User talk:Localzuk/archive1

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.

Welcome!

Hello, Localzuk/archive1, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - 9cds 15:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks 9cds. I have been on here a while but haven't signed up for an account until recently... I wonder if you know who I am? -localzuk 15:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Can't say I do know you :) I saw your edits on the Lancaster University page (well done on the unbiasing, by the way ;) and notice you haven't been welcomed, after numerous edits. Felt I ought to do the usual shaking of hands :) 9cds
Yeah, well you know me but you have to figure out where from/who I am...-localzuk 16:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Aha, a challenge! :) 9cds 16:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Michael and Onchan

I have had a go at copyediting your articles, good idea to expand them. I added a little to Kirk Michael about the crosses and Thurot. Dabbler 17:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to take some pics of some of the crosses next time I'm over there - maybe I will also pop over to Onchan and take a pic of the church. -localzuk 23:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarence Gamble

I cant think of the categories to add it to. Would you mind adding them?

Killerdark 17:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarence Gamble

User:Quarl

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! --Quarl 22:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

2nd lever warning

Stop taking back the facts, which you do not know ahout, nobody is removing anything, except what is wrong, you are not a historian, so get lost, the only warning, i suggest should go to you. AND GET ME ONE ADMINISTRATOR I CAN TALK TO, NOT IGNORANT ONES...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Projects (talk • contribs)

I will reply on your talk page, but my comment is regarding the Rocky Day article which needs sources and which you have removed the templates from. I am not removing fact, I am calling for it to be backed up.-localzuk 21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea, but backup from whom, yourself who knows little about boxers of the past?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Projects (talk • contribs)

Rocky Day

Hi, I have done some work on the article mentioned and you have removed the templates asking for further input from the community. Please remember that this site is a community site and as such anyone can alter any article. Once an article is created it is not your property. Please refrain from removing the tags in future. If you would like to discuss it, please do so on the article's talk page. -localzuk 20:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's ok, I have no problem with that, but stop changing facts on it! Well, not my property? I am boxing historian and things I know very, very few people know, so appreciate it, ok...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Projects (talk • contribs)
It does not matter if you are a boxing historian. It must have references. If not the article will eventually be deleted.-localzuk 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Sorry. -- 9cds(talk) 23:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Block anybody you want to block

Block what, go ahead, now listen... many of the bios we posted here, got that boy, we are not deleting but adding simple facts, ok I am sick of you and will report you to your administrators, accept and respect our time and stop editing our usage page. No thank you, you do not know the facts nor are you a qualified historain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Projects (talk • contribs)

I hope you grow up at some point - :-O best advice I've heard given to a troublemaker all day! Search4Lancer 18:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I am having difficulty figuring out what your gripe with me is. I have simply been trying to get the community involved by putting templates that ask for 1: copyediting (due to the style of writing being too informal) and 2: sources (every fact that is in every article needs to be backed up with a reference, be that a book, website, journal etc...). It is not to get at you, or the article. It is simply to encourage the community to get involved and improve the article - as such I put templates on dozens of articles (as well as tag some for deletion, alter some and create some). Constantly removing the templates will cause issues - as other people will not know the article needs work and won't help. This leads to things such as the article for deletion nomination that now sits on the article. If you had left the there, someone may have come along and fixed the tone of the article and some others may provide sources.

Also, as I stated before it does not matter if you are a historian, lecturer, or any other qualified person - if you don't provide sources the information *will* be deleted as it is not verifiable. I have contacted the administrators about your behaviour and as such, I believe that is why the article was nominated for deletion. Also note that using sock puppets (take a look at the policies) is frowned upon and also is not allowed if you are using them purely to cause trouble (which in this case it appears you are doing). I was willing to help with the article, as I showed by wikifying it and copyediting the grammar. I did not/do not always have time to do everything on each article. I do not know enough about boxing to decipher the technical terms in this article so do not feel that my rewriting it would be advantageous (as I may damage the information) - so I tried to add the copyedit template. I hope you grow up at some point, and if indeed you are a history teacher do not treat your students in the same way you have treated me and my attempt at helping you. -localzuk 18:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have hard time communicating here, can you email me or provide email, we have many things to talk about and some things I do not want to talk about here, ok, I do know if I do not provide sources it can be deleted, but do know, as a boxing historian and historian in general, some sources can not be given, because they are not fully known or known to the general public, so why is this so hard for you to understand, you are the one who needs growing, NOT ALL THINGS CAN BE FOUND ON GOOGLE, IT IS WRONG APPROACH!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Projects (talk • contribs)
It is not me. Wikipedia has a set of rules - these rules include No Original Research, Cite your sources and is it verifiable. If these are not adhered to then the encylopedia would become disorganised/chaotic. I do not give out email addresses to people I do not know either. My advice is that if you want to get information out about your topics which does not have a trackable, verifiable source, your best bet is to publish a paper on it. Then it will be a source and can be peer reviewed and included as a source in this project. Also, if a source is not fully known then any articles/papers created from it can be flaky at best - this is a commonly accepted realisation of lecturers, historians, teachers, professors and anyone else who publishes research. -localzuk 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

SHAC

Localzuk, your comments on the SHAC talk page were the first time since I've been here that I've seen an editor know what they're talking about in relation to the ALF. If you have any interest in editing animal rights-related pages, please let me know. We could use some knowledgeable editors. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should be NPOV, but they're very hard to keep that way, because everyone assumes that anti-rights is the default NPOV position. If you have any interest, the ones under frequent attack are Animal testing, SHAC, and Animal rights. There's a list of the animal-rights related pages at Category:Animal liberation movement. I hope you'll be able to take a look, but if not, no worries. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I will tell it for final time

Listen up ahole, the sucket puppet, i dont care where you place it or where you connect to me, that it's me and 10 other people, whatever... I wrote my bio about me and I have the right to blank it, if you continue doing this, I will blank your page from 10 different IP's I have access to and you will have to block all IP's for the rest of your life. Am I blanking your page ahole? Get a life and grow up, you deserve these words!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vesa (talk • contribs)

Images

I own the images they are mine. 0waldo 01:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep tagging my images for deletion - they have been out there forever. I own them. 0waldo 14:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, so I stole them out of an old ladie's purse and said that they were mine. I'm guity I tell ya, what are they going to do to me sarge? I guess I did it right, who knows around here from one minute to the next? If feel like i'm in a skating rink full of people and B.B.'s.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 0waldo (talk • contribs)

Look, please don't take me personal: I'm sure you are a swell person! I love to joke around and have fun! 'for the weeners' was actual a pointer to a pointer to Shakespeare dig about the lawyers :) Have a fun day! 0waldo 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) and since I'm such an old dirtball here is the sig I forgot last time ;) 0waldo 17:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeomansplowchris1

Any quotes are from my own book Priority One ISBN 0-646-43805-0. The full text is also available at our web site. Yeomansplowchris1 13:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vesa / Gildyshow / Projects

Oh, my... no, I didn't see that. Now, that's it. I've had enough. I'm putting this guy before ArbCom to ban him permanently. I see he called you an ashole, are you prepared to back my requests for arbitration? --Dijxtra 20:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dog training

Thank you for your message to me. I only put the {{inuse}} template because I can't work for extended periods of time, but I'm focusing on that article right now, so please feel free to help me with it. Actually, I'm feeling like it needs to be merged with Obedience School, or vice versa. I feel like the article in question is more like a "how-to" than an encyclopedic article. Please give me your comments, and as I said, feel free to help with the article. Thanks!--ViolinGirl♪ 16:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Boilerplates/Templates

Sorry if my actions annoyed you; here is my reasoning:

Having more than two boilerplate messages at the top of an article (unless it is a very long one) detracts from the article itself and makes the page confusing. Additionally they are not really necessary. Certainly the articles in question needed categorising, wikifying and so on, but there is essentially only one problem with the article: it needs more content - more 'stuff', if you like. The stub templates provide for this.

In some cases (and I agree that this is one of them), it may be worth including {{wikify}}, {{cleanup}} or a similar template, to draw attention to the fact that the article needs improvement, but not a whole bunch of them. When viewing such a short stub article it is generally implicit that things like categorisation, referencing, linking and so on will need to be done as soon as more content is added. There is also the consideration that if the article is not a particularly good one (and the lack of wikification, content and so on is a clear sign of this), it may well be nominated for deletion.

Generally, templates such as {{unreferenced}} should therefore be reserved for otherwise well-developed articles that are lacking in one particular area.


-- Gurch 13:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Thanks for the advice I will use edit summary for minor edits now. --Rick Browser 18:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

ALF

In response to your query: [1]. —Viriditas | Talk 12:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

splikispledia

Stop messing around on wikispledia and get some work done -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.255.202.50 (talk • contribs)


Dobermann photo

Hmm, it's possible that Image:Doberman długouchy.jpg would be clearer than Image:Dobermann.jpg if its exposure was fixed. I guess I'd have to see it, or we could ask a couple more opinions, too. At the moment, one can't make out any details about the dog's head or face--it looks blurry to me as well as the exposure, but hard to tell. Certainly the former is larger than the latter (which is good) and has a better background (less cluttered and depth of exposure is more appropriate to concentrate on dobie). Elf | Talk 17:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, dunno. Added question and side-by-side photos at Talk:Dobermann and see whether anyone else has a preference. Elf | Talk 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk page formatting

Thanks. I'm sure I picked that style up off someone else, but given what Talk Pages says, I'll try and always use colons in future. Cheers --Pak21 17:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, I always, always sign my edits and never post anonymously. Nrets 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I use both, I find it makes it less confusing to see where one edit ends and where one starts, and this is something many editors on WP use as well, so I'm not crazy. Why are you picking on me about this? Nrets 18:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all my bulets for the article's talk page. Nrets 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

misnamed revision?

Hello, I have a question. Why did you make revision? I don't mind you removed the link (in fact, I don't even know what it links to or anything about the Pope). I just mind that you called the revision "Reversion to revision 37301678 using popups". Thanks, just curious. ~a

40k project

I'd be up for that. Also, it would be a good place to work out canonicity and notability critera. Cheers --Pak21 10:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Goobuntu

Greetings. Image:Goobuntu.gif uses a portion of Google's logo, which may be both copyrighted and trademarked. The composite image is released under a creative commons license, but the individual parts are copyrighted. Normally this could be a copyright violation, but we commonly use logos here under the fair use doctrine. However I'm not sure whether manipulating the logo is a "fair use" or not. I tagged the image {{logo}} as well as {{cc-by-2.5}}, but one could certainly argue that it's still a violation -- I'm not sure. I'm you're concerned, you could try listing it on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mindless Vandalism

|_| 15 |_| /\/ 1337!!!!!!one!!!!oneone!!!!!!2!!!

huh? :) -Localzuk (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

|_| |-|34|2|) /\/\3

Barnstar

Moved to Userpage. Cheers for that :) -Localzuk (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Another one!

Moved to userpage :) Thanks -Localzuk (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Whoa, thanks. Back when I first started editing, some editor listed it as part of a cleanup on a set of pages, and I've been doing so ever since. Tedious work, so I'm glad to know it's not even necessary. Brendan 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. Thanks for the heads up. |→ Spaully°τ 20:36, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

UBUNTU

This had nothing todo with features, as u'll hopefully understand. Features have to be objective. Moreover it can shed a bad light on ubuntu for certain ppl, e.g. parents,... If this were objectivly justified, it would be okay but ain't because it is trivia as they removed the feature. Before that it was more than okay to warn/inform people about this spec. thingy regards..--Slicky 18:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/References

Hi. I've converted Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/References to {{cite book}} by using WP:AWB. I used the settings file documented at User:Adrian Buehlmann/AWB/migrate to cite book. So you might use that yourself, if you're interested in using AWB. If you have other pages to do, just ask. I'm working slowly through the what links here of book reference. This will take weeks... :-) --Adrian Buehlmann 21:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. However, frankly, I have little inclination to work on 40k articles anymore, as the vast majority of the other Wiki-users and fans of the game, both here on Wiki and also on the forums on the actual 40k website, are complete jerks. They don't want to hear new ideas, new points of view, or anything that contradicts thier entrenched, institution-like mentality of the way the game and it's characters should be played and portrayed. I'm not going to waste my time working on a project which will be a thankless task that I won't enjoy and that I'll regret being involved with later. -user:Manuelomar2001 3-25-2006

Sounds Cool

That sounds like a cool idea. At the moment I am trying to update all the Space Marine Chapters with the Table Template thingy. I have a whole load of White Dwarves so just tell me what needs to be researched and I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Hummingbird (talk • contribs)

archives

My apologies. I never actually archive my talk. Any discussions can be retrieved though, quite simply, by picking up the version before I "archived". It will take two clicks rather than one. I apologise for the inconvenience to you. If this keeps happening, I'll have to start thinking about proper archives! Grace Note 11:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because

Actually it's becoming quite common and acceptable to begin sentences, even in formal contexts, with because. Similar relaxations in response to changing patterns of language are also occurring. For instance, it is now grammatically correct (though perhaps awkward of somewhat unaccepted at the present time) to end a sentence with a preposition.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you are right. I did not mean to suggest that I did not necessarily agree in this case, and I've no intention of changing it back. I was just pointing out how things are changing. Thanks for your attention to detail; we need more people like you!--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Quizmania

Please check my update to the quizmania talk page. Thanks. Aaarrrggh 13:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 06:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Homer Simpson wins!

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

Joyous | Talk 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

40K Main page notability

I'm thinking we need to start with a clean slate concerning the main page notable figures list, so I've created it here.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Notability/Main Character debate space

Come looksee and comment. -- Saberwyn 10:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[a]nimal ?

Tad confused saw the brackets , checked the link [2] and the text in it before removing them.. there seems to be a &dash there as well - are they just html? I'll leave it up to you.