I know what you're saying - I was perhaps being overcautious. It may well be worthy if inclusion even still, as it was unfinished when it made an impact. violet/riga (t) 12:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of British children's television

Hi and thanks for your comments on my drawing board suggestion. I start a user subpage to get down the basics before submitting it to the main article space. I would very much appreciate it, if you could make a small contribution to the article. I've listed a few ideas on the related talk page on what to include. If you have any more,please add to the list. - Mgm|(talk) 12:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • He Man and Thundercats are American programs, while the article was intend to focus primarily on British programs (with a section on how much programs they import from elsewhere. Can you think of other example programs to use in that educational section. - Mgm|(talk) 20:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point. I'll have a think. violet/riga (t) 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Metamagician3000

Thanks, not that it really means much, considering he's sorta a little annoying bug always in the wrong. It's been a long time since I've seen you around...hope things have been going well since last we spoke (like 18 months ago). —ExplorerCDT 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicolas de Gunzburg and User:D C McJonathan

Would you consider hopping in on this...I've referred it to RfC. —ExplorerCDT 16:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • RFC is here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/D C McJonathan —ExplorerCDT 16:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished work

Hi Violetriga, I just want you to know that I appreciate your comment on my talk page. I hope to work more on "Unfinished work" in the future. --Alex S 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fetus in Fetu

Hello.

I believe on the 17th of September, you added a description of "Fetus in Fetu" to the Parasitic twin page:

"Fetus in fetu describes an extremely rare abnormality that involves a fetus getting trapped inside of its twin. It continues to survive as a parasite even past birth until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene. Invariably the parasitic fetus is anencephalic (without a brain) and lacks internal organs, and as such is unable to survive on its own."

And from an ABC News article:

"A Mutated Body Within a Body

At first glance, it may look as if Bhagat had given birth. Actually, Mehta had removed the mutated body of Bhagat's twin brother from his stomach. Bhagat, they discovered, had one of the world's most bizarre medical conditions — fetus in fetu. It is an extremely rare abnormality that occurs when a fetus gets trapped inside its twin. The trapped fetus can survive as a parasite even past birth by forming an umbilical cordlike structure that leaches its twin's blood supply until it grows so large that it starts to harm the host, at which point doctors usually intervene."

The umbilical note was added here.

I thought this was all pretty interesting.

Cheers, --AquaRichy 18:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed very interesting - thanks for the pointer. violet/riga (t) 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been noted here [8]. As you can see, I mistakenly thought that others had written this paragraph (because of restorations from blanking), but another commentator on that blog correctly identified you as the author who was not attributed. --Douglas Jardine 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children's TV

I've slaved away and added to the controversy section again by discussing Grange Hill. I think we can discuss different types of programmes albeit briefly before we have to think about splitting stuff out. (I've started that with the controversy bit, I'd say!). I think we should cover Newsround too as it's an important part of children's tv, before they launched Sportsround and Newsround Extra, I don't remember any other programme covering news for kids in the UK. Can you?

Also, if we are gonna cover educational programmes for young kids: Bob the Builder, Teletubbies and such, is there any programme I didn't think of you'd like to see covered in such a section? - Mgm|(talk) 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the controversies - there are many more (Blue Peter [9], The Sooty Show#Controversy) but we don't want to swamp the article with that, so a future split may be worthwhile.
On the talk page (Dates section) there is Children's Newsreel that started in 1950, but I've never heard of that and we don't yet have an article.
There must be hundreds of kids educational programmes in the UK. Something Special, Dora the Explorer not a British prog, those by Johnny Ball... We could combine "educational" with "informative", thus include The Really Wild Show and the news programmes. violet/riga (t) 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional ideas. I will just continue and see whether we need to split when I'm done. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've struck out "oldest programme" from the to do list. For the Children is the oldest UK children's TV programme, because BBC had a monopoly at the time before ITV came onto the scene as covered in the 1950s source I used. No other channels could have qualified for an older programme and I remember this being called the oldest in Blue Peter too. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right - forgot to do that, sorry. violet/riga (t) 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin rollback

Hi, this was an innapropriate use of admin rollback. The other editor gave their reasoning in the edit summary and it was a good faith edit. Using rollback to revert that is abuse of the tool which is meant of vandalism only. Patience is the key, if it's supposed to be added back it will be. If not, improve it further and try again later. - Taxman Talk 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It was an inappropriate revert by him/her and highly rude. I understand that using the rollback function is also inappropriate, but I was in a rush and wanted to get it done. Not really an excuse, but I was rather annoyed by his/her actions. violet/riga (t) 16:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Having calmed now, I must apologise for the rollback, done in the heat of the moment quite inappropriately. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

A bit bulky, but otherwise great. I had a go with that before on another article and failed miserably in learning the syntax. I've seen it used on a JFK assasination article and I think it was nicely small-ified. If you can drop its size a few notches, it will definitely be a welcome addition. Also, the site I have listed under unused BBC sources has some nice timelines... - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Editor Review

Hi, Thanks for your comments. My reply can be found here WP:ER#User:Deon555. Thanks. --Deon555talkReview 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Unusual articles

Hi again violetriga,

...perhaps a more descriptive name for [this] page might help...?
No! That's like deciding to rename Buckingham Palace! It's a Wiki tradition.

Yikes!  Here's hoping the above is tongue-in-cheek, as my impression is that if Wikipedia has any unchanging traditions, it's that anything may be reconsidered in the light of experience, new information, fresh observation, etc... I'd say the cut and thrust over what appears on and what's removed from "Unusual articles" indicates that some folk find some articles' topics unusual, others quirky, others amusing, etc. Best wishes, David Kernow 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile phone throwing

This is gold!! Nice article! -- Samir धर्म 22:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It's quite amusing, and actually becoming quite popular! violet/riga (t) 22:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 29 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mobile phone throwing, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Well, I guess, I just had to put it on the main page also. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 08:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asian stereotypes

I would have preferred a little less boldness and more discussion before renaming. --Arktos talk 10:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion can continue, it's just that the title was plain wrong. violet/riga (t) 12:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 29 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article structure relocation, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|(talk) 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

Here's a smile for your work on the History of British children's television (especially that timeline which I know I'd struggle with). Keep up the good work.

Mgm|(talk) 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. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Mgm|(talk) 07:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oo thanks! violet/riga (t) 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dialect

I apologize; I recalled the Style Guide incorrectly. Out of curiousity, though, how would the article be considered a British topic? The majority of the examples are of Americans.--Daveswagon 17:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied. violet/riga (t) 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microphone gaffe

Great article from start, doesn't need stubs or references. I tinkered with categories. Electrawn 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! violet/riga (t) 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Updated DYK query On 1 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microphone gaffe, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Great article, enjoyed the read! -- Samir धर्म 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hahaha!

The Oddball Barnstar
I award Violetriga this barnstar for documenting microphone gaffes, mobile phone throwings and unfinished buildings! --Gurubrahma 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, the articles were a rollicking read!! You may be interested in having a look at Siamese twins (English language), titsup.com or Arbit Choudhury. --Gurubrahma 07:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it's great to get such a reward! I love it. violet/riga (t) 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bin bug

Updated DYK query On 4 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article bin bug, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Quite interesting. It's come up in municipal discussions in Canada also. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 04:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob de Gheyn III (painting)

Updated DYK query On 4 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacob de Gheyn III (painting), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the contribution -- Samir धर्म 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I just thought it'd be polite of me to drop by and say a word of thanks after helping myself to bits of your colour scheme and page layout without asking! Hope you don't mind; if it's too severe a case of plagiarism then I'll make some changes. Yeah, I know, I should spend more time reading articles instead of browsing user pages, but they're often just so interesting... :)
—Chris (blather • contribs) 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem at all - use as much of it as you want. Nice of you to let me know. violet/riga (t) 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK award

The DYK Medal
I, MacGyverMagic, hereby award you a DYK Medal for providing the "Did you know section" with so many excellent facts from odd-ball articles. Mgm|(talk) 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
MGM that's so nice! Thanks! DYK and WP:UA are certainly amongst my favourite places! violet/riga (t) 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When can we detect intrauterine pregnacey???

Can I ask why you don't believe you can tell a pregnancy at 5mm to be so??? As an obstetrical sonographer for 25 years I'm always surprised by the "knowledge" of the lay folks in medicine.

Anecdotally, I was able to tell that my wife was pregnant before she missed her first period !!! The generally accepted criteria for pregnancy is the documentation of embryonic cardiac activity and by TVS (transvaginal sonography) that is usually when the embryo is 11mm in length. I have seen 5-8mm echos that have turned out to be a baby and I've seen echoes that have turned out to be monozygotic twins, I've seen coexhistant intrauterine and ectopic pregnancies and I've seen 5mm echoes that were just the byproducts of conception. While the establisment of the intrauterine fluid sac alone may suggest pregnancy, and some echoes may turn out to be a baby, other diagnostic possibilities exhist, close examination by a reputable investagator is advisable IMHO. oh yeah... and I agree the bit about 5mmm is off the central point and I'd leave it out too.

Mark Lawson, RDMS Lubbock Texas Lawson2k@sbcglobal.net

[edit] unfinished work(s)

I'm sorry if you're offended, but I don't step back from my opinion about it. Please don't take it personally. Tony 11:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CFD notice on News by month categories

This is a courtesy notice that some categories that you have created have been placed up for deletion here. If you still have an interest in these categories, please come and give input, pro or con, to the discussion. - TexasAndroid 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Hi, Violetriga. I've asked a question on Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo that you may be able to answer. Hoping to solve the mystery! - Nunh-huh 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a real shame the sentence itself isn't factual, so the DYK blurb could have just been Did You Know...

Now that would have been the best thing ever. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That would've been brilliant, yeah! violet/riga (t) 15:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the above, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" isn't a complete, grammatically valid sentence until there is some form of punctuation (not sure which though...I'm buffaloed). Is there a policy against punctuation in the title of an article? Also, the first sentence of the article might need to be have the Buffalo line in quotations, and rearrange the sentence...because until there's a punctuation that first sentence of the article is more akin logically to the old warhorse: "This statement is false." —ExplorerCDT 16:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 17 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Is this a Buffalo buffalo?
Is this a Buffalo buffalo?
A water buffalo family
A water buffalo family

Have some buffalo for such a fabulous article! -- Samir धर्म 10:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think I've ever seen an article on DYK get so much attention/edits/expansion! But I don't want any cruel buffaloing here!  ;) violet/riga (t) 14:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Haha. Cheers on such a nice article. Enjoyed reading it. :) -- thunderboltz(Deepu) 15:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk about striking a nerve! Any article that gets AfD'd and GA'd in the same day must have something to it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My god! You unleashed a monster upon Wikipedia! My Peter and Jane was almost completely ignored! But at least someone saw fit to create Janet and John to keep it company. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

well...maybe not a monster, but you did unleash 8 buffalos atleast :) nice article. --hydkat 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable redirect

I'd like to know your reasons for thinking why, if someone typed in "animated feature", they'd be looking for a general article on what animation is rather than an article which explains what an animated feature is AND gives a list of them. Esn 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If animated film redirects to animation then animated feature should also. I think there should actually be a new article about animated films, which could easily be started off as a stub. violet/riga (t) 07:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
But "animated film" and "animated feature" are NOT the same thing! To quote WP:R, "We follow the "principle of least astonishment" — after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place." The point of a redirect should be so that the reader finds the information that he is looking for as quickly as possible. If a reader enters in "animated film", the animation page is the page that will answer his questions the quickest. If he enters in "animated feature", he is obviously looking for information on animated feature films, not just any animated films, and probably a list of them too. In that case, the List of animated feature films is much more appropriate. The "animation" page doesn't even describe what an animated feature film IS, and the only thing someone who is looking for that information could do is click on the "list of animated feature films" link at the bottom of the article. Isn't this terribly inefficient? Esn 21:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical Advertising

PLoS Medicine has published several papers dealing with this topic. Here's one to start: What Are the Public Health Effects of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising? http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030145

You can also search for "advertising" and you will get a whole list of relevant articles.

Cheers.

Thanks for that! violet/riga (t) 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 21 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article stereotypes of animals, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Query

Hi. I noticed you unblocked User:217.33.74.20 the other day after my 3 hour block, with the comment "shared ip: block too long". I am fairly new to this and am sorry if I got it wrong. Given that this school IP has a long track record of vandalism (I have jsut given them another final warning for continued vandalism, which was how I saw your unblock), I wonder what length of block you would regard as appropriate, assuming another one needs to be done. Thanks. --Guinnog 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly we still don't have a system whereby established users can edit while people on that IP are blocked. That shared IP is Worcestershire-wide, used by several schools and libraries. Usually a block of about an hour is enough to stop most people (they quickly get disinterested) but others will keep coming back again and again. violet/riga (t) 16:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'll bear it in mind. Isn't that what the "anon users only" button does, or am I confused? --Guinnog 16:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It's supposed to, but doesn't seem to work too well. violet/riga (t) 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks a lot for the advice, and I may ask you for more in the future as I get the hang of this, if that's all right. --Guinnog 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogurt/Yoghurt

This notice is to inform you that there is a new discussion open on the Yogurt/Yoghurt debate. Please visit Talk:Yogurt#Requested move revisited and consider participating. Thank you. —Mets501 (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)

Howdy, I've overhauled Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) based on a 2nd round of feedback. Possibly it's complete and ready now?

The only thing I forsee as being potentially contentious is the chronological ordering of filmographies, but I still suspect (hope) a supermajority will quickly emerge, once put to wider discussion, favouring consistency and traditional listing standards.

Feedback (at it's talkpage) or improvements welcome :-) --Quiddity 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a good vacation, see you when ya return :) (Just thinking of you after seeing a new submission for article-template standardisation: User:Flamurai/TS/blanca. Very attractive (imo) :) --Quiddity 09:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your speedy delete of "scut"

FYI, that article wasn't a neologism, although it was probably a dicdef. [10], [11], Residency_(medicine)#History_of_long_hours

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/i/o/User_talk%7EVioletriga_archive9_0c02.html"