User talk:84.20.17.84

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear 84.20.17.84: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!

Belated hello from dave souza, talk 11:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2006

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Addhoc 12:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 2006

Re: Talk:John Bosco Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --evrik 14:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 18:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Revert in headbutt

Thanks for the reminder, I happened to have finished my work by then. As it is, if you look at the talk page, you can see that it's a fairly controversial subject. If you want to add the image back in, I'd suggest taking it to the talk page first. I probably should have provided a better edit summary, but I didn't say that your edit was vandalism. Regards. --digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 04:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rads

Thanks for adding the "In fiction" section to Radicals (UK), I like the connection. I've made minor modifications and added the same section to Radicalism (historical) which you may find gives interesting details. Not least the Radical War of 1820 – so many possibilities for alternative histories! .. dave souza, talk 11:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Poor Man's Bible

Thanks for the info re the Museum where the of statue of St James is located.

Your reformatting, however, was a stuff-up of a carefully constructed page in which the pics illustrate the material.

  • Firstly, when you moved the stained glass left, the info which was in point form all ran together. You cannot just move a pic to the left and maintain the list intact. You must check really carefully to make sure you haven't created that sort of mess every single time you change formatting. Believe me, there's a lot of people arrogant enough to think their changes are great, without looking to see what they've done.
  • The topic, for which the stained glass picture and the list were both the illustration, ended up with the Santiago pic which was of no relevance to the topic, which concerned "cross referencing"..
  • The tall pic was arranged so that it spread over both the relevant discussion and the example. Once, moved, this was lost.
  • Santiago was removed from the topic that he was illustrating, the "Apostolic succession". If you read the page, and I presume you did, you must have realised that the illustrations were related directly. At least, they were in the right order, give or take some vertical movement depending on the size of your screen.
  • About Headings:- if you have a Table of Contents which threatens to run off the page, a way to reduce its length is to make all the minor headings Bold. Then they simply don't register in the TOC. The two that you changed were not sub headings or even sub sub headings. Both of them were Examples under the subheading above them. Neither added a topic or required listing in the TOC. They both simply expanded by example the content of the leading paragraph, which was "Cross Referencing".

--Amandajm 04:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesoamerican articles

Hi there 84.20.17.84. I've noted your interest and useful comments on several Mesoamerica-related topics, it seems you have some knowledge of the subject. It's entirely up to you, but you may want to consider obtaining a username and registering an account here- there are a number of benefits, it makes it a little easier to engage in dialogue, and (if you have a dynamic or shared ip) you avoid getting pinged by messages intended for others. It doesn't matter how frequently or infrequently you use it.

You might be interested to look over WikiProject Mesoamerica, where some of us here with an interest in the general subject area try to coordinate some improvements and discuss various issues. Again, it's just an option you might wish to consider- in any event, thanks for your contribs and see you around on some article someplace. Kind regards,--cjllw | TALK 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idris

Why the obsession with inserting a link to the Idris disambiguation page in the Idris operating system page? AlistairMcMillan 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. If you find out what the Idris OS was named after, then by all means point to that (with a cited source). But you can't just point to the Idris disambig page and say "I'm pretty sure it was named after one of these things". What if the creator named it after something that isn't on the disambig page? AlistairMcMillan 16:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigfoot picture

I hope this reaches the right person. If you are the artist I wanted to let you know that I put your picture of Bigfoot as the main one on his article. So get ready for your 15 minutes of fame. :-) Steve Dufour 12:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spolia

Hello, please don't remove large portions of text without discussion, as you did on Spolia. This is considered to be Vandalism, and I'll report it as such if it happens again. --Javits2000 08:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malakh

Suggest providing a source for the cognates you identified and discussing in the article text rather than just in the "see also" For non-obvious situations, the link is justifiable if a sourced basis can be provided and explained. Note that in the Malik and Moloch articles, (a) cognates are discussed and sourced in the text, and (b) a relationship with Malakh (as angel) isn't discussed in either. It is not uncommon for one orthographic root to have two semantic forms which are not considered related and may have separate origins and be spelled the same by coincidence. Any standard dictionary or lexicon of Biblical hebrew that discusses cognates in other Semitic languages would be acceptable as a source. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! This article is on Malakh as an angel or supernatural entity. Content about the authorship of the Book of Malachi belong in that article and I'm transferring the material there (can also go in the Malakhi article.) I also toned the claim that it has been established "almost conclusively" that Malachi is not a proper noun. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy generally prohibits endorsing a particular source in the presence of a dispute. If a particular individual says this, it would be appropriate to provide this as a direct quote if the individual who says this is identified and sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranch

FYI, you may not want to make many more edits to ranch, your interest seems to be the charro, for which there is a separate article. Also see cowboy and vaquero. The article ranch is about the landholdings, NOT the cattlemen or cowboys/charros/vaqueros, if that distinction makes sense. The article would maybe benefit from a well-written bit of info explaining what was a "Hacienda" versus a estancia, versus a ranchero, etc...or maybe we need separate articles, keeping ranch focused mostly on the US and Canada...but anyway, wanted to let you know there are other articles out there that may need your help more than "ranch" does. Montanabw(talk) 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

That's much nicer. --Jtir (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)