User talk:John/Archive 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Player of Games
Hi there, I notice you think I put too much detail in one of the POG entries. I think it is still an important facet of the rules of the society though. Do you think it might fit better under the section on Azad? Uther Dhoul 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Forth Bridge
Curious, why did you remove the urban legend? Seems to me a perfectly reasonable addition as such, the tale is widely told (I've even been told it is true, but have never found any evidence that it is anything other than an urban legend) - MPF 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] United Kingdom national football team: Nomenclature
Never has there been a team representing Great Britain. In all cases, Northern Ireland participated, thus, the teams represented the United Kingdom. Bastin 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I know! But do you think we should spell out in full "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" each time we refer to the Olympics team? What we can't do is treat this formula as being the same as "United Kingdom". The different names these antique teams went under are fairly important as they are implicitly being used as a sort of precedent for the argument that a team should be formed in the future. I'll be happy to let you edit the article towards accuracy on the subject of names, or I may correct your criticism myself. --Guinnog 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- The names of the past teams are relatively immaterial (although they ought to be pointed out). No-one argues that there ought to be a team including English, Scottish, and Welsh (but not Northern Irish) players, on the grounds because there was a team called 'Great Britain'. What is important is making sure that one implies the correct nature of the team, as a representative of the whole of the United Kingdom, because that does provide a precedent.
- Since the teams that played the three friendlies between 1947 and 1965 included Northern Irish players, they did not 'represent Great Britain' in any way, shape, or form. The team was called 'Great Britain', and that is addressed in the relevant section. However, it represented the United Kingdom.
- Similarly, the team at the Olympics is called 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland', yet it represents the United Kingdom. Hence, if one can't be bothered to write it in full, one should simply write 'United Kingdom', since that is the only option that is correct on either ground.Bastin 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think on such a contentious subject then, that the only thing to do is to spell out the actual name the team played under on each occasion. We have a difficult enough time keeping people aware of the different meanings of GB, UK, England etc without muddying the water with ambiguity here. --Guinnog 18:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good work
Hello.
Message you left me:
- I wanted to thank you for your good edits on United States. It is nice to see another stickler for good, thoughtful use of language at work. Keep it up! --Guinnog 17:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply I posted at my Talk page:
- Thanks! (Thanks for your good works, too.) Did any particular edit prompt your message? — President Lethe 17:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Another editor at "United States" nominated me for administratorship last week. I finally decided to accept a few hours ago. The voting is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Preslethe. It's O.K. with me if you vote For, Against, Neutral, or not at all. — President Lethe 06:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image problem
I saw your comment about images not displaying properly in Firefox on MONGO's talk page. It may not be related, but in the past I have run into problems with the adblock extension and similar 'advertisement suppressant' features messing up images. For some reason the Wikipedia image links sometimes include '/ad'... which gets them tagged as adds and blocked. In some cases I have been able to get around this by increasing the image size slightly (which creates a new link name), but generally just turning off the ad blocking works best. --CBD 12:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh... and I just noticed your message about this on my own talk page. Same guess as to the issue. :] --CBD 12:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hi, dear Guinnog!
Hi there, dear Guinnog! I've studied your Image gallery to see if I can detect the problem you're currently experiencing, but I'm afraid I can't find anything wrong with it, basically... because it appears to look just fine both in IE and Firefox! :) Could you please give me more specifics so I can look into it? (like which images don't display properly to you) I've counted 44 images, distributed in a single top row, and then a separate gallery of ten more, is that right? Btw, that's quite a rich and beautiful collection you have there, hun! Are all those pics self made? I must tell you I'm quite impressed... big hugs, and I await your reply, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 15:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Puzzling, because every browser I test it with seem to display the images properly... do me a favor, dear - check this link and tell whether it displays ok to you or not. I'll be around, so please let me know if that works. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 15:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wish I could help you more, Guinnog hun, but unfortunately I'm driving blind to your problem, so I can't really test or fix something that works ok with me.. :( Anyway, as you say, it only seems to happen due to a feature of your system that I cannot ascertain, so relax - we're all able to appreciate the beauty of your work :) If I can be of any further assistence, or if you simply feel like talking, my Talk page is just a few bytes <--- that way ;) Big hugs, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 16:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categorisation
Hi, thanks for you message. Please don't be miffed that is certainly not my intention. If you disagree with the classification, just change it. Also bear in mind two things, at WikiProject Novels we are aiming to get involved with the WP:1.0 push to improve and prioritise articles. This envolves us asessing as many articles as possible (for pure internal admin purposes) and so this envolves scan vast number of article and we are bound to get it "wrong" occassionally. Certain in fact.
You are very much encouraged to get envolved if you wish. I will certainly go back a review the article and look more carefully. Please get back to me if you have more comments, questions etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- "You also marked the edit as minor when it is clearly more than minor"
What one thinks as minor is another's earthquake. Again nothing intended but a mod relating to WikiProject admin I didn't think was major to the life of the article, perhaps I was wrong, not unusual. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beths Grammar School
No worries, I figured it must have been something like that. Best, Gwernol 10:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Novels
No problem, I've just been taking a bit of a battering recently - so a bit shell shocked. In terms of help there are always plenty to do. The most recent is the next auto list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/NovelsInCompleteInfobox which attempts to list all novel articles that have a "Infobox Book" but is missing key information. There list should be reasonably self explanitory. What is needed are people to scan through and supply anything missing that they can identify. ISBN is the most obvious in that is often either in the article or for pre 1966 titles just isn't available (so we have been putting in "NA" instead of the normal "ISBN nnnnnnnnnn" etc. If that doesn't grab you there are other lists and we are always open to new ideas. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RKO06 vandal
You were right to report them, so I don't know what you were thinking. And I don't know why the admin didn't block them. I'm going to relist the user now.--Andeh 19:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ah no worries, IanManka blocked them for 24hrs despite an admin removing them from AIV.--Andeh 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] FC Barcelona
Thanks for the message. The comment on vandalism did not relate to your changes, I am sorry your edit got taken out as well. I was referring to the anonymous user who many times a day undoes everyone's work and places edits which are reptitive, inaccurate or irrelevant.
That said, I am not convinced by your edits...adding links to years, for example, does not really help any user. But they are certainly not vandalism, that is for sure, so shall we discuss them on the talk page for FC Barcelona? --Bcnviajero 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal report
Thanks for your report of 160.94.224.179 to the vandalism noticeboard. I blocked that one for a week (again). Feel free to let me know if the problems start up again after the block expires. By the way, always good to see another fan Iain Banks around - you've been doing some great work on those articles. Congratulations. Best, Gwernol 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- And thanks for reverting his silly insult on my user page, too! --Ed (Edgar181) 18:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- And as always, you're welcome. I agree about "he" being a reasonable assumption at this point :-) Gwernol 20:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
I've been looking through your work on a number of of Scottish writers, and I think its high time you got some special recognition. Please see your userpage (feel free to move it wherever you feel is most suitable).
Best, Gwernol 18:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] San Francisco
Hey, you're welcome. I'd be happy to share my thoughts about the Bay Area. Drop me a note on my talk page, or send me an email if you want to do this off-Wiki. San Francisco is a really great place to live. Gwernol 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edit to User talk:Profsnow
Why did you do that? That was no vandalism! - CobaltBlueTony 21:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfA revert
No worries. I agree, it's very confusing when someone participates in the same RfA under two different names. I think they should state after their comment that they are "the user formally known as..." Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:helicopters
You are probably right about the talk page. I don't think anybody is responding to it. I believe the names were used because of the similarity of how native americans and helicopters attack. Native americans and helicopters both use strike tactics, maybe with stealth, perhaps? But I really don't know. Good friend100 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfA
Yeah, erm, I will do that in the future since I changed my username right when this happened, and that was a coincidence. 1ne 15:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sulphur and aluminum
One must not 'compromise' with falsehood. You people continue to label my edits 'vandalism' because I have a POV. Everyone has a POV! Nokhc Jul 15, 2006
[edit] Barnstar
Well, pshaw, that's enormously kind of you. I really appreciate the barnstar.
By the way, have you considered becoming an admin yourself? It seems like you would be a suitable candidate and you've been around long enough. If you're interested we should talk. I'd have to take a closer look at your contibution history, but I'd be interested in nominating you if its something you'd like to do.
Best, Gwernol 20:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Admin
Just to drop by to give my reply to your message on Gwernol's talk page (I nominated Gwernol, so I keep an eye out on these sort of things ;-) ). 1) Don't worry at all about not using edit summaries when you first arrived. You do now, and that's what counts. 2) Have you fully apologised to the user involved? If so, noting that you made such a comment and now regret it should be fine. Petros471 20:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've just tracked back and found the user and apologised. I've felt bad about that ever since I said it, but never had the courage to say sorry before. It was my first few days here and he was a bit rude to me but I should never have been so personally insulting to him. Pah. --Guinnog 21:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok, we all make mistakes at times. Regreting them and being willing to fix/try not to repeat them is what matters. Petros471 21:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Guinnog, Petros was my nominator for adminship by the way. Trust what he says, he knows what he's doing. If you are interested in adminship, I'd be happy to do an informal editor review for you. Petros did this for me before nominating me and it was very useful. Let me know if you'd like me to do the same for you. Afterwards we can discuss whether you'd want to proceed with an RfA. Best, Gwernol 21:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your post to Petros' talk page. I'll work on a review for you over the next few days (work permitting). By the way, I see you've edited the Buzzcocks page a few times. Are you a fan? I've met Pete a couple of times and have been a fan for years. Great band. Gwernol 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, a huge Magazine fan. Howard Devoto is a genius, he'd be high on my list of people I'd want to spend an evening in a pub with. Clash, Damned, BAD, all great bands. I was a little late for the original punk wave but grew up listening to all those bands. Buzzkunst I was a bit disappointed by, probably because my expectations were so high. Some great tracks though - Boy with the Stars in his Eyes is awesome.
- I've come across RailScot before. Great site.
- I'll work on that review and let you know once its done. Drop me an email and we can talk about San Francisco. I know a few people out there you might enjoy hanging out with. Best, Gwernol 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Libya
Please feel free to evaluate the Libya article which has become a 'Featured Article Candidate' and write you support or opposition on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Hopefully Libya will become only the second African country to be featured on Wikipedia. Thanks --User:Jaw101ie 12:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks, Guinnog, for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Very much appreciated. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I knew you would have reverted it yourself, but I find myself in a situation like that, it's nice to know that others are supporting you. Which was why I did it. --Guinnog 17:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I agree wholehearted, Guinnog. I think anti-vandalism works best when editors work together as a team and give each other some support. It's very nice to look out for others and know that they're looking out for you as well. By the way, I like the picture on your userpage of you and your namesake beer! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Same here.--Andeh 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Practice as U.S. English
Hello Guinnog! Thanks for using generic English in United Airlines Flight 232. Unfortunately, my U.S. accustomed eyes see practise and react to it as a frequent spelling mistake. Merriam-Webster says the entry is practice with a variant of practise (here) so you are indeed correct. Thanks! —EncMstr 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's very gracious of you. Some days I stare at words like the for much too long to determine if it's spelled correctly. I completely understand. Thank you very much. —EncMstr 13:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfA Thanks
Thanks for taking time to give your opinion on my RfA. I can work on all of the constructive criticism given before I consider RfA again. I hope to see you around Wikipedia. Thanks! Abcdefghijklm 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roma People: Illustration
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
- I have striked out this warning as it is a content dispute with a new user over inserting an image that has now been deleted for violation of fair-use guidelines which he did not realize. It is not vandalism. --mboverload@ 21:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PIRA mural pic
Hello good sir.Could you please move the PIRA mural pic back to the right hand side of the piage.Someone removed it and i can only get it on the left hand side of the page.Dermo69
Never mind.I've done it.Dermo69Thanks anyway
[edit] Thanks for the congratulations!
Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA! | ||
To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) |
- I plan to listen to all the contructive criticism and advice that was on my RfA and to use that advice well. Once the RfA is over, it hardly matters if the voice it came from is support or oppose or neutral, as long as it's good advice, right? ~Kylu (u|t) 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
==Roma People vandalism== Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. DoubleSpacing 15:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The picture used on the 'Roma People' site is unverifiable. Unverifiable content cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, regardless of how many people would like to include it. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleSpacing (talk • contribs) 10:36, July 20, 2006
I've struck out the spurious warning templates here (funny how a newbie knows how to use these!) as this is clearly a content dispute. I've also warned the user (for the second time) not to misuse the templates in the future. --Guinnog 15:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Link fixed
Hi Guinnog, I've fixed the link in SB's RfA as requested. Not sure what happened there but thanks for spotting the problem. And feel free to steal all the words of wisdom that you wish, after all, they're not mine. I just thought they were spot on. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome back
Hi Guinnog,
Welcome back. Hope your Wikibreak was good. I realize I owe you a reply to your email and a review. Sorry these haven't been forthcoming, but I'll try to make progress on both later today. Anyway, good to have you back :-) Gwernol 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] British English on Air France article
Thanks, I seemed to have forgotten that the original article spelling takes precedence in such cases. Schnabeltier Angriff 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Steven Jones
Hi. I saw that you reverted some material which I had deleted from the Steve Jones article and I was wondering if you could give give me a fuller explanation as to why you did so? You said in the edit summary to find better sources instead of simply deleting, but that advice does not seem applicable in this particular instance. The material I deleted was not sourced correctly. Since it is lacking a reputable source it seems that it should be removed immediately. In addition to not being sourced, the material is of dubious value to the article. Thanks. Levi P. 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding so quickly. I'm going to go ahead and delete that paragraph again. I looked through the pertinent WP guidelines and the paragraph in question is transparently incorrect in its sourcing. Since this seems to be such a clear cut issue I will make the revert now (I did not intend to edit as an anon before, sorry). Levi P. 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "fascinating though your recollections are, we do not use original research"
Please explain.
[edit] Dates
You wrote "Rationalise non-US date formats in non-US article", but if your date preferences are enabled, these dates would look the same in any case. I was interested as I have been trying to take out the many linked stand-alone years in Wikipedia; most often they add nothing to the article. It has been fairly controversial though; some users like them in some articles and there is no coherent policy. --Guinnog 03:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Removing standalone wikiyears is current policy, according to WP:DATE. Complete dates should be wikilinked so that they show up correctly according to user preferences. However, those readers who have not established accounts will see the dates presented as entered, and it is preferable that U.S. format dates be kept out of non-U.S. articles. --Jumbo 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfA
Well everyone has their own regime of what an RfA is and what users would make a good admin. Yes, I suggest not bothering with an RfA until you've been here for a while and have a good track record, otherwise they'll always be the people who oppose.--Andeh 17:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal warning
OK so I take the liberty of removing Belgium from the list of Axis powers during WW2 and you revert it stating that "Belgium did exist". Of course it did but all I did was pointing out the bleeding obvious fact that Begium was not an Axis power. But hey... if that is how Wikipedia works then it seems more obvious than ever to me that it will never be a reliable source of information. Sorry I didn't realize that before I decided to edit the article. It jusmakes me wonder how often thi happens and how much incorrect infomation here on Wikipedia is never removed because people like you simply revert the edits and give people warnings. 83.72.128.13 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aviation linkspam
Happy to help. A couple of them felt like not-quite-linkspam but since the guy only added the root page of the site and did it to eight articles or so, I figured it was better to err on the side of caution. (Some of the stuff on that site is actually interesting and might be link-worthy at a later date.)--chris.lawson 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OH
Yeah maybe it was but it was really funnyO-TOWN'S AT 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] O-TOWN'S AT
And I'm glad he got blocked after seeing him ask for child porn. Thanks for the update and for reverting his warning removal. Uh... and now I've blanked as to what else to thank you for, because I know there's something... OH, that's right, thanks for being ready to take it to WP:ANI or someplace else where we could've gotten extra support. Mo0[talk] 18:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
Thanks for your Barnstar! P.S. Scotland is a very nice place. I was at Edinburgh last year and watched a home game of Hibernian F.C.. Chanheigeorge 22:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's great! I really loved the atmosphere at Easter Road. I took a lot of pics there [1]. Maybe I should upload one of them and put it on Wikipedia! :-) Chanheigeorge 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Countering systematic USA bias
Thanks for your message.. and thanks also for the amusing link, although I had actually already read that :)
The things I wrote were just a rough draft of what I have in mind ultimately; it needs to be re-worded, fleshed out, and brought to others' attention as a real concern. As much as I do basically agree with - and respect - the MOS policy regarding national varieties of English, I believe that such a policy can only really work if the situation is "fair" in the first place - meaning, if American/rest-of-the-world English were split roughly equally. But they're not, and therefore non-Americans are made to feel as if they're in the minority; or that their English is being squeezed out. Something needs to change. It's good to see that you hold much the same opinion as I do. I wonder how many others feel the same, but just haven't said anything explicitly yet. EuroSong talk 10:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orkney
Ta. You could help just by being a voice of reason! What we really need is a (very well Referenced) compromise. There is no way that Wikipedia should be making an arse out of itself by somehow claiming that Orkney and Shetland were "annexed". It is such an obviously propaganda term that it would be laughable if it were not such a serious breach of WP:NPOV.
Imagine if I went to the United Kingdom page, and under the History section changed references to the Act of Union to a fictional Act of Annexation and made some anti-British rant - my edit would not last 60 seconds. But that is exactly what is going on. I strongly suspect in fact that Mallimak is not actually the Orcadian nationalist which he at first appears. He strikes me as being a (far too) enthusiastic British Unionist, rather in the mould of a rather over-zealous Welsh Labour Party activist I have come across. Rather than trying to smear Scotland, I wish that people like that would concentrate on improving the actual encyclopaedia.
For sockpuppets, please see:
- 81.158.167.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 81.158.163.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 81.129.246.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 81.129.246.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 81.154.91.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 81.153.144.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 81.156.57.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 81.156.57.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 81.154.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
- 81.158.162.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
This edit is particularly serious: [2]. --Mais oui! 13:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Mais oui! is trying to prove with all this "sock puppet" nonsense. In a few cases I simply forgot to log in, others I had nothing to do with at all. One thing I do see from checking up on my contributions, however, is that he is regularly combing my contibutions list and reversing anything I contribute. What kind of behaviour is that?
Regarding annexation, it may not fit in with Mais oui!'s personal view of Scottish history, but it is true, nevertheless. Mais oui! hates being gainsaid, and so now he is resorting to stalking my contributions and reversing them! Mallimak 22:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changes to Anti-metrication article
I notice that you recently made two changes to the Anti-metrication article. The first change altered the word order in a link to the British Weights and Measures Association, so the link no longer works. The second change was from "[[gallons]]" to "gallons" so that there would no longer be a link to the gallons article. Would you please explain your reasons for these changes? (By the way, I am no fan of the US customary random collection of weights and measures, and decline to dignify it with the name system.) --Gerry Ashton 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick response on my talk page. --Gerry Ashton 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Compulsory Education Act"
AS far as I can make out, the correct name of this Act is the Education (Scotland) Act 1872 (see Education in Scotland). Wikipedia uses the correct names of Acts of Parliament in articles; common alternative names are explained in the relevant article. --Mais oui! 23:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question about infoboxes
I noticed you have changed an individual musician's introductory paragraph into a "band" info box and stated that their birth began the years the person was active in music. In fact, if you were to look at the same person's "years active" in allmuusic.com, they state 1990s and 2000s (years her solo career began), although this person did start prior to her solo career, actually in the 1980s. Can you let me know your rationale for changing an individual musician's biography paragraph into a band info box and also why you would start the musician's years active in the infobox with their birth year? I am trying to decide how to edit this and am wondering if you found guidelines on the infobox elsehwere. Ordinarily I would not put an individual person's info into a "band" infobox, but perhaps you have more information on this subject and how "years active" is normally done for an individual. Emerman 12:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Guinnog, it should not matter which article I am talking about. I want to know your general rationale on changing an individual musician's bio to having an info box for any individual musician and also what year you feel their career years active should begin -- you have begun it with the person's birth year before, so I just wondered where you found the guidelines on how this should be done in general. Emerman 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
My question specifically is where are the guidelines for creating infoboxes on individual musicians so that I can decide how to edit infoboxes in the future that have to do with individuals as opposed to bands. Thanks. Sorry if this question is a problem. I'll find an admin to help me, thanks anyway. Emerman 12:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will comment the way you prefer, re how I edit myself on your page. I just felt I had not worded myself properly. I felt that writing clearly my question was important so I edited myself the way I would anywhere else for clarity, didn't mean to do it a way you don't like and see you have re-edited me. On my own page, I will handle my comments as I always do. As for your suggestion, I have found a model to go by for individual artists. Was just now looking at Mike Watts' page for a model but will read the guidelines you have pointed me to as well. Thanks. Emerman 12:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] International fixes
Hi :)
I took another look at the article you questioned, but I didn't think that the changes made it unclear. Thanks for keeping a watch anyway. Well, I tried a different approach with this one: how about this? I am carefully reading all changes using AWB before submitting: anything which is directly quoted from someone's speech, or any title of a publication (or a URL for that matter!) is left alone. Now if only I could search for airplane -Jefferson.. but that doesn't seem to work! :P EuroSong talk 00:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of them could be replaced with it - do you mean just, the word "it"? Yes: you're right to remind me about the meanings. I will ensure that I keep an eye out for such articles to which changes may render ambiguous. Thanks. EuroSong talk 01:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bulgaria
Thanks. Please keep an eye on that article. That IP was accused of suckpoppetry and your edit proved that a very documentated edit on that article is stil needed. Cheers, --Eliade 15:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Look at the latest "evolution" of the "conflict". --Eliade 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Now they want to encharged me of the edits, so that I could be blocked for 3R. I will not edit/revert.--Eliade 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is just a pretext for them to revert. I don't know how can be people so intollerant when more than 3 people accept to have alternative names near a name (like my proposal: Romanians(Vlachs), and Todor and Funky are the only one not to accept it.--Eliade 16:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't worry, but they already surpassed 10 times. --Eliade 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NATO vs WP map
I hope you didn't mind my editing your excellent map. I thought as well as the repetition of the Soviet Far East that the shape was awkward. --Guinnog 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. I wanted to display that Russia/Warsaw Pact was right next to Alaska. I'd rather not sacrifice that. The "awkwardness is because of "Map projection" issues. Earth is not flat :P
- Furthermore I'd be happier if you modified the image and uploaded over the commons one rather than creating a duplicate.
- --Cat out 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I take your point. But having the Soviet Far East in there twice was inaccurate. Maybe there is a better way we can do it, but I don't see how. Splitting the SU down the middle seems even more awkward.
- And what do you mean the Earth isn't flat? Since when? :)
- I'll upload it to the Commons once we have a solution we can botrh live with, good idea.
- --Guinnog 16:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- How about slicing the duplicate half from the end of the larger peice of warsaw pact? I'll do this on commons image. --Cat out 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well, I won't fight you over it but this was what I meant by splitting the SU down the middle. Still seems awkward. --Guinnog 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am open to suggestions... I could slice it sooner (smaler chuck next to alaska) --Cat out 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, try that and see what it looks like. Another possibility might be to use a Polar projection, giving a circular map and avoiding the problem neatly. Would you be up for that? --Guinnog 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I tried something new. I like the polar idea and yet opose it in a way. The polar projection distorts borders too much (especialy for countries like Turkey greece etc... I am not certain how much it distorts but if it doesnt look awkward like that, I am all in for that. --Cat out 16:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, try that and see what it looks like. Another possibility might be to use a Polar projection, giving a circular map and avoiding the problem neatly. Would you be up for that? --Guinnog 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am open to suggestions... I could slice it sooner (smaler chuck next to alaska) --Cat out 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well, I won't fight you over it but this was what I meant by splitting the SU down the middle. Still seems awkward. --Guinnog 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- How about slicing the duplicate half from the end of the larger peice of warsaw pact? I'll do this on commons image. --Cat out 16:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What about something like this? Image:NATO vs Warsaw (1949-1990)e.png I did it very quickly and I (or you) could do a 'nicer' version easily enough. --Guinnog 17:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thats fine, however I lack the resources to make it any better. So, yes a nicer version would work but you have to do it. :P --Cat out 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Eliade
Hi! I saw you were contacted by User:Eliade. He's a suspected sockpuppet and may also be relying on IP sockpuppets (User:159.148.3.187) in order to push POV. Please review my objections to his changes (the numbered paragraphs in particular) and my arguments before (or if) you intend to get further involved in this. Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
In every article is like that: Romanians (Vlachs), now why does he wants to make a difference and to make like this: Romanians,Vlachs? Why isn't he tollerant? Why? --Eliade 16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:NATO vs Warsaw (1949-1990)e.png
Thanks for uploading Image:NATO vs Warsaw (1949-1990)e.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 18:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC against User:TodorBozhinov
Hello! I started an RfC against User:TodorBozhinov, you should come and help me, since you were involved in the dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TodorBozhinov Cheers, --Eliade 19:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)