User talk:Laddiebuck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm glad you decided to sign up! Thanks for your contributions. Let me be the first to say hello, give you some tips, and share a few useful links.

One thing we like to tell newcomers is to be bold! By this we mean don't be afraid to join the rest of us in improving the articles you see here. Most Wikipedians are friendly and patient, willing to give you the same respect you give them, no matter who they are or how long they've been here.

Still, some newcomers find that it's also good to be cautious. You may want to start out small and learn the ropes by fixing typos or just browsing. If so, that's okay, too. If you spot an error on a page, go ahead and fix it! If it's a big edit or a controversial issue, you may want to look at the article's talk page to see if the issue has been discussed in the past. It's important to cite references and set personal points of view aside.

Now that you have your own user name, you can sign your discussions by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically stamp your user name, the time, and the date. That will help other users reply to your posts.

I hope this information is useful to you, and I'm looking forward to seeing your contributions. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me for help. Kafziel 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Monad notations cleanup?

Hi Laddiebuck, saw you adding the cleanup box to Monads in functional programming#Notations. Could you specify, by choice at the article talk page Talk:Monads in functional programming, what caught your eye and what we could do about it? --TuukkaH 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

(Removed warning)

I'm guessing you used a bot/program for that -- just letting you know it was a mistake, not a vandalism. Thanks. laddiebuck 07:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) Since it was merely a mistake I removed the above warning. --WinHunter (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. And congrats on the bot, it caught that edit in what must have been just seconds. :) laddiebuck 07:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands

Crazy! And actually, I am 1/4 magyar... My grandma was born there, although where she was born is nowadays Romania. Sebastian Kessel Talk 03:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) :)

 :) Indeed, crazy! Have you visited Hungary? If you get the chance, I recommend it, it's a pretty country. laddiebuck 22:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it is, I have friends who traveled to Budapest, but I haven't been able to do so myself. I really want to do Vienna (My grandfather's from there) and Budapest in what I like to call "the Danube Trip". Funny, 'cause my grampa laughed every time he heard "Beautiful Blue Danube" (the waltz, obviously) and said: "I was born in 1915 and I never saw the Danube being blue!!!" :) Sebastian Kessel Talk 22:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
My grandfather was born in 1916, just a year later than yours. And it's true, the circumstances have to be pretty special for the Danube to appear blue. Then again Hungary is a second-world country and regulations on waste are not exactly strongly enforced -- I suppose because of the Communist background. And without a doubt, Vienna is the more beautiful city of the pair. laddiebuck 22:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, as far as I heard, Budapest wasn't that bad either. :) Sebastian Kessel Talk 04:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note about the EU

Whether it should be included or not, if it's included, it should use correct capitalisation and grammar. It reads:

Note: It must be noted that The European Union (EU) is not simply a regional bloc in the common sense. The EU is a Union of sovereign States with the deepest connections in the political, economical and executive fields. Thus, it is a far more integrated bloc than any other regional bloc or cooperative association of sovereign States in the world.

But should read:

Note: It must be noted that the European Union (EU) is not simply a regional bloc in the common sense. The European Union is a union of sovereign states with the deepest connections in the political, economical and executive fields. Thus, it is a far more integrated bloc than any other regional bloc or cooperative association of sovereign states in the world.

Please change it in all articles, or better yet, use it in a template instead for easier changes. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne, Princess Royal Kidnap attempt

Yes a lot better now. ant_ie 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. laddiebuck 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faeryland

You took a redirect to a useful and detailed article and pointed it towards a barely complete stub. Why did you do that without discussion? Nandesuka 21:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply because "Faerie", "Faery", and "Fairyland" do not mean the same as "Fairy", thus the redirect is invalid. The Fairy article does not cover Faerie, so I decided to create a new article, and wrote a short stub for it. Now please answer my question. laddiebuck 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child/Childhood

Just so you know, the only reason I put a merge tag on Childhood was because there was an unreciprocated tag on Child, and a merge looked plausible offhand. I don't really have a position on the debate to merge or not, but if you don't want a merge tag on Childhood, you might want to remove the the tag on Child that points there. ENeville 06:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. There used to be a merge tag, but someone took it off after there was no activity on it. They probably forgot to remove the other merge tag. Thanks. laddiebuck 16:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing instances of English, Welsh, Scottish etc to British

Please do not do this. I have rolled back your edits. You are using an essay you made up as justification for changes that are not supported by either the MoS or any kind of consensus. Proto ► 08:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, I find your arrogance quite amazing. The general consensus, after many debates and arguments all of which you have ignored, is to have English, Welsh etc. The UK is differant from other countries, and Wikipedia is sensible are recognising this. A current idea is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Proposition: Change in Style of Introductory Paragraphs, so why not contribute there for changing en masse. --Berks105 09:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If you read the discussion you linked, the course of action I took is actually described as being within the MOS. Of course, this being Wikipedia, there will probably be a SNP government before a consensus is reached... it's rather silly really, that Wikipedia caters to the populist view so much, when there have been established ways of doing things in the world of encyclopaedias for quite a long time. Still, not my business apparently. And there's nothing I could add to that debate, nothing that anyone would pay the slightest heed to anyway. laddiebuck 04:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed there has been little discussion there, which is one reason I linked you to it. There is no consensus on that page at all, only User:Cypriotstud believes what you believe. There has been far too little discussion on it to be any consensus reached in that particular discussion. Regarding "So your reverting my edits was also unjustified and irrational"; firstly I point out is wasnt just me reverting them, but at least 3 differant people. And it was not irrational, as I believe MaisOui points out very well in the discussion page mentioned. -- Berks105 19:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The MoS states the subjects of articles should be identified primarily by their nationality, not ethnicity. That much is true. However, your belief (theory? idea?) that English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish are ethnic groups, rather than nationalities, is very much a minority view, and one that is absolutely not supported. Proto ► 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, as our American cousins would say? I don't believe they're really separate ethnic groups, that's just an opinion someone has. I do believe that nationality does not refer to the home countries specifically. If you want evidence of this, well, why shouldn't I back up my argument with Wikipedia? Read about British Nationality Law and wake me up if anyone mentions English, Scottish, or Welsh nationality. laddiebuck 01:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to help if I could, I completely support editing the articles on famous Britons. Aslong as Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland remain part of the UK; people who are born there or have only a British passport are infact British, it is really annoying when people try to make their opinion sound like fact. As it stands what i'm saying is a fact and I shall continue to correct files about 'said' Britons until this becomes a standard on wiki when creating pages. Unfortunately I am unsure as how to sign my post so i'll just leave my username 'Tallicalad'.

Hullo! Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not an objective encyclopedia. There are countless opinion-driven conflicts on issues that traditional encyclopedias simply don't have, because they are written by experts. On the other hand, coverage is much broader. Some that I participated in and which frustrated me with Wikipedia were Operation Barbarossa (the results box seems to change from Axis vs Allied victory about once a day) and this nationalism thing.
One user helpfully posted a Request for Help or whatever at the Helpdesk. I'll post the link later. The conclusion was that the correct nationality is "British" but it would never fly with the editors, so the incorrect policy is tacitly followed.
Use four tildes after each other, no spaces, to sign your name. laddiebuck 18:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The topic posted on my behalf:

[1]

An earlier topic by someone else

[2]

[edit] I share your concerns

I trust the title says it all - but the issue has surfaced again, but I'm very familliar with ethinicity, ethnic identity and nationality and want to have this one out. A large discussion has formed at (somewhat ironically) the Bernard Manning talk page (under Channel 4). I'd welcome your input. Jhamez84 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Murder of Meredith Kercher

Your edits to this article, coupled with your edit summary, violate the policy on original research. I, too, am a UW student, but will make no qualifications about what I think Amanda Knox is capable of. I will not revert the edits, I just wanted to make you aware that your edit may be challenged. Cumulus Clouds 23:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm aware of the policy. The edit comment was meant to reflect emotion rather than the logic underlying the decision. It is clearly incorrect (and original research, I suppose), to over-generalise the opinion of some UW students to all of them. I merely qualified that. Thanks for your comment, though. laddiebuck (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of The Bluestars

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Bluestars, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Bluestars seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Bluestars, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Emma-Peel Avengers-Intro.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Emma-Peel Avengers-Intro.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)