User talk:Chris the speller/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

CorHomo

Hey - I noticed you made some comments regarding CorHomo and it's current bugs. Do you have any idea how to correct the current issues or is the program pretty much useless? Thanks, PaddyM 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome - found the right version and it works. Thanks for the help. Cheers, PaddyM 18:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Flanigan

I notice that you made the interesting suggestion that Flanigan is an article not a DMB page. I would ask, how does it differ from its partner pages Flanagan and Flannigan?

I can see that there is an article to be written on this surname, but this is not it. If you wish to create a historical article on the history, background, etymology, and connections of this name I should be happy to support you. TerriersFan (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK; thanks for the explanation. Carry on and do what you think is best with all three. You plainly know what you are doing, and know the subject better than I do, so I'll leave it to you. TerriersFan (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Invisible Barnstar
Almost no-one gives recognition for the "invisible" dab work, but you deserve it. – sgeureka t•c 07:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite your "bragging" at WT:MOSDAB. ;-) – sgeureka t•c 07:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Surnames

I am working at subcategorizing, and thereby emptying the page. Today I noticed that the page was suddenly filled up with redirects. I have no idea how that happened, because the specific redirects pages have not been edited. Someone must have programmed the "redirect from surname" tag to go into Category:Surnames. Do you know if anything can be done about this? --Brewcrewer (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • You're probably right, but there should be a way of subcategorizing them. I'll get in touch with him. --Brewcrewer (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Reversions

sup with the reversions? — Rickyrab | Talk 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Samson

I was adding references to the Samson article so why did you revert my changes--Java7837 (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I'd like to nominate you as an admin, as I think you're qualified. Let me know if you're interested. Epbr123 12:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would support if I would happen to notice your nom at RfA. You seem like you're everywhere. Royalbroil 05:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. I thought about it for a long time because of that very reason before I decided to accept the nom. It's hard to give people the opportunity to throw stones at you too. I wouldn't have accepted if there wouldn't be the regular need to have people update the DYK section. It's not like you have to use the tools a lot even if you have them. You don't need to display it either. In any case, you now know for certain that several people in the community support your efforts at a high level. That's a nice reward if you never decide to run! Royalbroil 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Geothermal power in Iceland: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Jauerback (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit to my talk page....

I did make an edit on the Abarat page, but it was to replace something someone had vadalised with the original text of the page. It seems that you thought I was the one who had done the vandalism (there was an edit conflict when I replaced the text) and sent me that message. So, I'm not the vandaliser as your message seems to imply. LoganTheGeshrat 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, it seems that in the confusion of the edit conflict, I had ended up erasing what I meant to put on the page, so your edit to my talk page was actually completely accurate. Sorry for the confusion. LoganTheGeshrat 18:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheGeshrat (talk • contribs)

Human name disambiguation

It took me long to message you (didn't think it was important at the time), but why have you removed the {{hndis}} templates from some pages only containing links to articles about humans? This is exactly what hndis is supposed to do. To quote its documentation:

“ This template is designed for use on disambiguation pages which only contain links to articles for people having the same name. ”

I'm stumped as to why you removed this template, for example from Delahunt. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just realized that there was a proper template for this, {{surname}}. However, in that case I'm stumped as to why another editor transformed the template into {{surname-stub}} at Delahunt, which is not a relevant template, considering it's still a type of disambiguation page (which shouldn't therefore have a stub tag). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning?

Why do you think my edit to Anna Eshoo is vandalism? Are you familiar with the Manual of Style? MilesAgain (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured it must have been something like that. Thanks for letting me know. :) MilesAgain (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

John Bellamy - disambiguation

Hi Chris you seem to be one of the experts on disambiguation. Could the link to John Dillard Bellamy and John Haley Bellamy from John Bellamy be improved? Can I leave it to you as I am unsure? Hutchinson50 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Name/dab separation

Could you, please, comment at Talk:Vvedensky? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your assistance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you?

Chris my friend, something totally unexpected happened to me this year, but instead of telling you, I want you to see for yourself, check out the resolution section here: Press Releases. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That's the funny thing, I didn't have to go to Puerto Rico. There was this convention of Congressmen and Senators where I live and they traveled over here. When I received an e-mail that the President of the Puerto Rican Senate wanted to meet me, I went alone. I had no idea that I was going to be honored and introduced to the Senators and and Congressmen from other states. Get this, to my surprise, they all knew about me, man it was really weird. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking years

Please see the discussion on the talk page of WP:DATE, section "Dates of birth and death". Also see WP:CONTEXT. I advise against linking every year, especially recent years, unless you can think of a way that the link will be likely to deepen a reader's understanding. Just linking because some years are linked in the examples in WP:DATE is probably not a good idea (although it's a better excuse than linking a year just to make it appear blue, and I've seen lots of that). There is probably more understanding to be gained by following a year link in a article about a famous person of ancient history than by following a year link in a article about a recent person who is not tied to major events. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the discussion on WP:DATE; how silly it all is. I'm going to politely decline your advice for three reasons. 1. It's not backed up by current policy at the moment 2. I like uniformity, and since there's no disagreement that years with dates should be linked, it seems to make sense that a more uniform approach would be to link the year 3. If most people are like me, and I suspect that they are from the wide variety of people that I have met who agree with me on this, then large blocks and chunks of black text are as unattractive as overlinked texts. Linking a year "just to make it appear blue" is more important than you would think. I think a lot of people are more concerned with Wikipedia editors than Wikipedia readers to be honest. I've seen a lot of the attitude of "well it doesn't matter how the dates are formatted, your user preferences can adapt to your preferred style!" forgetting that the average reader doesn't have user preferences. This, I feel, is another part of the problem, along with WP:FLAG. Logical arguments on why we shouldn't have flags and shouldn't link dates are all very well and good, and believe me, there's nothing wrong with your logic or the one on WP:FLAG, but I think it works against the spirit of Wikipedia. We're creating an encyclopedia for readers, not us, though we do take on the role of the reader of course. People having reading difficulties, people having seeing difficulties, words sometime blend, brackets are missed, confusion arises etc. Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but if it comes to linking one year or adding one flag that would make the difference between "huge block of text" and "readable," then I'm going to link the year and I'm going to add the flag. The top two complaints about Wikipedia are its accuracy and quality of writing. Readability (proper format) is a third. Whether or not single dates are linked is probably a distant 907th. The time and effort I put into this could have been spent formatting pages correctly, assessing articles, tagging what needs to be improved, working on templates, reviewing articles or maybe writing my own. Instead, I have to discuss why I think four bytes of text should be added to an article and I have to do it in the face of logic that forgot that people aren't logical. Please do not post regarding this issue on my talk page any further, unless you've come to inform me that the policy has changed. Cheers, CP 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to start a fight, I just wanted you to be aware of WP guidelines. You seem to be aware of them, but think that WP:DATE mandates linking all years. I completely disagree (some examples of birth and death dates are not linked), but there is no reason to be hostile. Your "four bytes of text" were a partial reversion of an informed cleanup job done by a competent and well-meaning editor. If "Whether or not single dates are linked" is so unimportant to you, the article might have been better left alone. Since you seem to make a point of ignoring the guidelines in this matter, I agree that we have nothing more useful to say about it. Chris the speller (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. I didn't realize it was important. According to WP:DATE, it is not even necessary to use "born" (e.g. At the start of an article on a person, his or her dates of birth and death are provided. For example: "Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was a British ...").

Yours, Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you and yours. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi Chris old buddy,

I wondering if you could look over my latest work for prose and spelling. It can be found here: User:Marine 69-71/Workshop. Also, tell me what you honestly think of it. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Riverside Shakespeare Company

Thanks, Chris, for the corrections, and for othe things.Weimar03 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Chris, for your corrections. Weimar03 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Weimar03

About user pages

…chris the speller can you actually have a page just for chris the speller or is it a preference for one to just stay with a user talk or user page till next 4:46 p.m.David George DeLancey (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it depends on the punctuation. Chris the speller (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Manse (disambiguation)

You redirected Manse (disambiguation) to Manse. This caused the loss of the nickname "Manse" for Tampere, which has been in use for over half a century. I recently added a note about it to the Manse article. JIP | Talk 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

HELP!

Could use some help here. Could you block this guy? His IP is 71.174.233.226

Thanx! --HPJoker Leave me a message 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One request

Could you please make sure I am not copy writing or editing before you start spell checking? I allmost lost a large chink of copy on two occasions todqy in th same article due to edit conflicts. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To reduce the frequency, try adding {{inuse}} at the top of the article before undertaking major changes. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely use that. (-: Jonyungk (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From These Wounds

Thanks for that spelling correction on that page. I have one question, though. How did you come across that page so soon after it was made? I literally made it five minutes before you edited it.

BTC 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That thing looks awesome that you told me about. I'm going to check it out right after I'm done typing this message. BTC 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting spelling and grammer checking

Good day sir , can you please check and correct the spelling and grammer on This page ?  A M M A R  07:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir, really thanks. I'll need your help again and again later if you don't mind. ok ?  A M M A R  17:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of DAYBREAKERS (music)

A tag has been placed on DAYBREAKERS (music) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 16:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aspidistra (transmitter)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Aspidistra (transmitter), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fabulous. It wasn't my article. Just bot out. ;-) Chris the speller (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)