User talk:Dar-Ape/Archive 1

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.
 Talk Archives

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 08:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Queen articles

The reason I'm creating all the individual pages for songs (from The Works and other albums) is because I want to remove as many red links on the Queen Discography page. Many Queen song pages are like this. (See Sleeping On The Sidewalk and Fight From The Inside from News of the World). - Zone46 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely understand wanting to get rid of red links, however, solutions other than new page creation are worth considering. Firstly, if only a few sentences are known about a song, I don't think it really deserves its own page. Rather, if a song is part of an album, information can be included in the album article (as it is in a section of The Works). The Links on the discography page can then link to that section. The same goes for singles-- if they did not do well in the charts and almost nothing is really known about them, they may not deserve their own page. Also keep in mind that you can always return a link to plaintext if it does not link to an article, is not likely to do so soon, and is not aesthetically pleasing. Finally, the articles you cited are questionable, but get some credit (at least in my mind) by the fact that they have a detailed infobox. Dar-Ape 23:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I'm suggesting they be merged into their album article, as they have experienced minimal content growth in almost two months.Dar-Ape 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea (linking to a section). The extra info I wrote on the individual articles I just got from the main album article anyway. - Zone46 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Splendid. Dar-Ape 02:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Re: Vandalism

I took off the warning --Bearly541 23:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Blocking 69.234.151.44

Sure, no problem, glad I could help. Keep up the good work in fighting the vandals, and hopefully I will be able to fulfill more WP:AIV requests of yours in the future. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

colosseum

If You look to the other languages ( Italian, German, Dutch) you find numbers beetween 45 000 to 50 000 spectators. Thanks for the contact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.32.133.125 (talk • contribs) .

Image copyright problem with Image:Unknown_song.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Unknown_song.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Goldom's RFA thanks

Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (53/2/1). I've spent the day trying out the new tools, and trying not to mess things up too badly :). I was quite thrilled with all the support, both from the people I see around every day, as well as many users who I didn't know from before, yet wrote such wonderful things about me. I look forward to helping to serve all of you, and the project. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Popo

you obviously meant that message for someone else not me thanks Yuckfoo 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:80.141.19.4

Hi, would you mind changing your warning to 80.141.19.4 to a TPV4 please. I'd already given him a 1 and 3. He's almost certainly going to continue with his racist attacks and this will make it quicker to block him. Cheers muchly Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Request

You're right that that page seems to be a user just using the space for their own stuff, and they haven't made any other contributions to Wiki. The appropriate steps would probably be to let the user know on their talk page not to do so, (though as most of the revisions are from similar but changing IPs, he may not see it, but it's worth a try), and if you wanted to request deletion, the place would be WP:MfD. It would most probably pass to be deleted, but that page does say you should let users know before requesting their user pages be deleted. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 02:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Food for thought 2990784

Listening a little closer to the editing instructions I've discovered that not the email carrier included I've used one of several estranged email accounts. I, almost found the space reading to convict me to replace the user page, for abusing alternative security updating passwords if and when the system allows. Do you understand my Question, kinda sort of smile back to improve personal contribution skills. Signed Devona/~/ 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Results of 'my contributions'

[Listening a little closer to the editing instructions I've discovered that not the email carrier included I've used one of several estranged email accounts. I, almost found the space reading to convict me to replace the user page, for abusing alternative security updating passwords if and when the system allows. Do you understand my Question, kinda sort of smile back to improve personal contribution skills.](paste)

First things first 'Encyclopedia' is verifying information around the world? Editing is a profession? Stumbling across the page as a guest I am guilty of personal use, only now it is important that I be corrected for further user-ship. The 'Sign In' options are generally always easy; terms and conditions go unread at will. So 'once again' the question is [devona.westhaven_asboro33] signifies personal meaning under an email account with 'yahoo' reading 'Wikipedia' sign in authentic opportunity did I read only after the fact. Should I change the implied instructions.

Another contribution 'blog' once talk page messages are responded to my instinct is for Editorial deletion. Would you agree?



                                                            ~/ 14:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nishkid64's RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


DYK

Updated DYK query On 26 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Outrage! (game), 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.


My edit to Help Desk

ouch! Thanks for bringing this up to my attention. I wanted to write an answer and went to click the 'edit' button for the section, only there was no such button, I reloaded the page, still no section 'edit' button, so I had to edit the whole page to insert my answer, which I did and saved. In retrospect, it looks like I have been editing a previous version of the page hence why I was missing the section edit buttons. Dumb mistake, sorry about that. Equendil Talk 18:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've patched up the page, all questions & answers should be back there now I hope. Again, thanks for bringing it up to my attention. Equendil Talk 19:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Microorganism as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Microorganism was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Davodd 03:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

Hi Dar-Ape,

Thank you very much for the barnstar, it is appreciated. --YUL89YYZ 11:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)

       

MLC School

Hi Dar-Ape, I think you were a little too enthusiastic about the edit reversion here. The only edit I did was to dab Meriden -> Meriden, Strathfield. I think another user came in on top of that and inseted info which you rightly reverted. OK if I put the dab back in?

Keith D 09:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Microorganism

Sorry about this, eyes glazed over due to late-night RC patrol session. Must read more carefully in future =) --YFB ¿ 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

The Golden Quackstar
I award you Húsönd's Golden Quackstar for commenting on my editor's review. Thank you for the encouraging words, and I guess I'll have to resist the temptation to vandalize small, innocent girl. :-) Best regards.--Húsönd 02:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, and thanks for teaching me some Esperanto.--Húsönd 02:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

oil reserves

Thanks for being so thorough as to require a reference for my edit, but I was only correcting the addition on the chart. I added up the numbers to change the totals.

67.9.91.104 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

love yer name

That's all. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.115.36 (talk • contribs)

Vandalism

Thanks for that. Elomis 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Double thank you

Always glad to be of service. ;) Thanks for the apples, love the Darwin pic on your page. Luna Santin 04:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

question about russian military symbol

do you know if the 'Marshal's Star exist today?? Superzohar 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your irresponsible AFD comments, which you ought to apologize for

Gosh, thanks for all those well-thought-out, carefully checked commets at theOphelia Benson AFD. In the future, to improve the level of your contributions to Wikipedia, might I suggest you improve your practices in two areas. First, you should actually read the article you are commenting on, and take note of its contents. Second, you should consider the claims made in the article against the relevant notability criteria, even, as necessary, checking the references and external links provided for the article..
Ophelia Benson is a well-known published author, not merely a blogger (although she is probably notable as a blogger, too). Her two books are listed by title in the article,even though none of you astute readers noticed that. (Apparently the identification of Benson as an "author" and the listing of the book titles in distinctive type was insufficient to tip off careful and well-informed Wikipedia editors like yourselves; perhaps one or two of you may have suggestions on how to improve such descriptions.) Her books meet the notability criteria, having been reviewed and discussed in major media. In fact, Benson is a native of the UK, and both her books have been reviewed/discussed in the TLS, which even Wikipedia acknowledges as "one of the world's preeminent critical publications." (The second review appears in the October 20, 2006 issue, and is not yet directly cited online.)
Benson's two books may be only available through such obscure retailers as Amazon.com [1] [2] and Barnes & Noble [3] [4], and the relevant pages give samples of reviews and indicate the caliber of Benson's audience.
Now I recognize that article deletion is a holy and privileged activity, and that deletion of articles about women whose claims to notability don't involve performances emphasizing, flaunting, or exposing their mammaries is a virtual sacrament which shouldn't be disrupted or contested, however ridiculous or inaccurate the basis, unless the circumstances are really really unusual. But while one of England's "leading cultural critics" is apparently not, by Wikipedia editor consensus, as notable as a moderately obese middle-aged woman who films herself having sex with dogs, and the TLS is apparently by the same consensus not a "major" publication with the stature and reputation of Color Climax Anal Sex or Big Fuckin' Tits, or even Juggs, I think she deserves to be included in Wikipedia.
I now realize that the excessive literacy and cultural awareness I displayed in recognizing the name of a well-known figure in the British academic-literary world is inconsitent with the qualities required of a good Wikipedian, and fully justifies the assumptions of bad faith you have all made. I now know that in-depth knowledge of any subjects outside of pornography, Pokemon, and professional sports can only damage the Wikipedian enterprise, and I will do my best in the future to follow your lead and to contribute only with regard to subjects about which I know nothing, or next to nothing.


Now (dropping the ironic stance) I deserve a public apology from each of the posters whose sloth, carelessness, malice, or incompetence led them to make unfounded, uncivil, derogatory comments about me (and about the entirely blamess Ms Benson). And I deserve a display of abject, public, unqualified self-execration from the ArbCom member who charged to the head of the attack. I expect, of course, nothing but renewed incivility, personal attacks, and evasion of responsibility. VivianDarkbloom 20:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Oh, you got one of these too. I don't think it's going over the way it was intended. Auto movil 20:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ophelia Benson

The Ophelia Benson is better than it was before, with several reviews added as references. Could you please take another look at the article? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I noticed you reverted User: 81.129.233.201's vandalism on my page and condemned him on his talk page on mu behalf. I must thank you for these actions. While the controversial statement on my page (which is my opinion and nothing could truly change that) may have offended him, he still had no right to delete it without my consent. That being said, I again thank you. guitarhero777777 04:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, Dar-Ape, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator general Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Húsönd 20:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: what was I doing

I was talking about this, sorry if it wasn't clear. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead if you want. Looks like your second comment got missed when I reverted what that whackjob vandal was doing to my talk and user pages, sorry bout that. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 19:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Thank you for the extra feathers on my wings!

Thank you so much, Dar-Ape, for your support in my RfA, which passed on November 11, 2006, with a final tally of 82/0/2. I am humbled by the kind support of so many fellow Wikipedians, and I vow to continue to work and improve with the help of these new tools. Should you have any request, do not hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Húsönd 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Giorgio Orsini article

Note: I have moved entire conversation here per implicit request.

...please do not create articles with duplicate content, as you have done here (duplicating Juraj Dalmatinac). If you believe the name of the article should be changed, please discuss this on the artcle's talk page. Thanks, Dar-Ape 21:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All I could suggest you - is to remove Juraj Dalmatinac. This article is forgery and not duplicate of eanything. Please, do not take side in this dispute!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GiorgioOrsini (talk • contribs) .
Regardless of which name is correct, cloning the article is not a solution. If you want to change the name of the article, the best way to do this is by presenting a convincing case on Talk:Juraj Dalmatinac. Best, Dar-Ape 21:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please, be aware that I provided undeniable evidence of the forgery related to this article. Your meddling into this case supports only other side which gravely undermines the Wikipedia credibility and integrity. The integrity and crediblility of an article are above something you are calling 'cloning' and again, I advise you not to take side under this pretext (what is a solution and what is not).--GiorgioOrsini 14:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of which name is correct, it is always incorrect to have two identical articles with different titles visible to readers at the same time. This is a content fork, and is both confusing and against policy. I am not necessarily saying the current name is the best one-- the current name may be changed, but there is a proper way to do this: by citing sources and bringing this up on the article's talk page. Consensus on the talk page will be the lasting solution. I hope this clarifies what my point was, Dar-Ape 20:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It is fine to put your note - that is all. But, do not fix anything - this is not your job. Your job could be based only on the good knowledge of the subject that might be disputed! Also, it make sense to talk about a consensus among the people that are knowledgeable about a particular subject. About the proper way - as I said before - the first place shall be given to the credibility and integrity of information contained within an article. Please, do not act as a policeman!--GiorgioOrsini 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
By no means am I trying to act as a belligerent policeman, but I will certainly fix something if it seems like it could be improved or if it is against policy. Cheers, Dar-Ape 01:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Dar-Ape, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as I expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 22:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Mike's RfA Thanks
Dar-Ape: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/5. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the mess on the article referring to Eureka California.

I discovered the diatribe on this little city (Eureka) and was moved to become a member. Being new, I had no idea that there was this consensus issue. My only concern was to undo a wrong done to a little city. I t is clear that the person adding all the stuff to the Law Enforement and History has no desire to do accomplish anything other than revenge. IT is true that the things occurred in Eureka, but I saw and continue to see no reason to play out such vitriol on here...you can see my additions and you can see my commentary in the edit area.

The reality is that I had a bit of time and was so shocked and appaled at what I saw as a diatribe from an angry contributer that I was compelled to right the wrong. I am shocked that such an angry entry was allowed and would continue untamed.

I have no time for drama,but wanted to right a heinous wrong I detail nicely in my comment in discussion entitled "What is the overemphasis on the Negative, including the Methamphetamine issue and the Wiyot Native American Slaughter in Eureka?"

I am an Historian by trade and have expert knowledge of California and the North Coast, specifically.

No doubt there will be hell to pay for this repair I did...and I have no intereste in any politics here.

I am sure the all that matters is that Eureka pay for what happened nearly 150 years ago...and for the indiscretions of its current police. Like natives didnt pay in every other community and like police arent corrupt or scandal ridden in other cities.

What a shame. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Norcalal (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again for your kind words in my request! ReyBrujo 23:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Wikipedia Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. Kingjeff 23:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...RE: My edits and changes on the Eureka, CA Article.

In an effort to make certain my changes are respectful of the Native culture and not just a bare bones article. I have made the most recent changes up to the 4 PM Pacific time hour. Since I started this, I wanted to clean up as much as I could and make certain the reference is present for the native american issue to the secondary article Wiyot that does detail word for word what someone had placed into the Eureka, CA article.

This I believe goes to my point and it completes what I had hoped for in reducing the vitriol of the strange extensive information I originally found in this article.

My earlier comments were not in regard to you. I know you could remove my comments without a "by your leave." I wish to make a statement regarding citations. I have provided extensive interpretation of the history of the region over the last 20 yrs. I have a Bachelors Degree in History and work closely with the premier public historian of the region. My statements about the history of Eureka are correct and I am a source. you can reference if necessary with my exact name and title if you wish. Please let me know if that is needed.

Thank you.

PLEASE REMOVE ANY TRACE OF MY EXISTENCE HERE SINCE THIS AM. ITS JUST BEST FOR ALL CONCERNED. I appreciate what you and others are doing, I just have no time for the process. the point made by one of your other editors is actually a good one regarding sourcing. Its just a shame that the Eureka article has to reflect its strangeness over much of the last 150 plus years. I was trying to do a good thing. Really. Norcalal 00:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)